Insane O'Reilly Calls Gangsta Rap A Disease
By: Steve - February 28, 2014 - 2:30pm

O'Reilly told Obama's senior advisor Valerie Jarrett on Thursday night that if the White House is serious about implementing their new program to help strengthen minority communities, they need to "attack" the source of the problem. Which, he said, is obviously Jay-Z and Kanye West, right?

"You have to attack the fundamental disease if you want to cure it," the Fox News host said. "You're gonna have to get people like Jay-Z, Kanye West, all these gangsta rappers to knock it off."

So let me get this straight, in a free country with the right to free speech O'Reilly is saying the Government should shut them up? Maybe he is saying the Government should get them to stop doing rap?

And btw, it's insane to think rap is the problem, just as violence in movies and video games is causing people to do violence in real life. Rap is music, and it is not causing any problems. People like O'Reilly are idiots, he argues rap is part of the problem, but when he says negative things about someone and then they get death threats he says he had nothing to do with it.

When I was younger the old right-wing idiots like O'Reilly said all the kids who listen to Black Sabbath will grow up to worship the devil, and none of that ever happened. Music, movies, and video games do not make you do anything. Millions and millions of people watch violent movies, and less than 1% of them go shoot, stab, or kill someone. The same goes for rap and video games, and it is insane to blame the problems of black youth on rap music.

Jarrett described the new initiative, called "My Brother's Keeper," as "a new effort aimed at empowering boys and young men of color." She said she has already seen improvements and is very hopeful of the program's success, but O'Reilly insisted there will be no change until all the rappers go on TV and announce that that kind of behavior "is wrong."

Which is also insane, because telling kids not to do something does not work, just as the say no to drugs campaign was a massive failure. O'Reilly thinks if you tell kids not to do drugs, have sex, or get involved in crime they will listen, haha, it's just laughable.

O'Reilly also said this: "The young men idolize these guys with the hats on backwards, and the terrible rap lyrics and the drugs and all of that," O'Really said. "You've gotta get these guys."

So how do you get them in a free country with free speech? Answer that O'Reilly. And btw, the dumbest thing O'Reilly said was that he wanted Michelle Obama to go on his show and tell young girls to stop getting pregnant. As if that would do any good, it's laughable.

To begin with, how many young girls do you think watch the Factor, I would bet almost none. Because 99% of the Factor viewers are old white Republicans over 75, so I would bet that less than 1% of his viewers are girls under 25.

Now imagine how many young black girls watch the Factor, none? So what good would it do for Michelle Obama to go on the Factor and tell girls to stop getting pregnant, none, zero, because even if they saw it or heard about it, they will not listen to her.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, kids do not listen to what adults tell them to do on tv, let alone a cable tv news show on the Fox News Network. You only get 2.6 million viewers a night, and 99% of them are old white Republicans. It's just a stupid idea and a total waste of time for Michelle Obama.

Abstinence does not work, in fact, teen Pregnancies are Highest In States With Abstinence-Only Policies. And on top of that the number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again last year, according to a government report, with nearly every state seeing a decrease.

Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girls ages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups. Mississippi continues to have the highest teen birth rate, with 55 births per 1,000 girls. New Hampshire has the lowest rate at just under 16 births per 1,000 girls.

O'Reilly is just a fool, because if he thinks simply telling girls not to have sex or get pregnant will work he is out of touch with reality.

The Thursday 2-27-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 28, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: My Brother's Keeper. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we have been reporting for years, the root of many social problems in America is the collapse of the traditional family. This afternoon President Obama announced an initiative called 'My Brother's Keeper' to help young African American men who are at risk. The plan is to combine federal resources with funds from private corporations to help the kids.

I was invited to the announcement and the initiative is very well-intentioned, but some specific things need to be done. First, you have to teach children at risk to read. If that takes one-on-one tutoring, that's what has to happen. Two, you have to provide mentors to individual children who lack guidance at home.

Three, high profile Americans must go on television and the Internet to warn young people that having babies outside of marriage is cruel. There has to be peer pressure not to get pregnant unless you're in a stable situation.

Four, the initiative has to get local businesses to hire kids for summer jobs and internships. Children must know about the workplace and what is expected. Finally, American law enforcement has to engage children at risk and convince them that police are not the enemy.

If those five things are part of the 'My Brother's Keeper' initiative, I can guarantee you that America will begin to turn the situation around. But if people continue not to make judgments about bad parents, disorderly children, and chaos in the family unit, the problems are only going to get worse. Hopefully the White House has made the first step.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you were not invited to the White House give your ideas on the program, you were invited to report on and promote the program on the Fox News Network, because you have the #1 rated cable news show.

Then President Obama's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was on to talk about the initiative.

Jarrett said this: "The president has said we all have a role to play. This is not a big government program, in fact the government's role is rather minor. This requires accountability, it requires people to stay in school and work hard, but it also requires the community around them to provide a safety net. The president is telling these young men that they have to work hard."

O'Reilly said this: "You're going to have to get gangsta rappers to knock it off and I think President Obama can do it. And then you have to barrage people and make it uncomfortable to have a baby out of wedlock, make it uncomfortable to sell drugs. I want Michelle Obama to come on this program and look into the camera and say, 'You teenage girls, stop having sex and stop getting pregnant.' You'll save a lot more lives if you incorporate what I'm telling you."

Which is just laughable, and will not work for many different reasons, mostly because young girls do not watch the Factor, especially young black girls. And btw O'Reilly, you talked about Jay-Z and Kanya being gangsta rappers, which shows you are out of the loop, because they are not gangsta rappers.

Then Ed Henry was on to give his biased analysis of the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative. "The seeds of this," he said, "were planted a year ago in Chicago. I was with the president when he was highlighting a program called 'Becoming a Man.' He was visibly moved and some of those folks were at the White House today. The president wasn't just talking about his successes, he talked about his failures, how he barely knew his father, how he used drugs."

O'Reilly said again that he is worried the plan of action may be missing one important element: "You have to get the rappers that these kids idolize to help get the message across, but that was not included in the initiative."

Then James Carville was on to talk about a new poll that shows 79% of Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going in Washington and 63% say the country is headed in the wrong direction. What O'Reilly did not tell you is that over the last 20 years that same poll has shown that over 60% of the people always think things are going in the wrong direction.

Carville said this: "I would call these numbers unimpressive, but there's a certain lag time when things aren't working. I think the health care law is starting to work, but it won't catch up with the polling until some time in the future. And if the job numbers improve, the president's polling numbers will improve."

Then Heather Nauert was on for mad as hell, which is not news so I do not report on it. Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, a Republican, was on to talk about President Obama's claim that women make 77 cents for every dollar made by men. And of course she slammed Democrats for using the pay issue as a political bludgeon. Because she is paid to do that, when you work for Fox you get paid to tow the Republican party line, especially the women.

Bartiromo said this: "Pay should be based on performance, whether it's a man or a woman. For the last five years we've been hearing that the GOP is against women and it's just not true. But this has worked for the Democrats."

Which is insane, pay should be based on the job you do, and if a woman does the very same job a man does she should get paid the same amount. And if she can not do the job as well as a man, she should be given a different job in the company, but if she does the job as well as a man does she should be paid the same.

O'Reilly said that the labor market is basically working efficiently: "I'm not buying this inequality business because if you are not being treated equally in the workplace you can sue the company. Employers are fearful of doing anything that might be considered unfair to women."

Which is laughable, just try to sue the company you work for, haha, you will lose, O'Reilly is living in fantasyland.

Then the right-wing stooge Laura Ingraham was on for one final opinion on the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative.

Ingraham said this: "They are going to stick with the teacher unions. They're going to stick with Planned Parenthood, they're going to stick with all these nonsense policies that make it more difficult for black youths to get jobs in the inner city, and they're going to stick with immigration policies that allow people to be here who undercut wages. All of that hurts young African American and Latino males enormously, but they're ideologically wedded to those positions."

Ingraham also predicted that popular singers are not going to alter their destructive messages, saying this: "Beyonce and Michelle Obama are best friends, but she now has a music video that is basically pornography. Is this female empowerment? Are these the people who are going to help our at-risk youth?"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Secretary of Incompetence. Billy said this: "When you hire someone and their performance is as woeful as that of Kathleen Sebelius, fire them!"

What a great tip, if you hire someone and they do a bad job, fire them. Wow O'Reilly you are a genius, without that tip of the day nobody would ever know what to do with a bad employee, haha, idiot.

Senate Majority Leader Calls Koch Brothers Un-American
By: Steve - February 28, 2014 - 10:00am

And I agree with him 100 percent. Because what they do is use their money to lie to the American people, and that is un-American in my book.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate's top Democrat criticized a pair of billionaire brothers in unusually harsh terms Wednesday, accusing the conservative duo of being "un-American," spreading lies about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and lacking a conscience.

In a pair of appearances on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., became the latest Democrat this election year to denunciate Charles and David Koch.

Reid's focus was on television ads that are being used against Democratic congressional candidates, commercials that he said misleadingly criticize the health care law.

"When you make billions of dollars a year you can be as immoral and dishonest as your money will allow you to be," Reid said.

"It's too bad that they're trying to buy America, and it's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."

Obama Slams Fox News For Misleading People About Obamacare
By: Steve - February 28, 2014 - 9:00am

Tuesday night President Obama got in aother jab at Fox News for their constant misleading of people about the ACA.

OBAMA: : So everybody here has got a story. A lot of you, you got involved in the first place because of this health care issue, a lot of you -- because I know I met you on the campaign trail in some cases, and you came up and told me about a story of how painful and difficult an illness in the family had been, and not knowing how you were going to pay for coverage, how you were going to pay for the care for a loved one.

But when they hear from their friends and their neighbors and their coworkers like you, and you're able to say, hey, here check it out, take a look on the website -- if you reach out to your Republican friend who can't stand Obama, but is basically a nice person and they just... but they watch the wrong newscast or -- you all know those folks.

Some uncle or cousin, you love them to death, but they come in with all this information that's just wrong, and you're shaking your head, but you decide you don't want to get in an argument with them because you haven't seen them in a while and you miss them. Right? Everybody has got those folks. You know them.

So if you're able to reach out to them, and you just say, take a look, here, here, let's get on the website. There's the price. There's the plan. Here's the tax credit. Here's what it will cost for you. Come on, Uncle Joe, I know you don't have health insurance. You may not like the President, but this really is a good deal. They'll listen to you, right?

And then there are some folks actually who do like me, but they just don't know. Because they're not paying attention. Because they're on one of the other channels that has "Real Housewives" or something. They really don't know that there's this health care plan out there.

Like all of the presidential take downs, this one was delivered in the form of a joke. It was clear who the president was talking about. Republicans who get bad information from watching the wrong newscast. Obama was clearing describing Fox News, and that tiny segment of America known as Fox News viewers.

The president's description was deadly accurate. Fox News viewers are certain that they are right about the ACA, when it is clear that they have been blatantly misled, and possess very few facts about the healthcare law. It is nearly impossible to reason with one of these individuals because they have been subjected to endless hours of propaganda that has been disguised as news.

Considering what the ACA has been up against, it is amazing that the White House is on target to meet their enrollment goals. The Koch brothers have been spending millions of dollars the Republican Party has been on the attack non-stop for years, and the top cable news network in the country pounds out a daily endless drumbeat of anti-ACA propaganda.

Even in the face of all of these obstacles, the Affordable Care Act is poised for success. The law and this president have overcome these challenges because people really do want access to affordable health insurance.

Obama got in a nice shot on Fox News, but his biggest victory will be in the form of tens of millions of Americans gaining access to affordable health care.

Fox News Not Showing Any Of Obama My Brothers Keeper Speech
By: Steve - February 27, 2014 - 3:30pm

It's 2:30 in the afternoon and I am watching the Obama "my brothers keeper" speech, so I turn the channel to CNN and they are also showing the speech, then I turn the channel to Fox and they are not showing it, nothing, not one minute of it.

Now get this, O'Reilly complained that Obama was not doing anything to help young blacks, and kids, etc. O'Reilly said Obama should be on tv giving speeches telling these kids to do the right thing and go to school, get good grades, and do not have kids out of wedlock.

So Obama does all that, he does what O'Reilly said he should do, and fricking Fox News does not even show it, they ignored it all and never showed one second of the speech. Which is just ridiculous, and total bias from Fox.

Then on top of all that O'Reilly was there at the speech to cover it and report it on the Thursday Factor, while the Fox News network never reported a word of it. Obama even made a joke about how getting Sharpton and O'Reilly in a meeting together was even possible.

The worst part is that O'Reilly screamed bloody murder that Obama was not speaking out about it like he should, so even when he does, Fox ignores it. And I will bet the farm O'Reilly will not say one word about Fox not showing the Obama speech, he will just let it slide.

The Wednesday 2-26-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 27, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are you your Brother's Keeper? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Many of the social problems in America are the direct result of the collapsing family unit in some precincts. African Americans have a huge problem in that area, with 72% of black babies now born out of wedlock; for white Americans the number is 29%.

Some disturbing facts: 48% of children in single-female households live in poverty; 71% of all high school dropouts and 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes; and boys without fathers present are twice as likely to become gang members. The root of poverty, crime, and despair is the collapse of the traditional family.

Tomorrow at the White House the president will announce a huge initiative called 'My Brother's Keeper.' Essentially it will target young black males and try to give them some hope. I will be at the White House to cover this and we will get specifics. It is long past time for Americans to join together to help the kids.

Put yourself in their position - millions of children are born into chaotic homes where the parents are irresponsible or absent. How can kids like that compete against kids from stable homes? Bringing children into the world when you can not support them is stupid and cruel.

Many Americans object to making judgments about behavior, but that attitude is leading to disaster and we need to begin confronting this terrible problem.
Okay genius, let's say we confront the problem, then how do you stop women from having kids out of wedlock. You cant, it's called fate, and there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop it. We spend millions telling people to not use drugs, and it does no good, so get over it jerk.

Then Ron Clark, who runs a school for low-income children, and motivational speaker Adolph Brown were on to discuss it.

Brown said this: "I came from a single-parent home and my brother was murdered. I made it and others like me have made it, so there's something called resiliency and responsibility. It's important that there be some type of contract with parents because it starts at home. Either the parents give children time or the judicial system will!"

Clark said this: "We found a 100-year old factory in downtown Atlanta and we filled it with the best teachers and staff. Our staff members are our mentors and what we've done with these kids has been miraculous."

O'Reilly concluded that preventing single parenthood is the most effective answer, saying this: "President Obama and the First Lady should be in your face saying you don't have babies when you're 15. Don't do it!"

And it will not do any good, not to mention O'Reilly is a pro-life nut who wants every woman who gets pregnant to have the child, as he says bringing children into the world when you can not support them is stupid and cruel. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. And just telling kids or women not to do something does not work.

Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the crazy Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who claims some Americans may not be ready for a female president. Yeah those some Americans are called Republicans.

O'Reilly asked Republican Kate Obenshain and Democrat Kirsten Powers whether a woman president could have any disadvantages. Powers said this: "I can think of one thing. A woman might feel like she has to act macho. For example, she might feel she has to vote for the Iraq war to make it look like she is a tough leader and is not afraid to use military force. A lot of people feel that might have been part of Hillary Clinton's calculation, that she wanted to look tough."

Obenshain argued that a forceful woman could easily deal with some of the world's bad guys, saying this: "Obama is having a much harder time than some strong women would. He has been bending over backwards to be gracious and work with these people. There's no question that Hillary Clinton is tough enough, but her competency will be in question."

Then the biased Republican Carl Cameron was on, he looked ahead to 2016 and possible Democratic rivals to Hillary Clinton.

Cameron said this: "Something got under Joe Biden's skin this week. He told The View that he never said that if Hillary Clinton runs, he won't. Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts also said he could run, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has been campaigning, and former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has taken shots at Hillary Clinton. Even liberals like California Governor Jerry Brown and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean say if Clinton is not challenged on her left, they might do it."

Which is just ridiculous, because if Hillary runs nobody will beat her for the Democratic nomination. Cameron is a biased fool that just says what O'Reilly wants to hear so he can keep getting on the show.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, but instead she provided an update on Colorado, where the state legislature appears likely to once again reject a version of Jessica's Law. Which has nothing to do with the did you see that segment.

MacCallum said this: "This would be the third time that some form of Jessica's Law has come up for a vote, and it appears this bill will be sent to what is known as the 'kill committee,' which has seven Democrats and four Republicans. It's very unlikely to get anywhere, and what we're talking about is a sexual assault against a child who is under the age of 12! How can you not get behind a 25-year minimum for someone who assaults a child?"

O'Reilly urged Coloradans to pressure their politicians, saying this: "If you keep electing these pinheads, this is what you're going to get out there."

And I urge them to ignore O'Reilly and move on to real issues facing the country today. Colorado already has tough child protection laws, that are tougher than Jessica's law, so they do not need it. Mandatory minimums do not work, let the judges decide the sentence. O'Reilly should mind his own business and report some real news.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Spread the Wealth. Billy said this: "If you're ever blessed with unexpected good fortune, consider sharing some of your bounty with others."

Thank you Mr. obvious, I am sure nobody ever thought of that until hearing it as your tip of the day, what an idiot!

Tucker Carlson Says It's Fascism For Businesses To Treat Gays Equally
By: Steve - February 27, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course he is a right-wing idiot that is about as wrong as it gets, not only is it wrong, it's a violation of the constitution. But that is a how a lot of Republicans feel, they do not care about the constitution, they just want businesses to be able to discriminate against someone who is gay.

Not to mention, how would you even enforce the law if it passed? Are you going to stop everyone at the door and ask them if they are gay, what if they are and they say no? It's insane, unconstitutional, and just stupid.

Tucker Carlson championed an Arizona measure that would allow businesses and individuals refuse services to gay people on religious grounds as a bulwark against "fascism"

Appearing February 26 on Fox, Carlson told co-host Martha MacCallum that the bill simply promotes "tolerance."

The measure, which awaits Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's signature, is opposed by numerous business owners and conservatives, including Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain (R-AZ), 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and three GOP state senators who originally backed the bill.

But Carlson wasn't swayed by those critics, twice charging that it's "fascism" to require individuals and business owners to provide equal services to gay people.

CARLSON: Well it's pretty simple. I mean, if you want to have a gay wedding, fine, go ahead. If I don't want to bake you a cake for your gay wedding, that's okay too. Or it should be. That's called tolerance. But when you try and force me to bake a cake for your gay wedding and threaten me with prison if I don't, that's called fascism.

Carlson's attempts to distinguish between refusing to provide services related to a gay wedding and refusing to serve gay people in general ignore the substance of the bill. New York University constitutional law professor Kenji Yoshino has noted that the measure is broadly written enough that it would allow any individual or business owner to refuse services to any gay person as long as he or she contended that providing services would burden his or her religious beliefs.

Carlson's Fox colleague Megyn Kelly seized on the "potentially dangerous" implications of the bill, pointing out that it could allow a doctor to refuse medical treatment to a gay person.

Despite recent criticism of the Arizona measure from some Fox personalities, the network played a major role in encouraging such legislation by waging a concerted campaign to depict marriage equality as a threat to religious liberty.

Arizona Governor Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill
By: Steve - February 27, 2014 - 9:00am

After a week of national backlash, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has vetoed SB 1062, which would have allowed religious beliefs to be used to justify discrimination against LGBT people and others. Explaining her veto, Brewer said, "I call them like I see them despite the cheers or boos from the crowd." She added that the bill does not address a specific concern and that she knows of no examples of how religious liberty has been under attack.

Opposition to the bill came from individuals and companies across the country, including the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, Apple, and Mitt Romney. Many other states have introduced similar bills, some specifying that businesses could refuse services to marrying same-sex couples, but most have stalled or died, particularly those introduced this week during the backlash against Arizona.

This is not the first time Brewer has opposed Republican leadership; in fact, she vetoed this same bill last year as part of a vendetta against the Arizona legislature for not passing a budget. Last October, she urged Republicans in Congress to stop trying to defund Obamacare after having begged Republican state lawmakers to accept the law's Medicaid expansion. She has even suggested that the GOP should be open to tax increases as a compromise to pass a budget through Congress.

Still, Brewer is no LGBT ally either. Shortly after she assumed office, she signed a bill redefining "dependent" so that same-sex domestic partners of state employees could no longer receive benefits, arguing that "God has placed me in this powerful position as Arizona's governor" to make such decisions. She defended cutting the benefits in court, but not successfully.

And God did not make her the governor of Arizona, the people who voted for her did. On a side note, in Ohio, two Republican state lawmakers withdrew proposed legislation that mirrors the Arizona bill. "We feel that it is in the best interest of Ohioans that there be no further consideration of this legislation," State Rep Tim Derickson (R) said in a statement.

Not to mention this, even if these anti-gay right-wing bigots had got any of those bills signed into law, they would be ruled unconstitutional. And remember this, Republicans claim to go by the constitution, and yet, they keep passing bills that are unconstitutional.

The Tuesday 2-25-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 26, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Freedom of Speech under Attack from the Left. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The American Civil Liberties Union was set up to protect freedom of expression. But now some other very liberal people are trying to shut down free speech and the ACLU is silent. Writing in the Harvard Crimson, editorialist Sandra Korn called for a 'framework of justice' instead of academic freedom. Isn't that swell? She wants to stop academic research with which she disagrees.

Harvard is about as left-wing as it gets, there are few conservative professors. But overwhelming numbers are not enough for Sandra Korn, who wants to shut down opposing points of view. So do many others on the far left, and the technique in play is the smear. If you criticize people of color, including the president, you're labeled a 'racist.' Call for a stronger border with Mexico and you're 'anti-Hispanic.' Oppose gay marriage and you are a 'homophobe,' and if you want responsibility in welfare programs you are 'anti-poor.'

Those labels are designed to shut folks up, and it's working to some extent. If you are a conservative in Hollywood, you will be denied jobs. If you are conservative at the New York Times, you will not get good assignments. And if you are a fervent believer in God, you will not be invited to the swell cocktail parties in Manhattan and Georgetown. Oppressing free speech is not unusual in far-left precincts, but it's not going to work. This program will make sure of that.
Now that is ridiculous, and total right-wing garbage from O'Reilly. To begin with, Sandra Korn is a student at Harvard who writes an op-ed column every other week for the Harvard Crimson. She argued that the university should oppose research that is "promoting or justifying oppression." And she called for academic justice, not a framework of justice.

Korn proposed that "when an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue."

She is one person at Harvard, almost nobody supports her proposal, and what she is calling for will most likely never happen. So what does O'Reilly do, claim all liberals want to shut down free speech of course. It's crazy, a student at Harvard writes an op-ed in the school paper, and O'Reilly turns it into liberals want to take your free speech rights away, it's just ridiculous.

Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about global warming, and of course no global warming supporter was on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "I was objecting to Obama's saying that global warming is 'settled science, when there is no such thing as 'settled science,' particularly with something as unsettled as climate studies. I'm a skeptic, I'm open to empirical evidence, but there are people telling us that this is a closed issue. The petitioners have made my case - the whole point of declaring it 'settled science' is to deny debate."

Krauthammer is wrong, and the science is settled about global warming. Jeff Nesbit at livescience.com wrote this on September 25, 2013:

The debate is over. On Friday, an international panel of hundreds of scientists will issue its fifth (and perhaps final) comprehensive scientific assessment of what scientists now know about climate change. Its central conclusion will be certain and unequivocal -- human beings are altering the climate, with impacts starting to occur now.

But the central portion of the artificial science debate -- the one that has vexed policy makers for decades -- is now over. Climate change is real, human beings are responsible for a good portion of it, and we need to take the issue seriously sooner rather than later and start to do something about it.

The only people who deny it are conservatives like Krauthammer, the oil and gas companies, and the people they pay to deny it is real. The facts are this: 99% of the climate scientists say it is real, the 1% who deny it are conservatives who get paid by oil and gas companies to make those claims.

Then John Bolton was on to talk about the Obama administration proposing a reduction in forces that will leave the Army smaller than it's been since prior to World War II. And of course Bolton is a Republican that hates Obama, so his opinion is biased, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Bolton said this: "This budget follows a succession of dramatic cuts in defense, and I think it's consistent with his ideology. He's trying to downsize our military capabilities to make the United States less provocative. This is a reflection of his ideology that we're too strong and our very presence invokes animosity."

O'Reilly theorized that President Obama is engaging in the old "guns or butter" question, saying this: "He wants to take money from the Pentagon and give it to 'social justice,' but I don't think his 'soft power' strategy is good for this country in the long run."

Which is crazy right-wing talk, what Obama is doing is saving the Government money. We spend way too much on the military, and he is cutting that money, which is a good thing, and he should have done it a long time ago. Only Republicans are against it, so that should tell you it's political.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on, who recently said that some Americans are not enthused by the idea of a female president. Yeah, they are called Republicans who do not like Hillary, duh!

Bachmann said this: "I ran for president, so obviously I think that a woman can, should, and will be president. I think it will be a conservative woman and I want to encourage young women to get involved. My personal experience is that there are some people in the United States who don't see that a woman should be president, but the overwhelming majority do."

You ran for President, haha, really? Nobody knew it and nobody voted for you. And I predict a conservative woman will NEVER be President, because the Republican party will never let a woman win the nomination.

Bachmann also suggested that Hillary Clinton has two major disadvantages, saying this: "Her case will be difficult because she has to answer the question about being commander-in-chief, which will be very difficult in light of her failures with Benghazi. She has another question to answer about health care, and her version of 'Hillarycare' was far more complex and difficult than ObamaCare."

Bachmann is a nut, and O'Reilly is a fool for even having her on his show. If Hillary runs in 2016, she will be the next President, and the first woman President, bet on it.

Then the total right-wing idiot John Stossel was on to answer if American kids are better off than they were fifty years ago? Which is a stupid question, because of course they are.

Stossel said this: "Violence is down, teen pregnancy is down, and things are getting better. They have Facebook now, which by itself makes life better because they can communicate. The lonely kid wasn't able to communicate before, but now he can on all these wonderful websites."

O'Reilly of course disagreed, saying this: "Children back then had a much better time because the social problems they encountered were much fewer. 72% of black infants and 36% of white infants are now born to single mothers, so we start with millions of American children being worse off because they are not in an intact family! Kids read less and they have sex earlier."

Then he yelled, get off my lawn you damn kids, lol. O'Reilly is a fool, kids are way better off then they were 20 or 30 years ago. They all have cell phones, computers, tablets, xbox360, and on and on. O'Reilly simply proves he is an out of touch old right-wing idiot when he tries to argue kids were better off when he was young, and leave it to beaver was the #1 show on tv.

O'Reilly is still living in 1950, and is pretty much out of touch with reality

And finally, the lame tip of the day called: Time Management. Billy said this: "If you really want to accomplish things in life, take a few minutes each morning to write down your plans for the day and when you'll execute those plans. And don't forget to include a few fun things along the way."

Now here is a real time management tip, do not watch the O'Reilly Factor, because it is a waste of an hour in your life you can never get back. It's all right-wing propaganda from a right-wing host with 99% right-wing guests.

Republicans Blame MSNBC & Maddow For Christie Approval Ratings Drop
By: Steve - February 26, 2014 - 10:00am

Instead of blaming Christie, when the actual blame lies, they claim his ratings dropped because Rachel Maddow and the liberals at MSNBC reported on the bridge scandal so much. Which is not only insane, it's ridiculous for many reasons.

1) MSNBC is a left-leaning cable news network, that is a fact, so most of their viewers are left-leaning, so they already have a low approval of the Republican Christie. Which means their vote in any polls would change the outcome of the poll very little, if at all.

2) MSNBC has terrible ratings, their top two shows Hardball and Maddow get less than a million viewers a day. In fact, they both average about 800,000 total viewers a day. That is out of 320 million people, so almost nobody is watching them, that means when they do a lot of Christie reporting, nobody sees it.

3) O'Reilly has even said that the ratings are so low for MSNBC that nobody knows what they are reporting on, and that whatever they report on has no influence on what people in America think about politics. So how can the Republicans suddenly claim Maddow and MSNBC are to blame for the low Christie approval ratings when nobody is watching them.

Here is the story I am talking about: According to the latest Monmouth University Poll, Chris Christie's approval rating has hit a new low, and some on the right are blaming Rachel Maddow for his decline.

The poll found that the trouble is only growing for Gov. Christie. His overall approval rating has dropped nine points since January and stands at 50%-44%. Christie has lost 12 points of support among Republicans (89%-77%), eight points with Independents (62%-54%), and seven points with Democrats (38%-31%).

Overall, Christie's approval rating has dropped 20 points in the last year (70% to 50%).

Some on the right have decided to blame MSNBC's Rachel Maddow for Christie's decline.Even though his approval has dropped 12 points among Republicans, and you know that none of them are watching Maddow or MSNBC.

On Real Time with Bill Maher, this past Friday, Charles C.W. Cooke of the National Review accused Maddow of taking Christie down in order to carry out her political agenda.

Cooke said this: "A lot of more conservative Republicans thought, ah, this is our chance to get rid of him, and so did MSNBC. I mean why don't we just come clean, What you have been trying to do for the last two months is trying to get rid of Chris Christie from the race."

Not surprisingly, Republicans have been howling about liberal bias and how the media is trying to force Christie out of the race. After Christie's epic press conference didn't make the scandal go away, Karl Rove said on Fox News Sunday, "The amount of attention paid to Chris Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi, at the same time, the coverage of the IRS, pale in significance." (PunditFact rated Rove’s statement as false.)

In the Republicans mind, Rachel Maddow is to blame for Chris Christie's sagging poll numbers. They want so badly to make Christie's downfall someone else's fault. They can't handle the fact that their best hope for 2016 self destructed all on his own.

It is evidence that is emerging, not Maddow's coverage that is driving down Christie's poll numbers. The media weren't out to get Christie. They wanted him to win the nomination. What Republicans will never admit is that the media always roots for close elections with interesting candidates.

The last thing the media wants for 2016 is Hillary Clinton going through one of the GOP also-rans like a hot knife through butter. That would make for a boring election, which would mean low ratings, and less money made by all involved.

Rachel Maddow isn't Fox News. She wants to cover an interesting story. If it captures her imagination, it will be on her show. She will be on television every night covering interesting stories no matter what party the president is from.

And the only person that should be blamed for the decline of the former GOP frontrunner is Chris Christie.

The Monday 2-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 25, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was about Benghazi, so I will not report on it, because it is a non-scandal that has been reported on for a year by O'Reilly and the right-wing media, it's a made up right-wing propaganda story. I will say this, O'Reilly compared it to watergate, which is ridiculous and insane, and just proves that O'Reilly is a total right-wing nut. We have the facts about Benghazi, there was no watergate, mistakes were made that caused Americans to die, and it's over now.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, which I am also not reporting on, except to say that Rove was on all alone with no Democratic guest for balance. And btw, if I did not report on all the segments O'Reilly only has a Republican guest I would have very little to report. Because 80% of the segments O'Reilly does only have Republican guests, with no Democrats for balance. Even though he promised to have a balanced guest list, he does not and never has.

Then Mary K. Ham was on to talk about the so-called dangers of the internet. O'Reilly said that the Internet and connectivity can be dangerous and nefarious, while Ham has argued the exact opposite.

Ham said this: "I do not want to go back to the days, when there was a paucity of sources from which to get information, when there were three networks and some newspapers. While I also acknowledge that abuse can be a problem, the Internet makes your life richer and easier in a thousand ways."

O'Reilly said this: "The amount of information you can access through the machines is a good thing for the world, but millions of Americans are escaping from the real world by creating their own network. The addiction is creating people who are flawed."

Then Jim Gray was on to talk about Jason Collins, who has become the first openly gay player to suit up in an NBA game, while gay football star Michael Sam will soon be drafted into the NFL. O'Reilly asked Gray whether the two pioneers will be harassed by fans.

Gray said this: "People are so much more tolerant and accepting, so I don't think they'll get anything near the type of taunts that were directed at Jackie Robinson. They'll get taunts, but it will be based on their performance on the field, I don't think it will be about their sexuality. They'll get it on Twitter and on the Internet, but not in the stands, so these guys should avoid Twitter and stay away from the blogs."

Then O'Reilly had Mark Burnett on to help him promote his religious movie that is about to be released, which O'Reilly named but I will not.

Burnett said this: "We are the noisiest Christians in Hollywood, referring to himself and his wife Roma Downey. "There is no way we won't say what is true, that Jesus is God, and we are hoping people will find Jesus through our movie. The last time there was a movie on the life of Jesus was in 1965."

Burnett also said that he and Downey are treated respectfully in Hollywood. "We've been so welcomed, we're very authentic with our faith, and we get along with everybody. We socialize with a lot of people."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to give his biased opinion of why there has not been more news coverage of the deadly chaos in Venezuela and Ukraine. Which is the opinion of a biased right-winger, because there has been a lot of coverage, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Goldberg said this: "When we watch a news story, we ask how it will affect me. We know how ObamaCare affects us, we know how taxes affect us, but we don't really know how Ukraine affects us. Complex foreign stories don't really lend themselves to the debate format that cable television news has made so popular, and news organizations have closed down a lot of overseas bureaus."

Goldberg added this: "Despite the fact that we live in an information age and there are far more outlets, in a lot of ways we are shallower than we used to be. We are more interested in being sociable than in being knowledgeable. So if we don't care about America, we sure aren't going to care about Ukraine."

Bingo, give that fool a cupie doll. Nobody in America cares about foreign news stories, so get over it and move on to some Americans news. I do not care, and most Americans do not care, because it is not happening in America.

Then Jesse Watters was on with some nonsense that is not news, which I will not report on, if he ever reports on some real news I will report it, but I doubt that will ever happen.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Gift of Mobility. Billy said this: "Please pay a visit to IndependenceFund.org, which raises money to purchase high-tech track chairs for severely wounded veterans."

Crazy Ted Nugent Gets Even Crazier In New CNN Interview
By: Steve - February 25, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course, his good friend Bill O'Reilly ignored it all. To this day O'Reilly has not said one word about the Nugent scandal, or said anything about all the offensive and racist things he has said about Obama, minorities, and the Democrats in general.

A week after cancelling an appearance of the Erin Burnett show, musician Ted Nugent gave an extended interview with the CNN host where he compared President Barack Obama to rapists, murderers, and child molesters and took credit for getting Piers Morgan's ass thrown off of the network.

Even though the Piers Morgan show was dropped by CNN because of low ratings, which had nothing to do with Ted Nugent.

Last week, under siege for his comments referring to the President as a "subhuman mongrel", Nugent backed off with an apology stating, "I do apologize-not necessarily to the President-but on behalf of much better men than myself."

Asked by Burnett if he meant it, Nugent replied, "I bet you understand that the question is, do you apologize and I answer yes. You don't really have to ask that question again, do you?"

And of course he does not mean it, he only said he was sorry because a bunch of Republicans put pressure on him to give the apology, Nugent is a total right-wing jerk and that is a fact.

After Nugent stated that mongrel "was a street word", Burnett followed up, pointing out that the only place she found the term mongrel used in that context was on the Aryan Nation's membership form.

"That's the only place I could find that word. Did you mean it that way?"

Nugent explained that he had served as a police officer in Lake County, Michigan and that he had been involved "with the DEA and ATF and U.S. Marshals and the FBI and Texas Rangers and heroes of law enforcements."

"And we are re-arresting fugitive felons let out of their cages after murdering and raping and molesting children, carjacking. And we keep going after these guys," he stated. "The adrenaline is something like you will never experience, I hope you never have to experience it, but when we are done with these kinds of raids, we get together and our hearts are broken that we have to face these monsters. We call them mongrels. We call bad people who are destroying our neighborhoods mongrels."

Stung by criticism from CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Don Lemon that his comments appeared to be racist, Nugent told Burnett he is not a racist and accused her network of propaganda.

"But for anyone to claim that I'm a racist or it had racist overtones is the typical crap that the propaganda ministry and the media, particularly most of your cohorts there, even though I got Piers Morgan's ass thrown out and I'll do the same with Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer when I can."

Which is pure insanity, because Nugent says racist things all the time, and he never got Piers Morgan thrown off CNN, it's crazy talk. And btw folks, Nugent also said he truly believes President Obama is trying to destroy America. In an interview with Dennis Miller Nugent said this:

NUGENT: "I think he really wants to destroy America. I think he wants to follow the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' book, destroy our economy, have a war between the haves and the have-nots."

Which proves Nugent is nuts, because Obama saved the country from a depression Bush caused, and he passed many things that help the majority of Americans. Obama wants to help the majority, not destroy the country. He wants to improve the economy and create more jobs, so what Nugent says is pure insanity.

If anyone tried to destroy the country it was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who almost did it, while the crazy Nugent supported everything they did, and never once slammed them for trying to destroy the country.

GOP Hopeful Bobby Jindal Makes A Fool Out Of Himself
By: Steve - February 25, 2014 - 9:00am

Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal tried to utilize media coverage of the nation's governors meeting with the President on Monday to his advantage. Instead, he just came off looking like one of the leaders of the Stupid Party after getting smacked down by Democratic Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy.

Jindal tried to say President Obama was making the country a minimum wage economy and then later brought up Obamacare.

Jindal made the following statement on the White House steps shortly after most of the country's governors had met with President Obama in what was considered to be a generally cordial affair.
JINDAL: I think there are things we can do instead of waving the white flag of surrender, instead of declaring this economy to be a minimum wage economy. I think our economy, I think America can do better.
It was obvious that Jindal was implicating that Obama did the wrong thing by signing an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour. It also seems clear that Jindal does not agree with the President and Democrats that the minimum wage for all workers should be raised.

At this point, Malloy pushed past Jindal and slammed the Louisiana Governor for using that moment to make an extremely partisan statement and draw notice to himself. Malloy destroyed Jindal with this statement:
MALLOY: Just one second. Until a few moments ago we were going down a pretty cooperative road. Let's be clear there are differences here and you just heard what I think ended up being probably the most partisan statement that we had all weekend.

I don't know what the heck was a reference to white flag when it comes to people making $404 a week. I mean that is the most insane statement I ever heard quite frankly. Let’s be very clear that we have had a great meeting and we didn't go down that road and it just started again and we didn't start it.
So Jindal dug the hole deeper, his next response to Malloy was even worse than what he said to start it all off.
JINDAL: If that was the most partisan statement he heard all weekend, I want to make sure that he hears a more partisan statement which is I think we can also grow the economy more if we delayed more of these Obamacare mandates.
Really? Jindal, who fancies himself as the smarter, savvier alternative to the Tea Party madness within the GOP, sounded like nothing more than a Ted Cruz clone. He wasn't able to keep his cool after rightly getting called out for drawing attention to himself for partisan gain. So all he knew to do was go to that same old tired rip on Obamacare.

Conservative pundits love to bring up Bobby Jindal as someone who is very intelligent and full of fresh new ideas. 'He is someone that can bring conservatism to the younger generations. He can help bring more diversity to the Republican Party and inject it with life.'

In reality, it's clear that all he does is parrot the same old right-wing ideas that the Republicans have been pushing for the last 50 years. Jindal is really no different than the far-right loons he claims he wants to save the GOP from.

Koch Brothers Put Out Another Dishonest Obamacare Ad
By: Steve - February 24, 2014 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly is silent, but when it was reported the billionaire Tom Steyer is spending millions of dollars to promote a pro "climate change" agenda, O'Reilly flipped out and wrote a TPM about it, then had a segment after that to cry about it.

The Koch Brothers SuperPAC, Americans for Prosperity, is currently running an ad in Michigan targeting Democratic Senator Gary Peters, who is up for reelection in November. The commercial, titled ‘Julie’s Story: It’s Time To Listen’, states that a cancer patient named Julie Boonstra is being bankrupted by the Affordable Care Act.

She discusses how her original plan was cancelled and now her out-of-pocket expenses are so high she finds them totally unaffordable.

Of course, after a few people investigated, it appears that, just like every other Koch Bros. funded Obamacare ad, the truth is a whole lot different than what was placed in the ad. The real story is nowhere near the horror story depicted in the commercial.

When you see the ad, you think that Obamacare is killing Ms. Boonstra! It seems like she is dealing with a real-life horror movie where bureaucratic nonsense and an uncaring law has made her life expendable. Of course, pesky facts always get in the way of a good narrative.

The truth is that Julie Boonstra did have her existing insurance policy cancelled because it didn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Instead, she had to get a better policy at half the price.

She was paying $1,100 a month in premiums under her old policy. She now pays $571 a month.

If she is paying less a month, how can she justify that Obamacare is bankrupting her? Well, she says it is because she now faces out of pocket expenses more often. She states that for a lot of her treatments, she is forced to do a 20% co-pay. However, under the law, there is a cap on how much she can be charged out of pocket.

The cap is $6,350 a year. By her own admission, she is saving nearly that exact amount in premiums due to the ACA. So, even if she has to pay the maximum amount in out of pocket expenses a year under the new plan (very doubtful), she isn't paying anymore than she did under her old plan.

Basically, this is as dishonest as you can get with a political ad. Ms. Boonstra, at worst, is having to deal with smaller expenses on a more frequent basis, but is not spending anymore than she did previously.

In fact, it is more than likely she will end up spending less than before. On top of that, her old policy, that was twice as expensive, only got cancelled because it didn't offer as extensive of coverage as it should have. She now has a better policy for half the price and she cannot be kicked off of it due to her condition.

Kessler gave the ad two Pinocchios. And personally, I think it is one of the biggest lies we've ever seen in politics, and that is saying something. It just goes to show how good this law really is when lobbyists and politicians have to stoop to telling outright lies in their attempts to discredit it.

Another Reason Why You Should Never Vote For Republicans
By: Steve - February 23, 2014 - 11:00am

Republicans have cost the economy $3 billion dollars in less than two months by blocking an extension of unemployment benefits.

A new analysis found that the Republican refusal to extend unemployment benefits is having an impact on the economy that runs into the billions of dollars.

72,000 American workers are losing their unemployment benefits each week, while both House and Senate Republicans continue to block any extension of benefits for the long term unemployed.

Way and Means ranking Democrat, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) said this: "The loss of long-term unemployment benefits is weighing down our economy at a critical point in the economic recovery, threatening to inflict long-term damage. Long-term unemployment remains an enormous challenge for millions of Americans and our overall economy, which is exactly why Republicans should join with Democrats to renew this important program."

As a society, we have a responsibility to help American workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The Republican argument against extending unemployment benefits is that unemployment is a moral failing that the individual is responsible for. They believe that the government should have no role in helping those who have lost their jobs. Republicans have labeled the unemployed lazy, and unwilling to work.

This argument has also been advanced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Both men have made the argument that unemployment benefits discourage work. They believe that it is better for the unemployed to face poverty instead of getting help from the government. Republicans have struck out with argument.

Even though polling has consistently shown that roughly 70% of Americans favor extending unemployment benefits. So they are going against the will of the very same people that they were elected to represent.

Having lost the moral argument. Republicans like Sen. McConnell and Sen. Rob Portman have shifted their argument against extension a UI extension to the economic realm. Republicans have been claiming that unemployment benefits are too expensive, so if they are going to be extended, they must be paid for.

Except that argument is nonsense, because the reality is that it will cost the economy more to stop the unemployment benefits, roughly $30-$40 billion to not extend unemployment benefits than the cost of the extension (which was only $25 billion).

So the Republicans are not only screwing people out of unemployment money, they were getting through no fault of their own, it will cost more to screw them than it would to pass the unemployment extension bill. This is an outrage, and every Republican who blocked the bill should be voted out of office, because it makes no sense.

They even argue that the economy is not recovering as good as it should be, then they slam Obama for it, as they block bills that make the economy even worse by taking the unemployment benefits away from people who lost a job for no reason of their own.

These Republicans were elected by the people (to help the people) and make the economy better, but they are doing the opposite. And in the long run it will cost more to stop the benefits than it would to extend them. So it's not only political, it's fiscally stupid, and will hurt more than it helps. And they do it while the vast majority of Americans support the unemployment extension, just as they oppose the minimum wage increase to $10.00 an hour, while the majority of the people support it too.

And these economic losses aren't isolated. They are building one on top of the other around the country, and causing long term damage to the economic health of the country. It is difficult to put a numerical value on the amount of damage that has been done by those who decided to hand Republicans the majority in the House, and take away the Democrats 60th vote in the Senate, but the House Ways and Means Democrats have provided a basic starting point.

Voting for any political party that doesn't have the economic interests of the majority at heart will result in catastrophic economic damage for many. The cost of empowering Republicans is financial devastation for 72,000 workers a week, and billions lost to the U.S. economy. Your vote not only matters, but it can be the difference between survival and struggle.

In other words, the Republican party does not care about the will of the majority of Americans, all they care about is putting their far-right agenda in place, political power, and hurting President Obama and the Democrats by doing everything they can to make the economy worse.

They were elected to do what is best for the majority of the people, but instead of doing that, they play partisan games and hurt the majority. This is borderline treason in my book, and if I could I would file charges of treason against every one of them. And btw, after reading this, if you ever vote for any Republican, you are not only a fool, you are stupid.

Dishonest O'Reilly Names Mark Potok Pinhead For Telling The Truth
By: Steve - February 23, 2014 - 10:00am

Friday night the biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly named Mark Potok (from the Southern Poverty Law Center) pinhead of the week, O'Reilly singled out Potok, who O'Reilly claims he said that most Americans are anti-black and racist. Even though he did not exactly say that.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "I looked at the AP study that Mr. Potok cited and it's not even close to being true. We suggest that Mr. Potok re-read the study and stop demonizing white Americans as racists."
So I looked at the AP study Mr. Potok cited, and I found that it is true and O'Reilly is a liar. I suggest O'Reilly get his head out of his butt and look at the facts, here is what Potok wrote.

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

When Barack Obama won election as our nation's first black president, in the fall of 2008, there was a sense of general rejoicing, even among many who did not vote for him. The willingness of tens of millions of white people to vote for a black man seemed to say that America, for all her racial tribulations, had finally awoken from the long racial nightmare that began with our "original sin of slavery."

But almost immediately, it became obvious that we were far from the "post-racial" society many of us had so fervently wished for. The new president was depicted as a witch doctor, pilloried as a Kenyan, described as being driven by an "anti-colonial" attitude and accused of having a "deep-seated hatred of white people."

Have race relations worsened since Obama was elected? The best data, two polls commissioned by The Associated Press, suggest the answer is yes. The number of Americans with "explicit anti-black attitudes" rose from 48 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2012, while implicit racist attitudes went from 49 percent to 56 percent.

Other evidence supports the A.P. findings. According to counts by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups in America rose from 926 in 2008 to 1,007 in 2012, while other types of radical-right groups rose much faster.

Those numbers do not merely reflect antipathy toward President Obama. More profoundly, they are a reaction to the "browning" of America -- the prediction by the Census Bureau that non-Hispanic whites will fall below 50 percent of the population over the next 30 years -- and the many changes accompanying that.

Race relations are worse than they were five years ago. But let us not forget that they are vastly better than they were 50 years ago. And they are likely to improve.

We are living through a period of backlash, a reaction to real changes that are occurring in our society. And things may well continue to get worse before they get better. But remember the often violent reactions to other major changes such as the civil rights and gay rights movements, to name just a couple. In the end, this backlash, too, shall pass. And at some point, we will all be the better for it.

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

Now everything Mr. Potok wrote is 100% true, the polls and the rise in right-wing hate groups since Obama was elected even back him up. So basically O'Reilly attacked him for telling the truth. That race relations have got worse since Obama was elected, and anti-black attitudes have increased, the polls show it.

And yet, O'Reilly attacks Mr. Potok and names him pinhead of the week for simply reporting the truth. Which makes O'Reilly the real pinhead. O'Reilly denies reality, because he claims race relations are better, and that racism is almost gone in America. When in fact, O'Reilly is wrong, he just will not admit it. Who are you going to believe, the valid polls, or O'Reilly the biased right-wing cable tv hack.

The Friday 2-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 22, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Winter Olympics. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In a fiercely competitive contest Friday, Canada defeated the USA in hockey 1 - 0. Earlier this week, Russians were devastated when Finland knocked them out of the medal round. Putin was furious and had that gulag look in his eyes. Russia and the USA are competitors for world power, and so the Olympic Games and medals take on a huge significance.

As far as Canada is concerned, we're allies but also rivals. With just 35-million people living there, Canada can't compete with us in production, but we do share a common language and heritage. With all that in play, both teams today were playing for national pride, not just a medal. And that's a good thing. Pride in your country is a positive, patriotism is a positive, and loyalty is a positive. So go USA, but let the best competitors win.
Then Geraldo was on to talk about the blend of politics and sports at the Olympic Games.

Geraldo said this: "Look at Germany in 1936, when Hitler felt the prowess of German athletes was a reflection of Germany's military might. But it's difficult for me to be passionate about losing to Canada - it's like losing to your cousin or losing to Minnesota. We want the USA to win, but losing to Canada is not the same as losing to Russia. Vladimir Putin had two goals with these Olympics. He wanted to demonstrate Russia's ability to create this lovely city Sochi, and he wanted to display the prowess of his athletes."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who held his first town hall meeting since the "bridgegate" controversy erupted last month. The New York Times implied that Christie faced a hostile audience, but Dobbs begged to differ. And of course nobody from the NY Times or anyone for balance was on to discuss it, just the two right-wing NY Times hating O'Reilly and Dobbs.

Dobbs said this: "Looking at the New York Times, you would have thought that the governor had been torn to pieces. But this guy was there with New Jersey citizens who assembled to have a back and forth with their governor. When was the last time you saw a true give-and-take between President Obama and citizens? The New York Times decided to focus on hostility, even though there wasn't much of it."

Hey Lou, Obama has done many town hall meetings, I guess you just forgot, yeah right. There was some hostility, you even admitted it. So the NY Times was right. And the reason there was not more hostility, is because the town hall was rigged and most questions were pre-screened. Funny how neither O'Reilly or Dobbs mentioned that.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. Really? How is this hard news O'Reilly? Answer: It's not. It was just a cheap way for O'Reilly to try and get the ratings up by showing girls in barely there bikinis. This is not news, and it's not even close.

Then Daryl Hannah was on to talk about the Obama administration, who will soon make a decision on the final leg of the Keystone Pipeline, which would transport oil from the Canada tar sands to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

Hannah said this: "The Keystone Pipeline is the equivalent of putting 5.7 million cars on the road every year, President Obama did make a commitment that if this pipeline has a negative effect on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, he would reject it. We are endangering our water supply."

O'Reilly of course disagreed, because he is a Republican who supports the pipeline, Billy said this: "The former Interior Secretary, the former National Security Adviser, the former Geological Survey director, and others all say that we should do this, that it's best for the country. Nebraska and all these states could really use the jobs."

Which is just laughable, there are very few jobs and they are temporary. As usual O'Reilly spins out right-wing propaganda on the issue, and of course he is on the Republican side of it, even though he claims to be non-partisan. I do not know if we should do it or not, but I do know if O'Reilly supports it then I would guess we should not do it.

Then Gretchen Carlson and Bernard McGuirk were on to name the week's biggest pinhead, Carlson singled out New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who was spotted speeding and running stop signs just after announcing a "safe streets" campaign. "It's the hypocrisy of this happening within one week," she said. "Just two days ago the mayor was talking about reducing the speed limit in New York City because of accidents. Then his detail was speeding and blowing through stop signs."

McGuirk went with the religious leaders who are warning would-be space travelers. "Muslims in the United Arab Emirates have issued a fatwa against anyone signing up for a Dutch project that will send 40 people on a one-way trip to Mars. They say it's suicidal and a waste of life, but where are these bravehearts when it comes to issuing fatwas on suicide bombers?"

O'Reilly singled out Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who asserted that most Americans are anti-black and racist. "That's simply not true. We looked at the AP study that Mr. Potok cited and it's not even close to being true. We suggest that Mr. Potok re-read the study and stop demonizing white Americans as racists."

And now the facts, Mark Potok did not say most of America is anti-black and racist, he said race relations have got worse since Obama was elected, he was simply quoting an AP poll, actually two of them. The poll question asked this: Have race relations worsened since Obama was elected? And here is what Potok wrote:

POTOK: The best data, two polls commissioned by The Associated Press, suggest the answer is yes. The number of Americans with "explicit anti-black attitudes" rose from 48 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2012, while implicit racist attitudes went from 49 percent to 56 percent.

Other evidence supports the A.P. findings. According to counts by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups in America rose from 926 in 2008 to 1,007 in 2012, while other types of radical-right groups rose much faster. Race relations are worse than they were five years ago. But let us not forget that they are vastly better than they were 50 years ago. And they are likely to improve.

So all Potok did was quote the polls and show that the number of hate groups went up, those polls say he is right and O'Reilly is wrong. O'Reilly has been saying racism is a lot better now and almost gone from America, so he has to trash what Potok wrote because it disagrees with him, even though it's true, and racism has got worse in the last 5 years since Obama took office.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: California Leavin. Billy said this: "Thousands of Californians are moving out of the state for more affordable climes, and the exodus will continue unless state officials do something to rein in the ubiquitous fees and taxes."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that is not a tip. It's just your biased right-wing opinion of California, a State you hate because it's mostly liberal, can you prove what you claim?

O'Reilly & Fox Still Ignoring Racist & Offensive Nugent Hate Speech
By: Steve - February 22, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly (who just did a softball interview) with Ted Nugent recently and Fox News are ignoring what Nugent said about President Obama, calling him a subhuman mongrel. Not one mention of it by O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News, it's a total blackout on the story at Fox.

It's too soon to tell if Nugent's so-called career as a conservative pundit reached a tipping point this week, but the moment he called in sick to CNN and backed out of a scheduled interview with Erin Burnett as Republican politicians denounced him might soon be seen as a flash point for the fading rock star and the incendiary brand of hate rhetoric he's been cashing in on for years.

It might also be viewed as a key stumbling moment for the conservative media, which have been unable in recent years to establish any sort of guardrails for common decency within the realm of political debate.

Increasingly reliant on bad fringe actors like Nugent to connect with their far-right audience, the conservative media have built up Obama-bashing personalities who no longer occupy any corner of the American mainstream. Yet Nugent enjoys deep ties with Republican campaigns all across the country. When those ties receive media scrutiny, they cannot be defended.

Nugent found himself at the center of a campaign controversy this week when he was invited to two public events for Texas Republican Greg Abbott, who is running for governor. Of course Nugent, a former Washington Times columnist who now writes for birther website WND, recently called President Obama a "communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel" and has a long and vivid history of launching vile attacks on women.

Following waves of condemnations for the association, and a torrent of critical media coverage, with reporters and pundits wondering why a gubernatorial candidate would voluntarily campaign with someone who spouts "insane and racist talk," as CNN's Jake Tapper put it, Abbott claimed he wasn't aware of Nugent history of racist and misogynistic comments.

If so, Abbott's campaign staff is totally incompetent. (The "subhuman mongrel" comment, unearthed last month by Media Matters, was highlighted by a number of outlets at the time, including on MSNBC.)

And of course, nobody believes them, because it has been all over the news, except at Fox.

It's clear that Abbott and his staff did know about Nugent's dark rhetoric, since that's all he traffics in. But because that kind of hate speech has become so accepted and even celebrated within the bubble for right-wing media, they failed to see the danger of embracing it.

Following the ill-fated campaign events, which made national headlines, Abbott has defended the decision to bring Nugent to the state, claiming that in Texas politics Nugent remain popular. But if inviting Nugent to become an Abbott surrogate was so clever, why did likely Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul step forward to denounce Nugent and his "offensive" Obama commentary?

Ted Nugent's derogatory description of President Obama is offensive and has no place in politics. He should apologize.

-- Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) February 21, 2014

Why did Abbott's fellow Texan, Gov. Rick Perry "recommend" Nugent apologize? And why did Nugent back out of his CNN interview just two hours before taping?

As the media scrutiny settled on Nugent, even staunch conservative Republicans have been unable to defend him - his commentary over the years is just too vile. If the Abbott campaign didn't directly insist on the CNN cancellation (Nugent cited illness), it's fair to say his aides were greatly relieved that Nugent didn't fuel the story for another 24-hour news cycle via an extended CNN interview where no doubt more confused Nazi analogies would have been aired.

(CNN's Wolf Blitzer had already condemned Nugent's comments, noting that the phrase "subhuman mongrel" bore resemblance to "untermensch," which is "what the Nazis called Jews ... to justify the genocide of the Jewish community.")

And then there was Fox News, Nugent's longtime ally in the pursuit of Obama demagoguery, and where just last month Bill O'Reilly welcomed Nugent. As Abbott's self-inflicted wound deepened this week, and as news outlets all across the country addressed the clumsy campaign association, O'Reilly and Fox News went silent. Not only refusing to defend Nugent, Fox did not report on the story at all.

The network - which was happy to give Nugent a softball interview just two weeks ago - still hasn't mentioned the firestorm over his campaigning with Abbott.

Ted Nugent has been practicing his brand of openly vile and racist hate for a very long time. And with each passing year of the Obama administration he's been welcomed deeper and deeper into the heart of the conservative media machine. This week's Abbott uproar was instructive in that what Nugent said helped remind people just how radical, dangerous and out of touch that movement has become, and how that hate cannot be hidden.

The Thursday 2-20-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 21, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Trouble Overseas for President Obama and America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In 2009 President Obama made a series of speeches, sending a signal that America is really no better than any other nation. Some Americans applauded that position, but here are the unintended consequences: The president has not acted as a dominant world leader, he has not taken on the authority that Ronald Reagan did. The sad truth is that Vladimir Putin is considered by many to be a stronger leader than Barack Obama, and that has led to all kinds of problems.

That idiot Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan is now insulting America in outrageous ways, Iran is jacking us around, Assad continues to kill civilians in Syria, and now in Ukraine there's a civil war brewing. The president says there will be 'consequences' for oppressive actions in Ukraine, but does anybody take that threat seriously? The president has lost moral authority and clearly doesn't want conflict.

Remember that his base, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, opposes almost all strong action against overseas villains. That means petty tyrants can give us the proverbial finger, and they are. It is certainly true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have harmed this nation, but that doesn't mean we can't have a smarter strategy and lead the world to better places. It's safe to say that Ronald Reagan would have handled the situation in Ukraine differently, and President Obama might want to think upon that.
That my friends is all right-wing garbage. Obama never made any speeches sending a signal that America is really no better than any other nation, in fact, he has said over and over that America is the greatest country in the world. O'Reilly just made it up, and what Obama said is that we have made some foreign policy mistakes, like Iraq, etc. But he never once said we are no better than any other nation, that is all lies from O'Reilly.

And the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, does not oppose strong action against overseas villains. We support it, if we are attacked by them, and it is legal. What we oppose is invading foreign countries that did not attack us, and we oppose sticking our nose in the business of foreign countries that have legally elected Governments. We oppose being the police to the world, which Republican used to oppose. Now they want to invade every foreign country in the world where trouble starts, which is ridiculous.

Then James Rosen was on for the latest on the Ukraine chaos and America's response.

Rosen said this: "This has been simmering since November, when the Ukrainian president announced he was suspending a deal with the EU in favor of closer ties with Russia. There were protests then and things have escalated dramatically in the past week. President Obama called on the government to show restraint and said there would be consequences if people stepped over the line, but today police mowed down 70 people in Kiev. Putin and people around the world are looking to see the caliber of leadership demonstrated by the United States, but there is no indication that President Obama wants to get engaged with this kind of freedom struggle. He has an innate repulsion to the projection of American force abroad."

Then Carl Cameron was on, he turned to Iran and the deal that supposedly restricts that country's nuclear ambitions.

Cameron said this: "There is an agreement to come up with a plan to have the Iranians to do away with their nuclear weapons programs, and there has been a lot of talk about new sanctions against Iran. Today the UN's nuclear watchdog said that Iran is meeting its commitments and that the Iranian nuclear stockpile has declined. But there is supposed to be a permanent arrangement to prove that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, and now the Iranians are saying they want some types of inspections off the table and that the deadline will have to be pushed back. Iran is dragging its feet about the scope of the inspections."

And how any of this is Obama's fault they can not say, we can tell them not to do bad things, but we really have no control of foreign countries that have their own Governments. But somehow O'Reilly and all his right-wing stooges blame it all on Obama, which is just insane and nothing but partisan politics.

Then James Carville was on to talk about the Obama administration's response to various global hot spots.

Carville said this: "It has been announced that Iran has agreed on a framework to resume talks, so these sanctions seem to be working and things are moving in the right direction."

Turning to the violence in Ukraine, Carville endorsed President Obama's approach, saying this: "The truth of the matter is that President Yanukovich was actually elected and it's a Democratic country. I think he's a bad guy, but he's been elected and I am not in favor of any U.S. hard power."

Then O'Reilly had Bill Chair & Walter Manzke on, who own an upscale Los Angeles restaurant that is adding a 3% fee to every bill to pay for employee health care. When that is not exactly true.

Manzke said this: "This is a way of taking a portion of the gratuity and dispersing it to the kitchen, but you should tip as much as you always do."

Co-owner Bill Chait added that the Affordable Care Act is not the reason for the surcharge, saying this: "This has nothing to do with ObamaCare. We could have called this 'kitchen appreciation,' and maybe in the next restaurant we will do that."

And there you go, the whole segment was a fraud by O'Reilly. The 3% fee has nothing to do with a charge for employee health care, because the owners already pay for their employees health care. It's a clever way to get some tips to the kitchen help, the 3% fee is a way around some stupid California law to get tips to the people in the kitchen. O'Reilly promoted the segment as a 3% fee to pay for health care, which is a lie, so O'Reilly is a biased fool to even do this segment.

Then Leslie Marshall was on for angry e-mails. One of them, Floridian Helen Louise, accused O'Reilly of being disrespectful toward Vladimir Putin.

Marshall said this: "This guy is a bully who imprisons people who speak their mind and supports countries that are enemies of the United States. He's also not in favor of equal rights for gays." Other viewers were mad that O'Reilly characterized President Obama as a "patriot."

Marshall said this: "The definition of a 'patriot' is a person who loves, supports, and defends his country, and whether or not you like President Obama, I believe his sincere intent is to improve the nation." O'Reilly said that President Obama is not intentionally harming America, saying this: "The far right thinks he is subverting the nation and the Constitution on purpose. I respect that point of view, but it's not based on fact, it's based on opinion."

And to even respect that crazy point of view shows that O'Reilly is a far-right loon, because it's crazy talk from far-right idiots like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Police in New York State who want to give drug tests to teachers at an elementary school where heroin was found in the faculty bathroom, but their union is advising the teachers to refuse being tested.

Kelly said this: "This is outrageous and something needs to be done. This school goes from preschool through 6th grade, and someone is shooting up heroin! The union seems much more interested in protecting the teachers than in protecting the safety and lives of the little ones. All eight of the teachers who had been seen going into the bathroom initially agreed to a urine test, but then the union got involved. It's disgusting!"

And for once I agree with O'Reilly and Kelly, Teachers should not be doing heroin on school time.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was just the biased Republican O'Reilly telling people not to visit a left leaning website he does not like, which will not be named. And the reason he does not like them is because they report the truth about him, so he told his viewers they are dishonest and do not go there. In reality, O'Reilly is the dishonest one and they mostly tell the truth.



Sarah Palin Endorses Greg Abbott & Ted Nugent
By: Steve - February 21, 2014 - 10:00am

Sarah Palin took to Facebook to begin endorsing candidates to, in her words, "help restore our country."

As my colleague Nick Swartsell wrote below, she decided to start in Texas by endorsing Katrina Pierson, who is taking on U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions.

But she also gave a big shout-out to Republican Greg Abbott who invited Nugent to campaign for him.

Apparently drawn by the heat Abbott has taken for staging appearances with Ted Nugent. Palin said Texans should check the box "for another good conservative."

"If he is good enough for Ted Nugent, he is good enough for me," Palin wrote.

Fox News Ignored Ted Nugent Controversy
By: Steve - February 21, 2014 - 9:00am

CNN and MSNBC devoted significant coverage to the controversy surrounding Republican Texas gubernatorial hopeful Greg Abbott's decision to campaign with the inflammatory Ted Nugent, while Fox News ignored the controversy entirely.

Nugent, who is a conservative columnist and National Rifle Association board member, appeared on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor for a softball interview earlier this month.

The very same Bill O'Reilly who complains when CNN or MSNBC do softball interviews with liberals.

Controversy then erupted over Abbott's decision to hold two campaign events with Nugent in Texas after critics pointed out Nugent recently called President Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and that the rocker has a history of vile attacks on women.

CNN devoted 37 minutes to the controversy, while MSNBC covered it for 13 minutes. The controversy was never mentioned on Fox News, they spent 0 minutes reporting it, as in none.

CNN and MSNBC's coverage of the Nugent-Abbott controversy was largely negative, with multiple CNN hosts terming Nugent's "mongrel" comment about Obama racist.

Nugent responded by lashing out at CNN and host Wolf Blitzer, who covered Nugent's "mongrel" comment on Wolf and The Situation Room, describing the network as "Joseph Goebbells Saul Alinsky propaganda ministry mongrels," adding, "@WolfBlitzer is a journalist & Im a gay pirate from Cuba."

Nugent recently participated in a softball interview with Fox host Bill O'Reilly, his first primetime appearance on the conservative news channel since 2011. The February 7th O'Reilly Factor appearance revolved almost entirely around Nugent's musical career.

O'Reilly described Nugent as "controversial," noting he was a "big-gun guy" and that "sometimes Nugent's politics can make things a bit dicey," but none of Nugent's past offensive statements were mentioned. The only issue of substance in the interview was a discussion of Nugent's anti-drug stance, and his opposition to legalized marijuana.

O'Reilly also laughed and joked with Nugent, and at the end of the interview said he was one of a kind. It was the biggest softball interview I have ever seen O'Reilly do, ignoring all the controversial stuff Nugent has said.

In the past O'Reilly has praised Nugent for his so-called straight talk. On the 2-5-14 Factor O'Reilly said this: "It was interesting to hear conservative rock guy Ted Nugent really level a CNN commentator."

He played a clip of Nugent going on a rant about guns and telling Piers Morgan, "Go after the nut jobs! Go after the murderers! Because I don't know any!"

But to O'Reilly, Nugent is a good guy, saying this: "Now that kind of straight talk is what the Republican Party needs!"

O'Reilly added that Republicans should "lay out" their vision but should also "aggressively counter-attack liberal politics that are devoid of solutions."

Fox News host Sean Hannity has also defended Nugent for his inflammatory rhetoric. In August 2007, Nugent came under fire after concert video showed him carrying machine guns while stating that "piece of s---" then-Senator Barack Obama should "suck on his machine gun."

During his tirade Nugent also called Hillary Clinton a "worthless bitch," told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to "suck on his machine gun," and called Sen. Dianne Feinstein a "worthless whore."

Hannity aired the concert footage on the August 24, 2007, edition of Hannity & Colmes, and afterwards referred to Nugent as a "friend and frequent guest on the program." Challenged by Bob Beckel to condemn Nugent's rhetoric, Hannity said, "No, I like Ted Nugent. He's a friend of mine."

The Wednesday 2-19-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 20, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Climate Change Strategy. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Things are not going too well for the Obama administration, so the president must raise his positive profile. Enter 'global warming,' a fervent liberal cause. On Sunday Secretary of State John Kerry described 'climate change' as 'perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.' He is setting the table for an all-out campaign where all severe weather in the USA will now be blamed on 'global warming.'

President Obama picked up that theme when he visited drought-stricken California, saying that a changing climate makes droughts 'more intense.' We know of no scientific evidence that California's drought is an offshoot of global warming, but there is evidence that the world is getting hotter, even though the rate of warming is slowing down.

Talking Points has maintained that no one knows for certain what causes climate fluctuations, but every human being who cares about the earth should want it to be cleaner. Unfortunately, countries like China and India don't care and they're polluting the planet at a record rate to make money. President Obama can can't stop that.

So if the USA punishes its own people by holding up the Keystone Pipeline, which will create jobs, it would be foolish. The Obama administration understands that it can get a favorable response from the left by pushing the 'climate change' agenda, and will up the ante to obscure other problems like the economy and ObamaCare. That is called politics.
Thank you Mr. right-wing nut, for proving you are a fool. Obama is not punishing the people by holding up the Keystone Pipeline, that is right-wing garbage. The pipeline will not create many jobs and only Republicans support it, which is just more proof O'Reilly is a lying Republican.

O'Reilly then reported that billionaire Tom Steyer is spending tens of millions of dollars to push a liberal "climate change" agenda. So Democrat Kirsten Powers was on to discuss it.

Powers said this: "I think it's great, because this is an important issue. If he wants to give money to candidates who focus on this issue, I don't have a problem with it. Even if you don't believe that climate change is caused by human beings, we can all agree that carbon emissions can cause pollution, so it's a laudable cause to reduce that."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "He's trying to buy Democratic success by spending $100-million. I agree that we should all promote policies that make the planet cleaner, but they have to be sane policies, not policies that punish Americans. The president is playing politics with the issue, he's not looking out for the folks."

And that's a lie, Obama is trying to do what is right for the country based on the science that says climate change is real and humans are causing part of it. O'Reilly is the right-wing nut who denies climate change is partly caused by humans, which only Republicans agree with. What's really funny is how O'Reilly only has problems with liberals who give money to Democratic causes, while not having any problem with conservative billionaires like the Koch brothers giving hundreds of millions to Republican causes.

Then Ed Henry from Fox News was on to cry like a right-wing fool about the President playing Golf in California while he was there to give a speech about their drought problems, which I will not report on because it is biased nonsense from O'Reilly and Henry. Earth to idiots, the President is allowed to play Golf, so report some real news you biased hacks.

Then O'Reilly had a follow up segment on recent polls showing that most Americans are ignorant of history and civics, O'Reilly spoke about the Internet with psychologists Chuck Williams and Danielle Allen.

Allen said this: "Technology never made anyone do anything, it's a question of what you bring to it. There's something called the 'Harry Potter Alliance' that uses technology and social media to direct kids' attention to bigger issues, and there are studies showing that video games help with cognitive skills."

Williams said this: "There can be great opportunities for young people to access information, but when students are disrupting my course they're not following the situation in Ukraine, they're probably looking at Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber. It's been my experience that this is mostly a distraction and it's pretty clear that we don't have young people who don't know how to communicate or how to express their feelings."

Which is what you get in a free country, so get over it and move on, because there is nothing you can do about it, and crying about it on a cable tv news show is a waste of your time and my time.

Then Kelly Parisi, a spokesperson for the Girl Scouts of America was on. She explained why the organization sent a Twitter message about Texas pro-abortion gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis. Which is dishonest, because she is not pro-abortion as O'Reilly claims, she is pro-choice and pro-freedom.

I am also pro-choice on abortion, even though I am personally opposed to abortion, because I believe in freedom and I do not think it is any of my business to tell a woman if she can have an abortion or not. O'Reilly is a pro-life nut and he lies that people who are pro-choice are pro-abortion, when it's just not true, we are pro-freedom.

Parisi said this: "We sent the tweet out, but it was really inviting our followers to join a conversation about who should be added to a list of newsmakers. There were many people on the list of all political persuasions and ideologies, but some individuals and groups have portrayed this as an endorsement of political candidates. We did not make any commentary about Ms. Davis and we did not endorse anybody."

Parisi also defended the Scouts against more general charges that the organization promotes liberal causes, saying this: "We are a non-partisan and non-political organization, we stand behind girls and we don't bring our politics into the organization."

Which pretty much shut O'Reilly up, and killed his right-wing spin on the issue. This segment was even more proof O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge who uses Republican talking points. Because this whole non-scandal was started by a bunch of right-wing idiots, and O'Reilly jumped on the bandwagon to help them spin out right-wing lies about the Girl Scouts.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: It's About (Your) Time. Billy said this: "Because your time is a prized and precious commodity, don't let anyone waste it with blather or nonsense."

Now that is funny, because if I go by that tip I would have to stop watching the O'Reilly Factor, because all I get from O'Reilly is right-wing blather and nonsense.

Papers Dropping Bozell After Admitting He Didn't Write His Columns
By: Steve - February 20, 2014 - 10:00am

A longtime conservative crusader against feminism, secularism, marriage equality and other LGBT rights has been exposed as a figurehead whose books and columns were all written by an uncredited underling.

According to Talking Points Memo, one widely-read Iowa newspaper dropped media commentator Brent Bozell's column in the wake of his exposure and received not a single protest from any reader.

Bozell, founder of the far-right Media Research Center, was exposed by media watchdog Jim Romenesko, who revealed that books and columns that Bozell had passed off as his own work were actually written by MRC employee Tim Graham.

An MRC employee contacted Romenesko via email, saying that Graham is the author of "almost everything published under the Bozell name."

And of course O'Reilly never reported a word about it, because he has had Bozell on the Factor many times and tried to pass him off as a non-partisan media bias expert. O'Reilly even cites their biased and worthless media bias studies. So now that his good friend has been exposed as a fraud, O'Reilly ignores the entire story.

O'Reilly Friend Ted Nugent Calls Obama Subhuman Mongrel
By: Steve - February 20, 2014 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored it, because he loves Ted Nugent and even recently had him on the Factor as a guest, where he did the biggest softball interview you have ever seen, not asking Nugent about any of the racist and offensive things he has said about Obama and other Democrats.

Well Nugent is at it again, calling Obama a Subhuman Mongrel. So what did the Republicans do, invite Nugent to campaign with him of course.

Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott is facing criticism over his decision to campaign with Ted Nugent because of the rocker's inflammatory attacks on women and racially charged commentary about President Obama.

After reports emerged that Nugent would be making two February 18 campaign appearances with Abbott, the move was condemned by the Texas Democratic Party, the women's group Annie's List, and the campaign of Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Wendy Davis.

Citing Nugent's recent characterization of Obama as a "subhuman mongrel" -- a term that describes a dog of indeterminate breed -- the Texas Democratic Party issued a press release calling on Abbott to cancel the planned appearances:
This Tuesday, Attorney General Greg Abbott is set to have joint appearances with Ted Nugent. The Attorney General will join Nugent for events in Denton and Wichita Falls.

"Just last month, Nugent told Guns.com at the Las Vegas hunting and outdoor trade show that, 'I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.'"

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa released the following statement:

"Just last month, Ted Nugent called President Barack Obama a 'subhuman mongrel' and a 'gangster.' He spews hate against our first African-American President and in return, Attorney General Greg Abbott welcomes him to the campaign trail. Is this how Abbott celebrates Black History Month? Texans deserve better than a statewide office holder and candidate running for governor who welcomes Ted Nugent and his repugnant comments. I can't help but recall the old saying, tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."
Davis campaign spokesperson Bo Delp told The Houston Chronicle, "Ted Nugent disrespects a large number of Texans. It is embarrassing that Greg Abbott thinks it is appropriate to appear with Ted Nugent."

Though the Abbott campaign released a statement distancing Abbott from Nugent's inflammatory remarks, it declined to cancel the events.

Controversy surrounding Nugent's planned campaign stops has been covered by CNN's This Hour, Politico, The Los Angeles Times, and also extensively throughout Texas media. The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Austin-American Statesman, San Antonio Express-News, Dallas Observer, Denton Record-Chronicle, and The Texas Tribune all covered the controversy surrounding Nugent's association with Abbott.

According to a search of the database TV Eyes, the campaign controversy has been discussed on radio stations KRLD (Dallas/Fort Worth) and WOAI (San Antonio) and news stations KDFW (Dallas/Fort Worth), KXXV (Central Texas), KVUE (Austin), KENS (San Antonio), KJTL (Wichita Falls), YNN (Austin), KEYE (Austin), and KFDX (Wichita Falls).

With no mention of it on Fox News or by Bill O'Reilly.

Nugent, who is also a conservative columnist and spokesperson for the Outdoor Channel, has frequently spouted inflammatory rhetoric in recent years, particularly on the topic of race.

Among the lowlights over the past year, Nugent termed deceased Florida teenager Trayvon Martin a "dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe," endorsed the racial profiling of African-Americans, and claimed that African-Americans could fix "the black problem" if they just put their "heart and soul into being honest, law-abiding, and delivering excellence at every move in your life."

Ted Nugent is a low-life right-wing scumbag, he is a racist, he has made threats against the President that caused the Secret Service to visit him, he is as offensive and disrespectful as a person can get. And yet, not only does O'Reilly not report on it and say it is wrong, he has Nugent on his show to praise him and kid around with him.

Even though during the 8 years of Bush, O'Reilly reported on and called out every single liberal who ever said one bad word about Bush. He even said that people who do not slam what they said, support what they said. O'Reilly also said you judge people by who they hang with, and O'Reilly hangs with Nugent, so he is just as bad as Nugent.

If Obama was a black Republican, and a liberal called him a subhuman mongrel, O'Reilly would lose his mind, do a hundred segments on it, call that person an America hating traitor, and say he should be jailed. But when Ted Nugent does it, O'Reilly says nothing, has him on his show, does a softball interview, and never says one word about the racism, the disrespect, or the offensive things he says.

The Tuesday 2-18-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 19, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama Catching Heat on the Left. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Gallup Poll shows that just 41% of Americans approve of President Obama's job performance, while 53% disapprove. Some on the far left are disappointed because President Obama is not radical enough. They despise the war on terror, do not want any meaningful surveillance, and generally oppose the capitalistic system.

While their numbers are small, they get a lot of attention because there are some very wealthy people behind the movement. Does President Obama care a whit about what the far left thinks? I don't think so, because it has little to do with his quest for 'social justice.' Barack Obama understands the terror threat and has been aggressive in using drones to neutralize it. He also understands that a robust surveillance apparatus is necessary to stop terror attacks.

One side note: The far left doesn't really care if we're attacked because they believe the USA is the root cause of worldwide terrorism. But the majority of Americans are not ideologues - they just want some security and prosperity. But for the zealots, economic problems are not important. They want an entirely different America, and it is clear that President Obama is not going to deliver that.
Oh my God, that is just a bunch of right-wing lies. O'Reilly is an idiot, and pretty much all of what he said is nonsense. I am a liberal and I do not despise the war on terror, I want us to kill terrorists when we can. I do not care about surveillance either, as long as it's done legally. And I do not oppose the capitalistic system, I just think more of the money needs to go to the workers instead of the people at the top.

Then the jerk O'Reilly says the left does not care if we are attacked, which is just insane. We care, and we care a lot. We do not want to see any more Americans killed by terrorists. And if O'Reilly had said that garbage to my face I would punch him in the nose, because it's ridiculous. The left just want fair wages for the workers, we do not want to change the whole system as O'Reilly claims.

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

Colmes said this: "I disagree with your characterization of the 'far left,' I'm on the far left on certain issues, but that doesn't make me a radical. Nor does it mean that everyone on the left doesn't care about America being attacked or doesn't believe in capitalism. That's not a fair characterization. But we do live in a surveillance state and we shouldn't."

But of course Crowley agreed with the insane and biased O'Reilly, saying this: "Those on the extremist left are essentially revolutionaries. Their frustration is not that Barack Obama is sort of a moderate, their frustration is that Barack Obama is engaging in this revolutionary activity a little too slowly for their timeline."

Earth to O'Reilly and Crowley, you two are the radicals, because the majority of Americans oppose the conservatives, that is how Obama got elected. And the polls show the majority of the people support Democratic positions on the issues more than the Republicans.

Then Dr. Stephen Cohen was on to talk about Charles Krauthammer, who slammed former Princeton professor Stephen Cohen, who accused the American media of misrepresenting Vladimir Putin. Cohen was on to explain why, in his view, Putin is not a tyrant.

Cohen said this: "He is an authoritarian leader, but I see the issue differently. I see the United States having more dangerous problems in the world than we had during the Cold War, and I see Russia as a potential partner in alleviating those dangers. I see the Putin-bashing that's going on, by Charles Krauthammer last night for example, as an obstacle to American national security. National security requires our president to cooperate with the Russians."

O'Reilly then took issue with Cohen's benign description of Vladimir Putin, saying this: "He throws journalists in jail, he passes anti-gay legislation. What does it take in your mind to be a tyrant? He is a murderer that you don't get in bed with because he might be able to lessen tensions someplace else."

Then a real radical was on, who O'Reilly likes because he agrees with a lot of what he says, the right-wing loon John Stossel was on. Stossel said this: "We ought to be equal under the law, but otherwise we are not going to be equal. And when government tries to make us equal, the politically connected become more equal than others. What's evil is when government takes our money by force and gives it to the politically connected, and what matters is that we have income mobility, and we still do in America. Pew Research shows that most kids eventually move out of the income bracket they are born in."

O'Reilly agreed that America is still the land of opportunity, saying this: "The country's structure allows you and me and everyone else to achieve tremendous things."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the spy cameras that are being put up in American airports.

Wiehl said this: "You don't have an expectation of privacy in an airport, which is a public forum. They can put video cameras or sensors anywhere and you can not go back and say you expected to have some privacy. But if you're in a bathroom stall you can argue that you're in a private place, not a public place."

Guilfoyle warned that security cameras are only going to become more prevalent, saying this: "You're going to see a lot more of this. They have a compelling reason to justify it and it's going to be difficult to make a case against this."

Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about Jimmy Fallon taking over for Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.

Goldberg said this: "There have been academic studies about the political influence of late night comedy, If you or I are watching and a late-night host slimes a political figure, it doesn't have much much influence because we follow the news. But if the viewer is young and doesn't follow the news, then it can have a very negative effect. There's no question that the slime can seep into the bloodstream of American culture."

Which is the same argument these two right-wing loons made when Leno hosted. Earth to idiots, Leno did way more Clinton and Gore jokes than Bush jokes. Way more, so it kills your argument that he was this big liberal trying to make the Republicans look bad. Funny how they never mention that.

O'Reilly claimed that the hosts tend to pick on the same targets, saying this: "They all gang up on a politician, usually a conservative, and then it goes out on all the websites. It's all over the world that this person is a moron! The impact can destroy."

Wrong, they make jokes about everyone, on the left and the right and it does not destroy any of them, it's comedy and it's done for a laugh, nobody cares but you two idiots.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Coming Through in the Clutch. Billy said this: "If you want to perform under pressure, find a way to banish the fear that may be holding you back."

C'mon O'Reilly are you serious? That is not even a tip, just some mumbo jumbo about blocking fear.

Dishonest Republicans Slam Stimulus While Taking Credit For It
By: Steve - February 19, 2014 - 10:00am

Now this is the ultimate hypocrisy and political dishonesty from the Republicans, and of course O'Reilly never calls any of them out on it, because he is one of them and they are his friends.

Monday marks the five-year anniversary of the passage of the American Recovery Act, President Obama's $800 billion stimulus stimulus package that invested in everything from infrastructure projects to electronic medical health care records and alternative energy sources.

Every single Republican in the House and almost every Republican in the Senate -- with the exception of Former Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) -- voted against the measure and today the GOP continues to deride the law as wasteful an ineffective.

But as it was reported throughout 2009, over half of the GOP caucus praised the effects of the stimulus or took credit for the federal dollars in their home districts and states -- despite repeatedly voting against it.

Here is a list of the top 10 Republican hypocrites:

1) Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a 'wasteful spending spree' that misses the mark on all counts, wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, 'intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs.'" Ryan also wrote letters to the Secretary of Energy requesting stimulus funds for a local energy company in 2009. Ryan repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

2) Eric Cantor held a job fair with organizations that received stimulus funds, supported using stimulus funds.That summer, Cantor also "came under fire after he talked about his support of using stimulus money to build a rail project from Washington to Richmond." Cantor repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

3) Mitch McConnell toured a construction site at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County, Kentucky. McConnell bragged: "This is going to be a source of significant employment. At the peak, we could have up to 600 people working on this, and we believe the substantial majority of those workers will be Kentuckians." But McConnell conveniently forgot to mention that the funds for the facility construction were awarded through the stimulus. McConnell repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

4) House Speaker John Boehner admitted stimulus funds would create "much needed jobs." Boehner even thanked federal officials for stepping in and ordering the state "to use all of its stimulus construction dollars for shovel-ready projects that will create much-needed jobs."

5) Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, who easily won re-election in 2008, said of the stimulus, 'This is spending, not stimulus.' In a letter to Mr. Vilsack for a project applying for stimulus money, Mr. Alexander noted, 'It is anticipated that the project will create over 200 jobs in the first year and at least another 40 new jobs in the following years.'" Alexander repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

6) Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released a statement taking credit for $35 million dollars in stimulus highway money. The House GOP website even featured the McMorris Rodgers release on the one year anniversary of the stimulus. "I am pleased The U.S. Department of Transportation has chosen to award $35 million for the North Spokane Corridor," she wrote in a press release. "This is precisely the type of project the government should be funding." McMorris Rodgers repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

7) In 2009 Congressman Jack Kingston's (R-GA) press office fired off two releases bragging about a $106,901 grant for the Alma Police Department and a $138,286 grant for the Jesup Police Department in Georgia. These grants were fully-funded by President Obama's Recovery Act. Kingston repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

8) Congressman Steve King's (R-IA) office "issued an upbeat statement about $570,000 included in the economic stimulus bill that will go toward widening U.S. Highway 20 in a rural area of northwest Iowa. Of course, the statement did not mention that King voted against the stimulus. Nor did the brief news item in the Sioux City Journal." King repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

9) Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) appeared in the city of Cedartown, Georgia, to present a giant check of $625,000 in stimulus funds to the city commission to help fund the the city's Streetscape project, which will install new sidewalks and infrastructure. Gingrey repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

10) "The Environmental Protection Agency received two letters from Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas asking for consideration of stimulus grants for clean diesel projects in San Antonio and Houston." Cornyn repeatedly voted against the stimulus.

TIME magazine reports that the Obama administration will release a report this week showing that the Recovery Act "increased U.S. GDP by roughly 2.5 percentage points from late 2009 through mid-2011, keeping us out of a double-dip recession… added about 6 million jobs through the end of 2012…and directly prevented 5.3 million people from slipping below the poverty line."

The Congressional Budget Office -- and most economists -- agree that the law "created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it."

So basically, all the Republicans voted against it, then took credit for the money going to projects in their states and districts that created jobs. Without telling the people they voted against it. And to this day they are still slamming it, and almost every Republican says it failed.

In a video released just last Monday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) argued the stimulus "clearly failed," noting that "unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isn't growing fast enough -- proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems."

Even though the stimulus worked in what it was supposed to do, keep us out of a depression, create jobs, and be a short term fix to the economic problem George W. Bush caused in 2008. The stimulus worked exactly the way it should have, it kept us out of a depression and created jobs.

Bush caused the problem in 2008, Obama got elected in 2009, he passed a stimulus bill with almost no Republican votes. It was meant to be a temporary fix, to create jobs and stop the economic freefall caused by George W. Bush. It worked, and we did not go into a depression.

Then after voting no, all the Republicans went back to their districts and took credit for the stimulus money that created jobs, while never once saying oh btw, I voted against this money. Instead they dishonestly took credit for the money for political gain while not telling the people the truth.

The Monday 2-17-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 18, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are Americans Ignorant? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Election Day last November I said that America is a changing nation, which is why President Obama had a fairly easy time winning reelection. The dishonest liberal media took that as a lament, that I was whining about the election results. That was a lie, I was simply giving you the facts.

A recent study asked 1,000 Americans to take the same test that is given to foreigners who want to become American citizens. 29% could not name the vice president, 43% were unable to define the Bill of Rights, and 40% did not know that America fought Germany and Japan in World War II. That's a disaster!

It's quite clear that the public school system is a main culprit; it is no longer teaching history, geography, or civics in an effective way. Also, the Internet has created a generation of self-absorbed, addicted, distracted, and ignorant people. The result is that a very few shrewd people are wielding enormous power and many Americans are voting for what they can get, not what is best for this nation.

We are a nation in decline because American citizens are not paying attention and do not seem to be interested in the welfare of this country. Most of you watching are not in the 'ignorant' category, but if you add up all the Americans who read newspapers and watch TV news, it is a minority. Finally, with the Internet now dominating American life, the situation will most likely get worse.
1) It is true, O'Reilly was sad when Obama won, he clearly supported Romney and he was shocked that Obama beat him. He was even mad that the people did not elect Romney, he asked Rove how it was possible Romney lost, then implied people just voted for the black guy to make history. The day after the election (where Obama won) O'Reilly had a look as if his dog had just died.

2) Maybe people are so ignorant about politics because all the people they elect to represent them, turn on them and only represent the wealthy, the corporations, and the special interest groups that give them the most money. And maybe those same people do not pay attention to politics do not care because they know they do not represent them, did you ever think of that O'Reilly you biased and clueless fool.

3) Funny how O'Reilly ignored the studies that show the Fox News viewers are the least informed, as he says his viewers are not ignorant, when they are the most ignorant about politics, even more ignorant than people who do not watch any news at all.

Then two Fox News stooges Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it.

Williams said this: "I couldn't agree more, and when you said people on the Internet are ignorant and self-absorbed, I said, 'Thank God for O'Reilly.' It's outrageous and there's a real consequence - if people don't know what's in the Constitution, how do you stand up for your rights?"

Whoa, whoa, whoa, thank God for O'Reilly? This coming from the so-called Democrat in the segment, are you kidding me? Bill O'Reilly is the biggest right-wing misinformer on tv, he was even voted misinformer of the year a couple years ago. And Juan the fake Democrat is saying thank God for O'Reilly, give me a break. O'Reilly is part of the problem, he is a liar, he is biased, and he is a fraud. But Juan loves him, which is just laughable.

Ham disputed the notion that the Internet is a negative factor in modern life, saying this: "The Internet is a gift, it's one of the greatest gifts to mankind. You can find any kind of information at any time, it's all out there for you."

Then Jesse Watters was on with some non-news nonsense that I will not even waste my time on. Next up was Karl Rove to talk about Republican Senator Rand Paul, who said they need "a new Republican Party" or they will never win another presidential race again.

Rove said this: "Paul wants to have a stronger influence of libertarian principles inside the Republican Party. Senator Paul believes that the party's principles can have acceptability in every community and every corner of America, and he's challenging Republicans to reach out to young people, to Latinos, to African Americans, to Asians, and to get outside of our comfort zone. I admire him for doing that. He's running for president in 2016 and every candidate will face a challenge of how to describe a party that they should lead."

Which is not exactly what Paul said, he said if the Republican party does not get rid of all the far-right loons and come up with some policies that include more people they are going to get left in the dust. Basically, he said they are so far-right they are out of the mainstream by a mile and they better get it fixed.

O'Reilly even admitted that Rand Paul is seeking a monumental shift, saying this: "The libertarian concept, especially in foreign policy, has never been embraced by the Republican Party. He is asking for a profound change in the GOP."

Then Karen Charrington & Howard Kurtz were on to talk about a study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that said MSNBC host Al Sharpton became personally involved in the Trayvon Martin story.

Kurtz said this: "Cable news feeds on these polarizing and racially charged crimes, and both the left and the right played an inflammatory role. Al Sharpton openly crusaded on behalf of the Martin family and yet was allowed to push their cause on his MSNBC show."

And of course Fox News defended Zimmerman and told lies about him, but neither O'Reilly or Kurtz mention that.

Charrington defended Sharpton's role in the controversy, saying this: "Al Sharpton is an activist, this is what he does, so no one should be surprised by his passion about a topic such as this. MSNBC gave him this platform because they know this is his forte, he brings out these issues to the public."

O'Reilly said this: "Al Sharpton, with Comcast behind him, convicted an American on television. It disturbed me that a very large corporation with a lot of power would allow one of its employees to convict somebody."

Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly convicts people on tv all the time, I could name 4 or 5 cases where he has said someone is guilty before the trial even started. All Sharpton did was state the obvious, when an adult shoots and kills an unarmed kid, after chasing him down for no reason, you are guilty of something. O'Reilly and Fox said Zimmerman did nothing wrong, which was insane.

Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about a writer for the Nation magazine, who accused the media of promoting "distorting" images of Russia and Vladimir Putin. Which is just ridiculous, but O'Reilly had this fool Krauthammer on to discuss it anyway.

Krauthammer said this: "The Nation has been apologizing for Russia for decades, back to the Soviet days. But at least in the Soviet days, even though the defense of the Soviets was despicable, it was understandable if you were a lefty. After all, the Soviet Union was the great hope for socialism and communism. But here you have Putin, who doesn't represent anything except a thuggish authoritarian state that oppresses its own people and throws people in jail wantonly."

So let me get this straight, one writer at the Nation gives his opinion about it and somehow that means the entire media is doing it, give me a break, it was one writer, and this is not news. It's two Republican jerks using a so-called cable tv news show to make one left-wing writer look bad. Report some real news, idiots.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Hidden Treasure. Billy said this: "It's worth checking out two websites - unclaimed.org and missingmoney.com - which may inform you that you are owed money."

Which is an old tip, O'Reilly did this same tip about 2 months ago.

O'Reilly Said Americans Ignorant From Internet & Public Schools
By: Steve - February 18, 2014 - 10:00am

He also said the viewers who are watching him are not part of the ignorant group, even though they are. Because O'Reilly ignored the study that found Fox News viewers are the least informed of all viewers of cable news.

O'Reilly began his show Monday lamenting the rise of "ignorant America" calling it a disaster while blaming public schools and the Internet.

Citing a 2011 study that found that 29 percent of Americans could not name the vice-president, 43 percent could not define the Bil of Rights, and 40 percent did not know that America fought Germany and Japan in WWII, O'Reilly called America's lack of knowledge a disaster.

O'Reilly then blamed the American school system and the internet.

"It's quite clear that the American school system is a main culprit" he said. "It's no longer teaching history, geography, and civics in an effective way."

"The Internet has created a generation of self-absorbed, addicted, distracted, and ignorant people," O'Reilly explained. "You can now create your own world on the net, devoid of reality, and millions of American's are doing that" O’Reilly then added a caveat, stating, "Those of you watching this program right now are not in the ignorant category."

Even though they are, because another study O'Reilly choose to ignore says Fox News viewers are the least informed of all cable news viewers.

Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers.

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)

The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 out of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.

As the study explained, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:

The largest effect is that of Fox News: someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

Take notice of that quote from the study, not only does it show that Fox News have the least informed viewers, it says if you watch no media at all, none, you score higher than Fox News viewers.

Which means Fox News is putting out bad information, so bad their viewers are clueless, and so bad the people who do not watch any news at all score higher than Fox News viewers. And of course O'Reilly made no mention of these two studies, as he tells you his viewers are not ignorant.

Then he blames it all on public schools and the internet, when Fox News is the network that is putting out ignorant information and their viewers are the least informed. Hey O'Reilly, maybe the schools and the internet are partly to blame, but so is Fox News, jerk.

And btw, the people who were the most informed watched PBS and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. O'Reilly claims the Daily Show viewers are all just clueless left-wing stoned slackers, but the facts show they are the most informed viewers of any cable show. And they are the most informed because Jon Stewart reports the truth, not right-wing propaganda like O'Reilly and Fox do. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, I guess he just forgot, yeah right!

Republican Slams Obama Medicare Cuts He Voted For 3 Times
By: Steve - February 18, 2014 - 9:00am

Republican Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) slammed President Barack Obama's signature health care law during the weekly GOP address on Saturday, arguing that the Affordable Care Act hurts seniors. "Here's the reality -- to help pay for his health care law, the president made deep cuts to the successful Medicare Advantage plan, which serves almost 30 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries," said Rooney, adding that the cuts are causing seniors to lose access to care.

There's just one problem: Rooney voted for those same cuts on three separate occasions, and it does not cause any Seniors to lose access to care.

The Affordable Care Act extends Medicare's solvency for a decade by saving the program $716 billion. Much of these savings are derived from a reduction in excessive payments to health care providers that serve the Medicare Advantage program.

Even though these cuts are to provider payments, and not to benefits, Republicans have repeatedly slammed them as Obama's "Medicare cuts" for seniors -- a line that was used on multiple occasions by Mitt Romney and House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) during the 2012 presidential campaign.

But Ryan has included these very same "Medicare cuts" in every GOP budget he has proposed since the ACA's passage in 2010. And Rooney, alongside 95 percent of House and Senate Republicans, voted for Ryan's budgets with their "Medicare cuts" and all in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

These are cuts for medicare fraud to crooks that are frauding medicare, they are not cuts to old people who are on medicare. Basically, the GOP supports the cuts and they have voted for them in their own budgets, but suddenly when Obama wants the very same cuts they are against them. It's 100% political hypocrisy, and just another example of how dishonest the Republicans are.

Former AT&T CEO Says Executive Pay Is A Fraud
By: Steve - February 17, 2014 - 10:00am

You can blame the stagnant economy on a "handful of women and men" who run the country's largest companies. According to a man who used to be one of those people.

Executive pay has gotten so out of hand, former AT&T Broadband CEO Leo Hindery said on Thursday, that it has caused a "structural breakdown of the meritocracy of our nation."

Hindery pointed out that, even as CEO pay has skyrocketed in recent decades, it has not "trickled down" to workers, who must increasingly borrow money to finance their spending. That dynamic helped set the stage for the most recent recession and helps explain today's sluggish recovery.

Fortune 500 CEOs now make more than 200 times what their average workers make, according to Bloomberg data. That ratio has increased by 1,000 percent since 1950.

As CEO pay has exploded, worker pay has stagnated: Workers have not had a real cost-of-living increase since the 1960s, Hindery argued.

And these CEOs are not exactly earning their exorbitant pay, said Hindery. "It's a fraud," the former executive said. "It's born out of cronyism."

That cronyism is demonstrated in a new analysis of executive-pay data showing the compliance of corporate boards in approving CEO pay, regardless of corporate performance. Those directors are themselves well-paid for their vigorous rubber-stamping.

The problem, Hindery said, isn't just that the rich are getting richer. The tragedy, he said, is the rise of the low-wage workforce. Half of the jobs created in the past three years have been low-paying while the wealthiest Americans continue to capture record earnings.

The federal minimum wage, which stands at $7.25, is worth much less today than was in 1968. And all recent efforts to raise it have been stalled by Congress.

It's no wonder most of us are feeling entirely fed up. Two-third of Americans think CEO pay is out of hand, according to a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll, which also found that a majority of respondents thing the government should be doing more to help the poor.

Hindery would agree. After all, rising income inequality is putting a damper on the economy as a whole.

"The only time the U.S. economy and any of the developed economies prosper is when there's a vibrant middle class that grows from the bottom up," he said. "We've trashed that whole principle."

And of course you will never see him on the Factor as a guest to discuss it, because it does not agree with O'Reilly and his right-wing propaganda about how great the free market in America is working.

Poll Shows Hillary Would Crush Palin By 27 Points
By: Steve - February 17, 2014 - 9:00am

O'Reilly and all his Tea Party friends should read this very carefully, because it shows that the majority of the American people are opposed to all these far-right freaks. Killing the spin that the country has moved to the right, as O'Reilly still claims.

Because nobody on the right is even close to Hillary, especially the Tea Party loons like Cruz and Palin.

A poll released by McClatchy-Marist on Wednesday shows that former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a commanding lead over pretty much every GOP candidate for the 2016 Presidential election.

When heads up with any one of the potential candidates the GOP may run, Clinton holds anywhere from an 8 to 21 point lead. The poll also reiterates what we've known for some time now-Chris Christie's national aspirations are most likely over.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the one candidate who was able to fare best against Clinton. The poll showed Clinton ahead of Ryan 52-44. The poll found one other person that would get within 10 points of Clinton, but we already know that he isn't running. 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney trailed Clinton by 9 points in this poll.

However, in this matchup, Clinton received her lowest Republican support, as only 9% said they would vote for her. Against all other candidates, she was in double-figures. It also showed Romney getting the same number of independent voters, as they were tied at 48% a piece.

Against any real contenders, Clinton dominated. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailed Clinton by 21 points. The poll showed Clinton faring strongly with Republicans and independents. 19% of Republicans and 54% of independents said they'd vote for her.

Christie was only able to get 75% of Republicans to show support for him, a very low number from one's own party. And at this point, they might as well just stop adding Christie's name to these polls.

Tea Party candidates did not do much better than Christie against Clinton. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) also saw himself way behind, as Clinton led against him 58-38. Hillary Clinton enjoyed solid Republican support against Paul, as 24% said they'd vote for her in this matchup. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) did slightly better, trailing Clinton by 17 points.

While he cut into some of that bipartisan support for Clinton as she only got 15% of the Republicans, he completely lost the independents, as Clinton was ahead with them 55-37.

In a hypothetical matchup between former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Clinton. As one would expect, Clinton crushed Palin 62-35. That is a 27-point margin. Independents were completely turned off by Palin, as Clinton held a 41-point lead over her. Palin’s supporters may want to take a look at this poll before allowing themselves to be taken in by another one of her scams regarding a potential Presidential run.

In fact, the poll showed that the majority of Republicans do not support the Tea Party. 55% of Republicans polled said they are not Tea Party supporters. And if the majority of Republicans don't support this so-called movement, and you know that liberals and progressives hate them, how in the hell do Tea Party candidates expect to win on a national stage?

And remember this, I predicted the Tea Party would last a couple years and then die out as the more people find out what they are really about the more support they lose. In other words, the more people find out about Tea Party candidates the less support they get, proving I was right and O'Reilly was wrong, who said they would be a powerful force in politics for decades.

The GOP needs to do something ASAP if it wants to even stay relevant. It needs to eject these charlatans from the party before it permanently costs them the Presidency.

I have said this for years, if the Republicans do not get rid of the far-right loons like Cruz, Paul, Palin, etc. move to the center and be more moderate, they will never win another Presidential election. The country is moving to the left, and of the Republicans do not move to the center they will be left in the dust, and one day the party could even die out.

Maher Said Cruz & Paul Part Of The Insane Clown Posse
By: Steve - February 16, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill Maher was on CNN Friday, and when asked who he would like to see run for president in 2016, he said Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and called them the insane clown posse. Maher said this:
MAHER: Well, you know for my own selfish reasons, I would like to see Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and the rest of the insane clown posse run, and I'm sure there will be some people on the right who are you know great fodder for us, but I'm a patriot first, so I want the most qualified people.

I don't know who that is anymore on the right. I mean there was Chris Christie on the right. He was going to be the guy to bridge the gap between you know, the crazies and the potty trained Republicans, but he doesn't look like he is going anywhere anymore, so I don't even know who to root for on the Republican side. On the Democratic side we all know that it is going to be Hillary, so what are we even talking about that for?
If the early rumblings are any indication, the Republican field is going to be chock full of crazies. With all due respect to the Juggalos out there, the Insane Clown Posse is the perfect name for the potential Republican field.

Christie's downfall has resulted in Rand Paul and Ted Cruz trying to out crazy each other in an attempt to woo GOP primary voters. Cruz is trying to ouster Mitch McConnell, and Paul is filing plagiarized lawsuits against the NSA.

Both men are engaging in cheap publicity that are intended to do nothing more than give them each a perch to launch their campaigns for the Republican nomination.

It could be so bad on the Republican side that delusional Rep. Paul Ryan would be considered the sane one if he ran.

In just about a year, the Republican freakshow will be gassing up the buses and coming to a town near you. If you thought the 2012 Republican field was full of crazy, wait until you get any eye full of the GOP's "best and brightest" for 2016.

And of course O'Reilly will promote and praise them all, because he is a Republican and he will try to help them beat Hillary, even though they are a bunch of far-right loons that will never beat her.

Koch Brothers Hire Paid Actors For Dishonest Obamacare Ad
By: Steve - February 16, 2014 - 9:00am

A few months ago O'Reilly defended the Koch brothers and said there is no proof they are involved in politics, or that they do anything dishonest. He also said if anyone can find proof they are, he will report it. So I did, many times, and I sent it to O'Reilly, but of course he ignored it and never reported it as he promised.

And for anyone who does not know who they are, here is the information you need. Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is an American conservative political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. AFP's stated mission is "educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing citizens as advocates in the public policy process." The group played a major role in the 2010 Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives, and has been called "one of the most powerful conservative organizations in electoral politics."

Americans for Prosperity was founded in 2004 when Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) split into FreedomWorks and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (formerly the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation). Dick Armey, who had become chair of CSE in 2003 after retiring from Congress, remained chairman of FreedomWorks, while David H. Koch remained chairman of the AFP Foundation. Like CSE, AFP was founded with the support of David H. Koch and Charles Koch, both of Koch Industries.

Now we have more proof, that I also sent to O'Reilly, and as expected he ignored it and never reported it, here it is:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), who is up against three Republican challengers for her seat in Louisiana, is facing renewed attacks this week over her support for the Affordable Care Act.

The Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity is out with a new ad featuring several people -- who appear to be Louisiana residents -- receiving notices in the mail that their insurance plans have been cancelled thanks to Obamacare.

"Send Senator Landrieu a message: Obamacare is hurting Louisiana families," the ad concludes.

But the people featured in the dishonest ad are not Louisiana residents at all. They are paid actors who were hired by the right-wing group.

"Hiring professional actors to impersonate Louisiana families is low even for the billionaire Koch brothers," the senator's campaign manager, Adam Sullivan, told ABC News.

Over the past several months, Obamacare opponents have consistently struggled to find credible spokespeople for attacks on the health law, particularly in regards to the claim that Americans are unhappy with the fact that their existing policies are getting canceled.

This past fall, the media profiled dozens of people who claimed that the federal health law was forcing them to purchase an expensive new plan -- but most of those so-called Obamacare "horror stories" were quickly debunked and proven to be untrue.

In reality, Obamacare is transforming the individual insurance market to prevent insurers from offering skimpy plans that don't meet a minimum standard of coverage. Some of the people featured in the so-called "horror stories' actually changed their tune once they realized how the health law's new requirements could benefit them.

But Americans for Prosperity is sticking by its dishonest ad. "I think the viewing public is savvy enough to distinguish between someone giving a personal story and something that is emblematic," the group's spokesperson told ABC News.

Which is not new tactic. The Koch-backed organization has poured millions into a misinformation campaign against health reform over the past several months, and also hired a paid actress from Maryland to star in an anti-Obamacare ad targeted at Alaska residents.

In Louisiana, nearly 33,000 people had enrolled in new Obamacare plans by the end of January, according to the latest available data from the Health and Human Services Department. About 27 percent of the people enrolling in new plans are young people between the ages of 18 and 34, on par with the national average.

What say you O'Reilly? Here is your proof, so when are you going to report on it as you promised.

The Friday 2-14-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 15, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Bob Costas Controversy. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There has always been politics at the Olympic Games, and this year's games in Russia now have a bit of controversy. NBC Sports anchor Bob Costas said this about Russian strongman Vladimir Putin: 'In the past year Putin brokered a deal to allow Syria to avoid a U.S. military strike by giving up its nuclear weapons, and helped bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear intentions.'

What Mr. Costas stated is true, but the context is weak. Vladimir Putin is a villain, a former KGB thug, and the prime supporter of the Syrian murderer Assad. Sure, he tried to stop military action against Assad, who is his buddy. And Putin protects Iran's crazy mullahs, who are causing trouble all over the place. So if you are going to profile a guy like Putin, you really have to bring a lot of perspective.

NBC Sports simply did not, and then the predictable happened. Rush Limbaugh said 'there's not that much ideological difference ' between Russia and NBC, and conservative Michelle Malkin called Costas 'Putin's sycophant.'

Costas is not some crazy left-wing guy who would celebrate a man like Putin. He was simply reading a script that was designed to be innocuous. But these days, nothing is innocuous. I would not have read the script, but I don't think Costas and NBC Sports meant any harm at all.
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to defend Costas, saying this: "You asked for context so let me give you a little bit. Here's a quote: 'I don't know anyone who sees Putin as a peacemaker.' Bob Costas said that. He also said 'Putin supports a vicious regime in Syria' and 'corruption is rampant in Russia.' So the idea that Costas somehow portrayed Putin as a benign figure is ridiculous. This has almost nothing to do with Bob Costas, this is about cable television and talk radio and blogs, conservative and liberal, who have a constant need for a supply of bad guys and controversy."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to discuss it.

Dobbs said this: "Costas was carrying a party line that I didn't like, and this was not an accident. When you're speaking to a billion people and NBC has a billion dollars invested in the outcome, there are no accidents. He talked about President Putin being at the center of everything. In my opinion, this was a network that was pandering to its host country, and doing so shamelessly."

Then the former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was on, who is often mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Huckabee questioned whether Hillary Clinton will actually be the Democrats' nominee.

Huckabee said this: "I'm not sure she's going to run. She's going to be at an age where it will be a challenge for her, and she has a record. She was Secretary of State, and can you name one country we have better relations with after her tenure? Republicans need to make sure that we have a message that takes people up, not down."

O'Reilly told Huckabee that if she runs, she will be a historic candidate, saying this: "The mass of people don't know what they're voting for. We elected a president who had no experience, no record, and no ability to run anything. So if you run against Hillary Clinton, you're running against emotion."

O'Reilly also showed his true colors in that segment, he told Huckabee he would help him run for President, and even give him some advice on how to beat the Democrat, saying he did not want to see the Republican make the same mistakes Romney did, and that he could come on his show any time to talk about politics. Which he has never done to any Democrat running for any office, let alone President.

Then Bernard McGuirk and Judge Jeanine Pirro were on for "What the heck just happened?"

They talked about a Cadillac ad that mocks the European focus on vacations and leisure. McGuirk said this: "I love the commercial. Is it a cultural shot across the bow? Yes, but it's against France, where the men smell, the women don't shave their legs, and they cheat on each other. But the question is whether the commercial reflects reality, and we are now a nation obsessed with useless bums like the Kardashians."

Pirro talked about state officials, who have mounted a campaign against sugared soft drinks, saying this: "There is already a calorie count on all sodas, and nobody sees it. They say the science is conclusive regarding diabetes and that legislators have an obligation to protect the public. Are you kidding me? You can get throat cancer from smoking pot, but they don't want you to gain a few extra pounds!"

For the record, I do not think you can get throat cancer from smoking pot. I have never heard of it, I do not know anyone who has ever had it, and I know people who have smoked pot for 20 or 30 years and none of them ever got throat cancer. I did a little research and some people say it is possible, some say it is not.

The Cancer Research Center says this: Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. The case control studies involved many different types of cancer. Results were mixed and the researchers could not make any firm conclusions about the risk of cancer.

Two other studies found that cannabis seemed unlikely to increase cancer risk. In their data, it didn't seem to be the cannabis that was increasing the risk, but other factors such as smoking tobacco. They concluded that if cannabis did affect cancer risk, the effect was likely to be small. So it looks like Pirro was wrong to say smoking pot can give you throat cancer.

Then they moved on to pinheads of the week. Judge Pirro picked New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and his schools boss Carmen Farina, who decided against closing public schools before Thursday's blizzard.

Pirro said this: "There was a monster winter storm slamming New York City. Someone was killed by a snow plow and busses were hitting cars. De Blasio was dressed casually because it wasn't a regular day, but he was sending these midgets to school."

McGuirk went with the Iraq bomb maker who was trying to teach his fellow terrorists how to use a suicide belt, saying this: "There were some signs, because the guy only had seven fingers and no nose and his nickname was 'Butterfingers Bashir.' They missed all those signs and he blew up everyone. 21 people died, including this guy."

O'Reilly picked the three Miami Dolphins football players who, according to a new report, used racial and homophobic slurs against their teammates, saying this: "Nobody should have to take that kind of stuff, and where are the Miami Dolphin leaders? You can't have this in the locker room!"

Take note of this folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, none. O'Reilly had 6 Republican guests on, and 0 Democrats, even though O'Reilly said he personally makes sure he has a balanced guest list. And btw, this happens all the time, and a lot of the time only 1 Democrat is on the entire show. But he NEVER has ALL Democratic guests, ever.

And he never has just 1 Republican guest to 5 or 6 Democratic guests. It's either ALL Republicans and no Democrats, or 5 to 6 Republicans to 1 or 2 Democrats. That alone is proof that O'Reilly is a lying right-wing hack, because he stacks the guest list in favor of Republicans, even though he denied doing it and said he personally makes sure he has an equal number of Republican and Democratic guests.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: California Dreamin. Billy said this: "When faced with the choice between sunny/warm and treacherous/freezing, always choose the former."

Really O'Reilly? Are you serious? That may be the worst tip you have even done, just drop this tip of the day nonsense, it's worthless and the tips are stupid.

More Proof O'Reilly Is A Religious Right-Wing Nut
By: Steve - February 15, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly sent Factor producer Jesse Watters out in the cold to answer a very serious question: Is this bad weather just God punishing New York?

Which is crazy right-wing religious talk, and only right-wing nuts believe that nonsense. People who are not right-wing nuts know exactly what it is, extreme weather patters related to global warming. God has nothing to do with it, and only the right-wing nuts like O'Reilly think it does.

One person even said this to Watters: "I think Mother Nature's angry at us, not God."

Watters talked with random New Yorkers about the end of days, Al Gore, and global warming, all set to the tune of "Cold as Ice" and "Ice Ice Baby."

O'Reilly had them do that as if snow in winter proves there is no global warming, and that Al Gore is a fool, which just shows how stupid O'Reilly is, and that he puts his religious and partisan right-wing beliefs above science. Especially when the science shows extreme weather in winter is even more evidence of global warming.

Back in the studio, O'Reilly made fun of Watters and said in Florida, they're just loving this, because every time the rest of the country is covered in snow, Florida weathermen just sit there laughing their asses off.

It was a stupid and biased segment, that has no business on a so-called fair and balanced hard news show. Jesse Watters is a moron, and if he did not work at Fox News he would not have a job in journalism at all. His segments are worthless and a waste of tv time, it's not journalism, and it's not news. It's half tabloid garbage and half comedy, and out of place on what O'Reilly claims is a hard news show.

Darrell Issa Raising Millions From His Bogus Obama Investigations
By: Steve - February 15, 2014 - 9:00am

Republican Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, but he is still raising millions of dollars off of his bogus Obama investigations.

Issa has turned investigating right wing Obama conspiracy theories into a cottage industry. In 2013, Issa raised $2.15 million. This is an impressive haul for a member of Congress who isn't a chairman of a powerful committee.

Issa is raising the money by using his power as chairman of the House Oversight Committee to investigate every conspiracy that makes its way through the conservative media pipeline of talk radio and Fox News.

And of course Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, because he reports on the bogus Issa investigations as if they are valid, when they are nothing more than scams to raise money for himself and the RNC.

Congressman Issa has packed his hearings full of witnesses that support his predetermined position. No matter what the hearing topic, Issa has already decided that President Obama is a criminal and everything he does is unconstitutional.

Issa is also notorious for cherry picking through documents and releasing edited testimony to the media that only supports his belief that President Obama is a criminal.

Issa is Congress version of Fox News. He comes into every hearing with a predetermined anti-Obama agenda. Because he has discovered that he can raise big bucks by wasting taxpayer money, and telling the Republican rank and file exactly what they want to hear about Obama.

Issa's campaign manager told USA Today, "Throughout the country, people are responding to his message that government has grown too big and can't even perform it's most basic functions. That the Democrat's vision of government is one that only goes through the motions of accountability and that we need to fight against the new status-quo that allows the Executive Branch to act unilaterally without a check-and-balance."

Which is 100% pure right-wing BS. The part about the Executive Branch acting unilaterally without a check and balance is Republican code for Obama is an unconstitutional dictator.

For Darrell Issa, inventing Obama abuses of executive power is where the money is. The irony here is that Issa is the wealthiest member of Congress. He doesn't need the money, but in politics fundraising ability equals power.

It's all a waste of taxpayer money to raise money for himself and other Republicans, to help get them elected and re-elected. And the charges he makes are all made up nonsense, but O'Reilly never says a word about it.

Because O'Reilly likes what Issa is doing and thinks he is an honest man, while complaining about Democrats wasting money on things like unemployment insurance and food stamps. So in O'Reillyworld it's ok for a Republican to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on bogus hearings about made up Obama scandals, and not ok for Democrats to make sure people get the unemployment money and food stamps they need to live on.

The Thursday 2-13-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 14, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Outrage in Afghanistan. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is doing everything he can to humiliate the USA and destroy his own country. Today he ordered the release of 65 Taliban terrorists who were supposed to be tried for crimes against civilians. Right now there are about 38,000 Americans in Afghanistan and there is little doubt that the men released today will kill them if they can. But Karzai doesn't care, he is a despicable person.

If I were commander-in-chief, I would have U.S. special forces deal with those released terrorists. The U.S. embassy in Kabul has issued a statement calling the prisoner release 'regrettable,' but what is really regrettable is how the entire Afghan campaign has fallen apart.

For 13 years America has tried to stabilize that country, giving Afghans freedom and hope for a better life. Women have been freed from virtual slavery, children are being educated, but Karzai spits in our faces. More than 2,000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan and almost 20,000 wounded.

Karzai himself has been lenient on heroin merchants, has overseen a corrupt government that is stealing billions, and is now putting coalition forces in danger. President Obama is faced with a very difficult situation over there, but needs to impose some power simply to protect the Americans he is directly responsible for. Karzai is a villain who should be tried for corruption in The Hague.
And here it is: I told you so. O'Reilly is a joke, because he supported going into Afghanistan, while all the liberals opposed it, because the Russians were there for 10 years and they left losers. You can not take over a country unless you replace their military and their government, and then stay there forever. Liberals predicted this would happen, and O'Reilly and his right-wing friends disagreed, we were right and you were wrong.

And get this, now O'Reilly wants to get rid of Karzai and replace him with a puppet who will do what we say, it's ridiculous. Because no matter who is there it will not work because they are all corrupt. We need to get out and leave them alone, and let them run their own country.

So then he had two right-wing nuts on to discuss it, Bret Stephens and Tucker Carlson. With no liberals on for balance, or to say we told you so.

Stephens said this: "If we were to get out right now, we would be proving Osama bin Laden's basic contention that, at the end of the day, Americans cut and run. We should protect our strategic interests, bearing in mind that Karzai will be gone in June. We've spent $750 billion in Afghanistan, but keep in mind that's equivalent to only about 75 days of total U.S. government spending."

Carlson advocated a prompt divorce from that country, saying this: "The Karzai family and warlords are getting rich, but what is the upside? It's great that Afghan girls are going to school, but that's not in our strategic interest. We have no moral obligation to help the Afghans."

O'Reilly warned of the consequences of a total U.S. withdrawal, saying this: "The Taliban will re-take the country so there is another lawless state where Al Qaeda will gather. We'll be back to 1999."

Listen up idiot, the Taliban have already re-taken the country, except for Kabul. The people in Afghanistan call Karzai the mayor of Kabul, because that is the only city he has control of, the Taliban control the rest of the country. They try to even blame this on Obama, but Bush started the whole thing, so it is his fault. Liberals opposed the invasion, we wanted a bombing campaign to get the known Taliban, but no troops on the ground, Bush sent troops in and occupied the country, try and remember that.

Then James Carville was on to talk about Hillary Clinton. Which is sort of ridiculous, because she has not even said she is running, and the election is still 2 years away.

Carville said this: "She'll have to differentiate herself from President Obama, and she'll have to say she'll do more things. But she's certainly not going to repudiate the health care act, which is now starting to work and will be working much better in 2016. She is a realist grounded in pragmatism, and I think a lot of her goals are similar to the goals President Obama has."

O'Reilly concluded that Clinton is not a committed leftist, saying this: "She's a practical person, she's not like Barack Obama who is really an ideological man. I don't think she's that liberal, I think she'll do anything it takes to win."

Thank you Mr. Obvious, now tell us something we do not know, idiot.

Then Heather Nauert was on for mad as hell, she responded to emails from some irate viewers. One of them, Texan Kathy Bueltel, took offense because O'Reilly told Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz to 'get off his butt' and elicit testimony about Benghazi from former Pentagon boss Leon Panetta.

Nauert said this: "You were certainly tough on him, but rightfully so. Part of the problem is that there are so many committees that can claim jurisdiction over the Benghazi issue and everyone wants a piece of the pie. They need some kind of a select committee that has subpoena and prosecutorial power."

Another viewer, Floridian Steve Cargill, expressed indignation that the massive farm bill is filled with goodies while wounded vets are supported by private funding.

Nauert said this: "The farm bill costs $956 billion over ten years, and is just a monstrosity. A lot of folks on the left and the right are upset because there is a lot of pork in it, and many argue that the farm subsidies don't need to be in place any more."

Then Megyn Kelly was on with the latest example of a ridiculous lawsuit, this one in Oregon.

Kelly said this: "This person named Valeria is objecting because his or her co-workers at Bon Appetit referred to this person as a female and as a 'she.' The lawsuit claims these references were 'outrageous' and 'an intent to harass.' But Valeria won't even tell people if he or she is a male or a female, and she wanted the company to find a new pronoun other than 'he' or 'she.' She worked there for three months and filed a half-million dollar lawsuit. Valeria is giving all transgendered people a bad name."

O'Reilly said this: "I don't have any new pronouns, but I do have a noun. Loon!"

Then Jesse Watters hit the snowy and slushy streets of New York City to ask people whether this abysmal weather may be a punishment from the big guy upstairs. Some responses: "I think Mother Nature is angry at us, not God." ... "It's just winter, this is what happens in winter" ... "The world's in turmoil with racism and all kinds of prejudice" ... "I was just wondering where Al Gore is" ... "My wife is the only global warming I need."

Back in the studio, Watters cried to O'Reilly for sending him out to brave the elements, saying this: "Why did you do that? It's not God punishing us, it's you punishing me!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Auction Action. Billy said this: "The bidding continues for Bill's original hand-written notes from the Super Bowl Sunday White House interview. A replica of the notes also goes to anyone who donates at least $25. All proceeds go to the Fisher House, a most worthy charity that helps families of wounded veterans."

Republicans Still Working To Suppress The Vote
By: Steve - February 14, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about it, because it makes Republicans look bad. Now this is real simple, Republicans are having trouble winning elections by getting the most votes, so they are passing these voter suppression laws to get votes the dishonest way, by keeping Democratic voters from voting.

On a party-line vote, a Florida county's Republican majority Board of County Commissioners voted Tuesday to eliminate almost one-third of Manatee County's voting sites. The board accepted a proposal by Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett (R) by a 6-1 vote to trim the number of precincts, despite unanimous public testimony against the move -- and complaints by the only Democratic Commissioner that it would eliminate half of the polling places in his heavily minority District 2.

Bennett, in his first term as elections supervisor, proposed reducing the number of Manatee County precincts from 99 to 69. Citing decreased Election Day turnout, as more voters switch to in-person early voting and vote-by-mail options.

In the public comment section of the meeting, all ten speeches strongly opposed the move. Representatives of the local NAACP and Southern Christian Leadership Council warned that the cuts would decrease voter turnout because voters would have to travel further to a polling place, especially among the elderly and people without cars, and noted that the cuts disproportionately affected minority-heavy precincts.

Bennett dismissed these concerns, noting that because District 2 had received "preferential treatment in the past," even with the changes, his district will have the smallest number of voters per precinct. "It was overbalanced before, it's overbalanced now."

Bennett assured the commission that if lines are longer in 2014 as a result of these changes, he would ask them to revisit the decision in 2015, before the 2016 elections. But it is unclear whether voter accessibility is a sincere priority for him.

In 2011, while serving in the Florida Senate, he endorsed making it hard to vote: "I wouldn't have any problem making it harder. I would want them to vote as badly as I want to vote. I want the people of the state of Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who's willing to walk 200 miles...This should not be easy."

He made that comment while supporting a Republican voter suppression bill that reduced the number of days for early voting in Florida and helped create long lines across the state.

And in North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory Monday signed into law a bill requiring voters to produce a photo ID when they go to the polls, a measure that was hailed by Republicans as a means for heightening ballot security but which was criticized by Democrats as a thinly disguised effort at voter suppression.

The measure signed by McCrory also reduces the early voting period by a week, ends early voting on Sunday, ends same-day voter registration, and does away with pre-registration of 16 and 17-year olds.

"North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a common sense law that requires voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot," McCrory said in a statement. "I am proud to sign this legislation into law. Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote."

In other words, they passed a law to fix a problem they do not have, because actual voter fraud almost never happens, it's less than 1% on average. It's the Republican talking points to justify passing these voter suppression laws to lower the turnout among minorities and the poor, who mostly vote Democrat.

North Carolina becomes one of 34 states with some form of voter ID law. But critics said North Carolina has one of the most severe laws -- not accepting college IDs for example or out-of-state licenses.

Civil rights groups have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of North Carolina's law in court. Among other things, they argue it unconstitutionally sets up two classes of voters -- those who vote in person who must show a photo ID and those who vote by mail who do not have to show a photo ID.

And let's remember this, just because a majority support something does not make it right. At one time in this country the majority supported slavery and public hangings, but we passed laws against it over time, because it was wrong and un-American.

Proof O'Reilly Lies & Puts Out Right-Wing Propaganda
By: Steve - February 14, 2014 - 9:00am

O'Reilly is still saying Obamacare is a failure and chaos, he even said that only 8% of the people like it. Which is pretty much all right-wing lies, because Obamacare is a massive success and getting better.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the January enrollment numbers for the ACA and it can only be seen as good news. In the month of January, 1.1 million people signed up for a health plan using the state and federal marketplaces.

This represented a 53% increase in total enrollment over the previous three months. Overall, 3.3 million people have now signed up for health plans in the marketplaces since enrollment began in October. With enrollment open until March 31st, it seems clear now that we will see millions more enroll in this first year.

One concern many had in the early stages of enrollment was regarding young people signing up. Well, that fear has now been pretty much alleviated, as 27% of those who signed up in January were young adults. And that number is expected to go higher as the deadline for sign up gets closer.

Overall, 25% of the total number of people enrolled are between the ages of 18 and 34. So the fear that only older adults would sign up in the individual marketplaces now seems unfounded. Young, healthy adults are making up a good-sized portion of those covered.

Of course, despite the continued good news regarding Obamacare and the fact that the American people have shown that they actually want it, O'Reilly and his Republican friends continued to hammer at the health care law that is helping millions of people receive affordable health coverage, many for the first time in their lives.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) decided to tweet out some 100% right-wing BS about how Obamacare has created a part-time workforce, which has already been debunked many times over. He said Obamacare has caused the 40 hour work week to go down to 30 hours, which is not only a total lie, it's insane.

Cantor is a liar, and anyone who believes anything he says is a fool. O'Reilly and the right just can not handle the fact that Obamacare is working now, and it is getting better. So they continue to lie about it to make Obama look bad, which is pretty sad, and it shows that O'Reilly is a Republican because only right-wing stooges are doing it.

The Wednesday 2-12-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 13, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The American Left and Capitalism. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With President Obama's job approval numbers falling and the Democratic Party having trouble in an election year, you would think liberal Americans would low-key it a bit. But no, they're upping the rhetoric, especially the anti-capitalism stuff. Hillary Clinton is widely seen to be the Democratic nominee in 2016, but she portrays herself as a moderate, which is not good enough for some.

Many on the far left want to dismantle the entire corporate system, and we are seeing the consequences of that in the Obama administration. The president has not been a friend to corporations, he advocates high taxes to pay for an entitlement culture. Businesses know that and have not expanded, preferring to hoard profits or keep them overseas where they can not be taxed.

That's why the job situation and income for working Americans is stagnant. It's hard to believe, but the far left believes the government can provide well-paying jobs on a mass scale. It cannot, and every country that has tried that has failed. So Hillary Clinton must fight zealotry on her far left. She'll defeat it, she'll get the nomination, and she'll run as a moderate Democrat.
Wow, that is almost all right-wing propaganda. The left does not want to dismantle the entire corporate system, they just want the workers to get paid more, because they are underpaid. Nobody I know on the left wants to dismantle the entire corporate system, O'Reilly just made that up.

Obama has cut taxes for Business and they are making record profits, what they are doing is not hiring people to make Obama look bad. And nobody I know thinks the Government can provide well-paying jobs on a mass scale, O'Reilly made that up too. Maybe a few loons do, but not the majority of the left. A few people on the left do not like Hillary, but the vast majority do, so there is no rift in the Democratic party, as O'Reilly claims, and she will win easily and be the next President.

Then political scientist Jeanne Zaino and Ellen Qualls were on to discuss it.

Zaino said this: "There is an enormous and increasing division in the Democratic Party. You see the attacks that Hillary is getting from her left and many people predict Wall Street will be her Achilles Heel in 2016 the same way the Iraq war was in 2008. People on the 'progressive' left fear that she'll be too close to Wall Street and will continue her husband's moderate policies."

But Qualls dismissed the notion that there is a great rift in among Democrats, saying this: "I see a rhetorical concern about whether Hillary Clinton is talking to the right people and hearing the right ideas. People on the left want to have Elizabeth Warren's voice represented in Hillary Clinton's campaign. But there is a great unanimity among Democrats that Hillary Clinton will be a great candidate and we'd love to have her."

Then Dr. Ben Carson, a darling of many conservatives and a Fox News commentator, claims he has been unfairly targeted by the IRS. And is now under fire for raising the specter of Nazi Germany when complaining about government power.

Carson said this: "I believe what can happen here, is that people who do not speak up for what they believe can be trampled. The objective of many on the left is to focus on a single word you're not supposed to say, like 'Nazi' or 'slavery.' That's political correctness and I do not believe in that. I'm worried because the populace is not expressing what they think because they're afraid, they're intimidated by the government and the media and the p.c. police."

O'Reilly said this: "What you said was correct, the mass of Germans were not members of the Nazi Party but they sat on their butts and allowed the fanatics to take over. That could not happen here because of our checks and balances."

And now the real truth, that O'Reilly ignored and skipped over. This far-right loon Ben Carson said progressives will turn America into the next Nazi Germany. He warned supporters of Oregon GOP Senate candidate Monica Wehby that progressives are turning the country into the next Nazi Germany. Which is not only a lie, it's insane and ridiculous. And O'Reilly said in the past that we should stop using the Nazi comparisons, but here is Carson doing it and O'Reilly did not slam him for it.

Then James Rosen & Ed Henry were on to talk about President Obama, who hosted a state dinner this week for French President Hollande.

Henry said this: "It looked pretty elegant, and it didn't look like an 'income inequality' event. These state dinners cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but Republicans and Democrats both do them. There was no dancing because they didn't want to embarrass the French president, who couldn't bring a first lady because of his affairs in France."

Rosen said this: "If we had a special prosecutor roaming about with an unlimited mandate. President Obama's conduct in the naming of ambassadors would likely become an area of focus. 53% of ambassadorial appointees in his second term have been political as opposed to career foreign service people. The practical effect of this is that you get a donation bundler like Noah Mamet named ambassador to Argentina, even though he has never been there."

What a joke, it's ridiculous and biased garbage. All Presidents have state dinners and all Presidents name political people to be ambassadors, they all do it, and it's not news. Bush did the same thing, and so did his Father, they all do it jerks.

Then Martha MacCallum was on with more non-news in the did you see that segment, she talked about actor Samuel L. Jackson, who mocked a local entertainment reporter who confused him with Lawrence Fishburne, another black actor.

MacCallum watched video of the brutal dressing-down, saying this: "This went on for a solid two-and-a-half minutes, and every time the reporter tried to get back to the subject, Jackson just kept hammering him. He took it personally, but he could have made his point and been a gentleman about it."

N-O-B-O-D-Y C-A-R-E-S! Report some real news O'Reilly. For a so-called hard news show O'Reilly sure spends a lot of time on worthless tabloid news. He also had Dennis Miller on with more non-news, which I do not report on because it's garbage.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Tobacco, Drugs, and You. Billy said this: "If you agree with the CVS pharmacy chain, which has decided to exit the tobacco business, you can show your support by doing some shopping there."

That's not a tip, just O'Reilly telling you to shop at CVS simply because they decided to stop selling Tobacco.

Even Sarah Palin Finds It Hard To Believe Chris Christie
By: Steve - February 13, 2014 - 10:00am

Sarah Palin talked about about Chris Christie's culpability in the BridgeGate scandal, and she took from her own experience as governor of a state to question the idea that Christie had no idea what was going on around him.

In an interview with Inside Edition this week, Palin said when you're the governor of a state, it's hard not to have a good idea what the people around you are up to.

While talking about other issues like Clay Aiken and a potential 2016 run, Palin took on the ongoing situation in New Jersey and said, from her experience, governors generally know what their top people are doing:
"It's hard to be the CEO of an organization and not know what the closest people to you are up to. It's tough not to know. I know when I was mayor and manager of this city and then governor of the state, certainly you know what your top aides are up to."
She didn't say much more on the subject, except to share the hope that "truth is being told right now."

When she spoke to Inside Edition last month about Christie, Palin said BridgeGate is an "atrocious" scandal, but nowhere near as outrageous as Obama's scandals.

The Truth About The IRS Scandal & The Darrell Issa Witchhunt
By: Steve - February 13, 2014 - 9:00am

O'Reilly keeps talking about the IRS scandal, the problem is, there was no scandal. It's all made up garbage Darrell Issa and other Republicans like O'Reilly, in other words, one lied to it and the rest swear to it. Issa had the IG rig the report by telling him to only look at the tax-free conservative groups that were targeted, while ignoring the fact that tax-free liberal groups were also looked at.

And it caused 150 IRS employees to waste 70,000 hours of taxpayer money to comply with all of the documents Issa demanded.

Democrats are on the offensive after discovering that Darrell Issa's committee withheld vital information in order to perpetrate the IRS scandal that held the press captive over the 2013 summer until it fell apart when the full evidence was demanded and finally produced.

And yet, to this day O'Reilly still claims it was a real scandal, that the people care, and that they want to hear more about it. Which is a total lie, because there was no scandal, nobody cares, and polls show the people do not want to hear any more about it.

For example, they've demanded a reconciliation of the costs of the IRS witch hunt. They've filed charges.

In his opening statement, Ways and Means Committee ranking member Representative Sander Levin (D-MI) called Republicans out for their utter waste of government resources and taxpayer money. He noted, "150 IRS employees have worked 70,000 hours -- time taken away from taxpayer services -- to accommodate the ongoing requests for information from congressional investigators."

Levin laid out the time Republicans charged the taxpayers for, "More than 500,000 pages of IRS documents have been turned over to congressional committees. Five dozen interviews of current and former IRS employees have taken place. Lawmakers at fifteen congressional hearings have questioned IRS officials."

"In all, more than 150 IRS employees have worked 70,000 hours -- time taken away from taxpayer services -- to accommodate the ongoing requests for information from congressional investigators."

"And yet, there's been absolutely no evidence of any corruption unearthed. Not a single piece of evidence showing any political motivation. Nothing showing any involvement outside the IRS."

Levin called out the deception behind the entire sham, "Had the Treasury Inspector General not left out vital information -- producing a fundamentally flawed audit report -- it may have dissuaded Republicans from immediately accusing the White House of keeping an enemies list and trying to turn the audit into a scandal that they are intent on keeping alive, no matter the facts."

"For one, the IG failed to disclose that progressive and other liberal groups were singled out alongside tea party organizations and were among the 298 organizations that he reviewed in his audit."

What's more, not until two months after the audit report was published did we learn that the IG had instructed his chief investigator to look into the possibility of political motivation by the IRS and that the investigator had concluded that it was confusion -- not political motivation -- that led IRS employees to single out organizations for further scrutiny.

So, the taxpayers have been charged for -- and this is just in the IRS -- 70,000 hours. This is not only a matter of what taxpayers paid for in order to get a partisan Republican commercial for the 2014 election, but also what the taxpayers didn't get.

Because when resources are diverted to a huge investigation like this, and remember this took up the spring and summer, they are taken from someplace else.

It's been nine months of O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republicans hiding the truth in order to perpetrate a sham on the American people so that they can make Obama look bad in order to fool the public into voting for them and not voting for Hillary or any Democrats in 2016.



The Tuesday 2-11-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 12, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: How Obamacare Created a DISINCENTIVE to Work. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Congressional Budget Office keeps track of taxpayer money. In a recent report, the CBO clearly said that those receiving free health care will have less incentive to work because their health needs will be assured. If they have a job they don't like, they don't have to keep the job and can live off entitlements and/or the underground economy.

That report hurts the Democratic Party, which champions ObamaCare and other entitlements, so the Democratic spin from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is that people now have more 'freedom.' The problem is that you and I, working Americans, will have to pay for that. Talking Points has no problem paying for safety net entitlements, but now I'm being asked to pay for somebody's 'passion' by supporting their health insurance.

It's clear what Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi are saying, that ObamaCare will 'free' people from low-wage jobs so they can do other things. But 'other things' might not include getting better jobs because if they got those, their ObamaCare subsidies go away.

Finally, the CBO report does have some good news for President Obama and the Democrats, saying health insurance costs will probably decline about 15% from the original forecast. Does that override all the other stuff? You make the call.
And as usual that is all right-wing spin, so what is the real truth, here it is:

Historically some people have taken or held on to jobs exclusively to get health insurance. Obamacare makes it possible to get coverage without a job. As a result, CBO predicted, some of these people would stop working -- or, at least, work fewer hours. Most of the people working fewer hours will be choosing to do so.

And that's a very different story from the one the right-wing Obamacare critics are telling, like O'Reilly. Some of the people cutting back hours will be working parents who decide they can afford to put in a little less time with their co-workers and a little more time with their kids. Some will be early sixty-somethings who will retire before they reach 65, rather than clinging to low-paying jobs just to get health benefits.

"This is what we want in a fair society," says Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist. "We don't want to enslave the old and sick to their jobs out of some sense of meanness. If they are dying to quit/retire, then let them. That's a good thing, not a bad thing."

Then Charles Krauthammer, was on to talk about President Obama's decision to delay the mandate that medium-sized companies provide health insurance to their workers. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, just the far-right Obama hating Krauthammer who does not like anything Obama does.

Krauthammer said this: "At least in banana republics the caudillo dictates with class, but here it's done in the federal register. This is the 27th time that President has unilaterally amended a law that has already passed Congress. You're not allowed to do that!"

O'Reilly contended that the continual changes to ObamaCare are probably legal, but not necessarily ethical, saying this: "I think they have the legal authority to do this on the basis that the Supreme Court would allow a 'tweaking' of the law. But there's no doubt that this is being done for political reasons, they're not doing it for the good of the folks."

And let me add this for the people that do not know, the reason O'Reilly has 6 or 7 Republicans on to 1 or 2 Democrats every night is simple. Because he is a biased right-winger, so he has 95% Republicans on who agree with him, this makes it look like O'Reilly is right in his arguments and positions.

So you get the impression O'Reilly is right because everyone is agreeing with him. But those people agreeing with him are partisan Republicans who have a right-wing ideology, just like O'Reilly. Even when the lone Democrat is on, 99% of the time they are on with a Republican, so it's a 2 on 1 with O'Reilly and the Republican against the 1 Democrat, and they both spend most of the time talking telling the Democrat how wrong they are.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the drug war. Which is a total waste of time and not news, no matter what O'Reilly thinks about it nothing he says will change anything. So I suggest he stop these drug war segments and report some real news. Take note that Colmes was the only Democrat on the entire show, and he was not even allowed to talk about the O'Reilly TPM and the CBO report on Obamacare and people working less. That's because O'Reilly only wants you to hear the right-wing spin on it, not the real truth and the facts.

Then the right-wing loon John Stossel was on, he examined America's burgeoning culture of handouts and entitlements. And of course, no guest to give the other side of the debate, just the far-right stooge John Stossel.

Stossel said this: "You can see it in disability rates. Even though we have improved health care and fewer people doing manual labor, more people say they are disabled. It's just logical - if you reward people for being helpless, more people will act helpless. Before we had the trillion-dollar welfare state, we had private charities that were better at saying this guy needs help and this guy needs a kick in the rear."

Which is just a load of garbage, because it is harder to get on disability now, and the people that get it deserve it. If someone can not work and they are on disability they deserve help. Stossel just looks at stats and says they are fakers. When he has no clue, and he is an idiot. I would bet 99% of the people on disability are disabled, so prove me wrong Stossel, show me a report that says different, one that is not from Fox or a conservative group.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Must-See-DVD. Which I will not report, because it was not a tip of the day, O'Reilly just promoted the DVD movie about one of his lame books that came out.

Chris Christie Scandal News O'Reilly Ignored & Dismissed
By: Steve - February 12, 2014 - 10:00am

As if we needed it, here is more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who is defending Chris Christie and ignoring important news in the story. Where 5 people have resigned or got fired, and three of them took the 5th. But in the made up Fox News Benghazi scandal where ONE person resigned and took the 5th, O'Reilly is demanding more hearings and reports on it all the time.

Last week in the is it legal segment O'Reilly and Guilfoyle defended Christie, and then O'Reilly said I am not defending Christie, after he spent 4 minutes defending him. Lis Wiehl said it's a real scandal and Christie is in trouble, but she was barely able to get a word in with O'Reilly and Guilfoyle talking over her.

Wiehl said this: "He's in great jeopardy right now, with two separate investigations. One is at the state level and there is also a federal investigation. That means that the feds think there is enough there to open a grand jury investigation."

Guilfoyle pointed out that the case is long on accusations and innuendo, but short on proof, saying this: "He seems to be holding the course very well, saying he didn't know about this in advance. We know there has been a rush to judgment in the liberal media, across television and print, but if some evidence existed we would have seen it by now."

O'Reilly agreed with Guilfoyle and slammed the media for reporting the story too much, because he believes Christie and does not think he did anything wrong. Then O'Reilly said this: "I'm not defending Christie, who won't come on my show, but I haven't seen anything to convict him."

Now here are some facts we know about the story, and this is only a partial list, most of which O'Reilly has not reported. Because since the scandal broke O'Reilly has only done 3 short segments on it, while not reporting any important details in the case, all he does is say he believes Christie and complain the media is reporting on it more than they should.

Another shoe has just dropped in the Bridgegate scandal as Christina Renna, who was mentioned in the emails and is under subpoena, has resigned as Governor Christie's director of intergovernmental affairs.

The emails between Bridget Kelly and Christina Renna imply some outside understanding of the situation concerning the improper and illegal lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. Renna relays a conversation to Kelly about one of her staffers accidentally taking a call from the Mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, and her handling of it.

The tone of the email struck many as odd, especially when the email also pointed out that the reason Evan took the call is because Mayor Sokolich called on an unfamiliar number -- making it seem as though Christie staff were purposely avoiding his calls. Why? Were they ordered to?

It was also reported that every single person on the Christie staff, from the top down to the lowest of the low, knew not to take calls from the Fort Lee Mayor. So it's hard to believe that everyone on the Christie staff knew about this, but Christie himself did not.

The resignation of Christina Renna brings the count to five of members of Team Christie to be out of a job over the Bridgegate scandal, the others being; David Wildstein, Bill Baroni, Bridget Kelly, and Bill Stepien. Other members of Governor Christie's staff are implicated in a coverup of Bridgegate such as his Communications Director, Michael Drewniak.

O'Reilly never reported any of that, he just ignored it. While doing a 4 minute segment defending him, saying there is nothing there, and saying he has seen nothing to prove Christie is guilty of anything. O'Reilly also said if they had anything on him we would know about it by now, which is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

Because the 3 main people involved in the scandal are all taking the 5th, and they have just started getting the documents they asked for in the investigation. Not to mention, only 4 of the 14 people who were sent subpoenas have turned over the documents they were ordered to.

To claim there is nothing there, with 3 people taking the 5th, and 5 people who quit or were fired, and 2 investigations, where the information is just now being turned over, is insane. Especially when the Benghazi story has ONE person who quit and took the 5th, and in that case O'Reilly says because we have a person who quit and took the 5th it proves there is something there and there is a cover up.

O'Reilly makes a totally opposite argument for the same situation, depending on if it involves a Republican or a Democrat. If someone resigns and takes the 5th and it involves a Democrat, O'Reilly is all over it, reporting it 2 or 3 times a week, demanding hearings because he says if they resign and take the 5th they are hiding something and there is a cover up.

But when 5 people resign (or are fired) and 3 of them take the 5th under a Republican, O'Reilly rarely reports on it, ignores the details when he does, says he believes the Republican, and claims if they had something on him we would know by now, even though the 2 investigations are just starting and the documents are just being turned over.

And that's not all, in the past when Republicans were in trouble and under investigation in the Bush years, O'Reilly said we have to wait until the investigation is over and see what they find before he has a judgement on it. But now, in the Christie scandal he is not even waiting until the investigations are over, he is already saying he believes Christie.

It's classic O'Reilly, and if Christie is proven guilty he will just say oh well, I was wrong. Now move on and forget I was a biased right-wing hack who ignored the entire story for weeks on end. And believe he is a non-partisan Independent journalist, haha, not.

The Monday 2-10-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 11, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Holding Politicians Accountable. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I had a very nice talk with Nancy Pelosi and her husband at the White House in September. I gently asked whether she would be willing to talk with me on camera. She said absolutely and invited me to do the interview in her office. The exchange took place before a number of witnesses. But now Mrs. Pelosi is reneging and says I treated President Obama with 'disrespect.'

I asked Mr. Obama the questions that I believe are important to the country; I did so in a respectful way and he answered the way he wanted to. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, President Obama honored his word to me. It's troubling that the questions I asked were not asked before. One reason pertinent questions about the IRS, Benghazi, and ObamaCare were not asked is that many in the media are protecting President Obama.

Fox News anchor Geraldo Rivera was actually offended by the interview, which he called 'unsettling.' The truth is that there is enormous pressure from supporters of the president not to put him on the spot. Two White House correspondents, FNC's Ed Henry and ABC's Jonathan Karl, are the exceptions to the rule and do ask hard questions.

The mentality of some working for the president is that he is not to be challenged, but that's not the mentality here. I respect the office of the presidency, but it's my job to ask the toughest questions I can think of to everybody.
Haha, too bad O'Reilly. That is what you get for disrespecting the President. And Pelosi knows you are a biased right-wing hack, so she should (and probably) never will do your lame show. She most likely agreed to do your show to be nice at the time, and probably just to get you to go away and leave her alone. If I was the President (or any Democrat) I would never do your show, because you are a biased right-wing stooge.

Then the biased right-winger Brit Hume was on to talk about the White House press corps. And of course no liberal guest was on for balance, as usual.

Hume said this: "This is certainly a very different atmosphere than I encountered when I first went to cover the White House in 1989. The first President Bush was in office and there was an adversarial atmosphere at the White House, much more aggressive. This was still the hangover atmosphere from the Watergate era when the national press felt it had been embarrassed."

Hume then disagreed with Nancy Pelosi's contention that the White House interview on Super Bowl Sunday was disrespectful, saying this: "You kept the tone civil, the questions were relevant and appropriate, and you did what you had to do. But to a partisan of this president, your persistent questioning would come across as disrespectful."

And of course Hume would say that, because he is a biased Republican, and because O'Reilly is his friend. Here are the facts, everyone who is not a Republican thinks the interview was biased and disrespectful, the only people that do not think that are partisan Republicans who like O'Reilly and think he is an actual journalist.

Then Gary Lauer was on to say Obamacare is not working, with no guest to provide the counterpoint, so as usual it was a biased one sided segment by O'Reilly the so-called non-partisan Independent. Note to O'Reilly, it's kind of hard to get people to believe that you are not biased when you support 99% of the Republican positions, and 95% of your segments are one sided with right-wing guests and no Democrats on for balance.

Lauer said this: "There are some things that I like about this legislation, but I really broke with this when I heard the president say it's fixed. It's not fixed! Take a look at the enrollment numbers, you need a lot more young people in this thing. There are still a lot of ideologues who believe the way to make this work is through government alone. But the risk of failure is much higher going it alone as a government entity than bringing in some of the best of the private sector."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about what Lauer said.

Williams said this: "This was a very self-serving presentation. He's been telling the government he can do it better than anybody else and they should leave it up to him. He's a pawn for GOP spin, trying to make ObamaCare look like a failure."

Bingo! What a shocker, Juan Williams sounded like a Democrat for once. And he is exactly right, Lauer is a GOP spin doctor. And btw folks, Juan Williams was the only Democratic guest on the whole show, and he is a moderate Democrat who is conservative on a lot of the issues. So not one liberal was on the entire show, it was all Republicans but Juan.

Then of course the Republican Ham echoed Lauer's complaint about the bureaucracy's reluctance to work with private business, saying this: "The government has messed this up so badly. They're too incompetent to do it correctly but they're also too inflexible to get other people in, so you end up with this situation where people are not being served in the way they were promised."

Which is ridiculous, because it is working pretty good now, so Ham is out of touch with reality. Is it working perfect yet, no, but in a while it will be. Remember that it took a year to get Romneycare working right. So get back to me in about 8 months and see how it is doing then.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to kiss O'Reilly's butt and tell him how wrong Geraldo and everyone else are when they say his interview with Obama was biased and disrespectful. And of course no guest was on to give the counterpoint, making it a biased one sided joke of an interview.

Goldberg said this: "I didn't see a smidgen of disrespect on your part, but I understand why liberals might have seen disrespect. Were there interruptions? Yes, but so what? That is not disrespect. Geraldo said you stripped the president of 'his majesty,' but Barack Obama is not a king. Geraldo also said he didn't want to inject race, but one second later he brought race into it by reminding you that Barack Obama is the first African American president."

Said the weekly Factor regular and only media watchdog for O'Reilly, who is a Republican and has to kiss O'Reilly's butt or he will not get on tv anymore, because no other show would have him on.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he visited Washington to confront former Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her promise to sit down for an interview, he spoke with other legislators about the prospective O'Reilly-Pelosi interview. That nobody cares about, and O'Reilly is just trying to do to get ratings from his biased right-wing viewers.

Here's some of what they said: Republican Congressman Steve King: "There's no reason the queen of San Francisco couldn't do an interview with Bill O'Reilly." Republican Senator Ted Cruz: "In one interview with Bill O'Reilly, 100 times more people will see her than in her usual hit on MSNBC."

Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn: "Bill should give her a Factor mug and a couple of his books." Republican Congressman Peter King: "It's a good chance for San Francisco to meet Levittown, to have the elite meet the working class people." Finally, Republican Senator John McCain delivered the coup de grace: "After you do the interview then you'll know what's in it, just like Affordable Health Care."

My God that was so lame, how is that news, and why does Watters have a segment on the show, it's worthless garbage that nobody cares about. And it's not news, on a so-called hard news show.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Let the Bidding Begin! Billy said this: "My hand-written notes for the White House interview, signed by both Bill and President Obama, are now up for auction here on BillOReilly.com. For a donation of $25 or more, you can snag a high quality replica of the notes. The proceeds will go to the Fisher House, which helps families of wounded veterans."

Lawmakers Vote To Reject Christie Staffers Taking The 5th
By: Steve - February 11, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because he is a biased right-wing hack who is covering for Christie.

The state legislative committee investigating the George Washington Bridge scandal Monday voted to compel Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Stepien to produce the documents they have refused to provide by citing their Fifth Amendment rights against incrimination and other objections.

The committee voted 8-0 with all four Republicans abstaining to reject the objections raised by the two, to set a new due date for documents and to authorize its special counsel, Reid Schar, to "take all necessary steps" to enforce the subpoenas.

A co-chairman of the committee, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, said after the meeting that new subpoenas would be issued Monday night or Tuesday morning. He declined to specify how many were issued or to whom, but said it was more than a dozen.

The developments came after the panel met for more than 90 minutes behind closed doors to receive advice from Schar. Republicans on the panel said they were abstaining because they were only provided information about the actions taken when they arrived today for the hearing.

Two people subpoenaed by the committee -- Kelly, Christie's former deputy chief of staff whom he fired last month, and Stepien, his two-time campaign manager -- have refused to provide records, citing the Fifth Amendment.

Christie cut ties with Stepien, who managed both is gubernatorial campaigns, after the emails revealed him mocking the mayor of Fort Lee.

"We have provided the Committee with a detailed explanation of our constitutional and common law objections to the subpoena," an attorney for Stepien, Kevin Marino, said in a statement. "If the Committee asks a court to enforce that subpoena despite its legal infirmities, we will bring those objections to the court’s attention."

An attorney for Kelly could not immediately be reached for comment.

The panel is investigating who made the decision to close two of three local access lanes at the nation's busiest bridge, causing days of traffic jams in Fort Lee. Democrats have accused Christie's office of orchestrating the closings as political payback because Fort Lee's Democratic mayor declined to endorse the governor for re-election.

The governor has said he had nothing to do with the lane closures and knew nothing about them before they occurred. His office became embroiled in the scandal last month, when an e-mail surfaced between Kelly and David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who has since resigned.

Boehner Drops Immigration Bill Because Of Talk Radio Fear
By: Steve - February 10, 2014 - 11:00am

So instead of getting an Immigration bill up for a vote in the House, Republican Speaker John Boehner said there will not be a vote until they can trust the President. Which is a total load of bull, and O'Reilly even named him pinhead of the week for it, saying this:
O'REILLY: "I believe Boehner is secretly a Democrat because it's always the 'party of no.' This is handing a big gift to the Democratic Party by driving away Hispanic voters."
Now of course O'Reilly only did that because he is mad for what Boehner did, because he thinks it will hurt the Republicans in getting hispanic votes they need to win in 2016, and he sure does not want another Democratic President in the White House.

And we all know the truth, Boehner dropped it because the far-right have him scared, Rush Limbaugh etc. The Wall Street Journal said Boehner dropped the bill because of fear of talk-radio backlash.

Right-wing radio has been urging Speaker of the House John Boehner to back away from the immigration reform guidelines he had outlined last month -- last week he cowed to their demands, prompting The Wall Street Journal to highlight his fear of a talk-radio backlash.

January 30: Boehner Proposed A Set Of Immigration Reform Principles. During a news conference on the annual House GOP retreat, Boehner distributed a two-page list of immigration reform principles for his party to consider.

February 6: Boehner Backed Away From Immigration Reform. One week after outlining House GOP leadership's vision for immigration reform, Boehner abruptly announced that "it's going to be difficult to move any immigration reform legislation," blaming mistrust in the Obama administration.

Even though border crossing are down and deportations are up under Obama. Under Obama less people have crossed the border than under Bush, and Obama has deported more people than Bush did, Obama also put more border patrol agents on the border than Bush had. And yet, they still have this lame do not trust Obama to enforce the border talking points propaganda, when they are really just scared of the far-right and talk radio.

Wall Street Journal: "House GOP Fear Of A Talk-Radio Backlash" To Blame For Failure To Move On Immigration. The Wall Street Journal accused Boehner of abandoning immigration reform efforts out of fear of a talk-radio backlash:
WSJ: Conservatives and the GOP are as responsible for the failure on immigration. The populist wing of the party has talked itself into believing the zero-sum economics that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens and reduce American living standards.

Neither claim is true, but Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.

So great is the House GOP fear of a talk-radio backlash that it won't even pass smaller bills that 75% of Republicans agree on. There will be nothing to codify the legal status of children of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades.

And no expanded green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, a policy Mitt Romney endorsed. And no cleaning up the work-visa morass that has obliged U.S. farmers to hire illegals to harvest their crops.
The far-right they fear are really 4 people, Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, and Ingraham. That's it, 4 far-right nuts are holding up the House immigration bill that the vast majority of Americans support, including 66% of Republicans.

Rush Limbaugh: On the January 30 edition of his radio program, Limbaugh spoke about House Republicans immigration proposals and disparaged immigration reform, which he labeled "amnesty," as "the mother of all scams." Limbaugh said that immigration reform would signal "the end of the Republican party," and argued that Republicans supporting it would "preside over their own demise" because of personal monetary gain.

Mark Levin: Mark Levin likened immigration reform to "the destruction of your society" and "the unraveling of your society" on the January 30 edition of his radio show. He smeared House Republicans' proposed principles, saying "there is nothing humane or compassionate" about it and arguing that "this is not a civil rights issue."

Sean Hannity: On the February 4 edition of his radio show, Sean Hannity cited the Republican proposals on immigration as why "I keep saying we need new leadership in the House." He said of House GOP members, "The fact is they are out of touch with a big part of their base" for supporting immigration reform.

Laura Ingraham: During a discussion with Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) on the February 4 edition of her radio show, Ingraham told him that "we don't want any bill." And that Republican politicians supporting Immigration reform "are In violation of their oath of office."

Think about that folks, 4 far-right loons are holding up the immigration bill, that almost everyone but them support, Democrats and Republicans, and it's a bill that would most likely pass. Even a majority of Republicans support it. But Boehner is so scared of the 4 talk-radio loons that he will not bring it up for a vote.

A January 2014 Fox News poll even found that among Republican respondents, 60 percent support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

In an August 2013 interview with The Washington Post, "respected veteran Republican pollster" Whit Ayres said that the majority of Republican voters do support immigration reform, and want to see something done on the issue. His polls show that even two thirds of Republican primary voters support it.

It's madness, and it shows that Boehner is a partisan joke. Instead of doing what the will of the vast majority of America wants, which is pass the immigration bill, he will not even bring it up for a vote, because of 4 far-right loons who have talk radio shows.

Because he is scared they will say bad things about him if he does, and it could cost him his speakers position. And the worst part (for the Republicans) is that it will also hurt the Republican party, and could help Hillary Clinton be the next President. But Boehner does not care, he is putting his speaker of the House job ahead of the will of the people, just to keep his job, and to keep the 4 far-right talk radio loons happy with him.

Geraldo Slams O'Reilly For "Unsettling" Obama Interview
By: Steve - February 9, 2014 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly disagreed, saying he did nothing wrong. So the million people that think O'Reilly did a biased and disrespectful interview of the President are all wrong. Everyone is wrong, and Bill O'Reilly is right, according to Bill O'Reilly.

To hear Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News Senior Correspondent, tell it, Bill O'Reilly is the "President of most of the white guys in America." Rivera made the charge during an interview with O'Reilly.

This was not a classic interview. What you had here with you and President Obama was a culture clash. It is almost as if you were two equals with opposite worldviews, coming together for a confrontation. It was the president of most of the white guys in America - that's you - and Barack Obama, the president of almost everybody else.

"You de-minimized him," said Rivera.

O'Reilly and Rivera got into a couple heated discussions that started with O'Reilly admitting that he was wrong.

This is how it started, with O'Reilly denying to Geraldo, that he called President Barack Obama a "community organizer." The denial came on Rivera's radio show.

"You brought up that he was a community organizer," charged Rivera.

"No I didn't. I never used that. I never said that," said O'Reilly.

"You did so say that," insisted Rivera.

Later, on his own television show, O'Reilly admitted his error and corrected the record and brought Rivera on his show.

So once again O'Reilly is caught in a lie, using known right-wing insults, he called Obama a community organizer from Chicago during the interview, which is an insult the Republicans use against Obama all the time, saying he should not be President because he was just a community organizer, and O'Reilly knows that.

And yet, he denied it was an insult, when it clearly is. Then he denied saying it, when he did. And btw, he would have never denied saying it if he did not know it was an insulting term. If he did not know it was an insulting term, he would not have denied saying it, he would have said "yeah I said it, so what" instead he denied saying it, which shows that he knew it was insulting and a bad thing to say to a sitting President.

"And I did so say that about President Obama," said O'Reilly. He then scoffed at being called out, justifying calling the president a "community organizer" by saying, "I had forgotten since it was so inconsequential."

So after getting caught in the lie he tried to justify saying it, with some lame excuse about how he just forgot he said it, yeah right.

During their six-minute interview, Geraldo Rivera called out Bill O'Reilly over his blatant show of disrespect toward the President of the United States, in his pre-Super Bowl interview last weekend. He said it was "unsettling to watch," and the president deserves "all the respect and dignity" of the office.

The most explosive charge made by Rivera, is the same charge that is being made by many on the left, and supporters of Obama and the more important, the presidency. It was that O'Reilly was simply appealing to the Fox News base of the older, white Americans that are openly hateful toward Obama.

In a shot at the poorly run campaign of Mitt Romney, Rivera said, "You were Mitt Romney's older brother, only sharper, more confident and more informed." Rivera was firm in telling off O'Reilly that he was too confrontational and didn’t give Obama the kind of respect a president normally deserves.

In another explosive charge, Rivera said it was out of line for O'Reilly to refer to Obama as a "community organizer."

"You didn't use the past tense" in calling him a "community organizer." The offense was "profound" and Rivera found it "unsettling to watch," and that the president deserves "all the respect and dignity" of the office.

O'Reilly fired back that his job is not to please, it's to "get information" and ask "the tough questions," and believed that he gave enough deference and respect to the office of the presidency.

O'Reilly asked a legitimate question about "inner-city families," but told O'Reilly that his point was "obscured" by how he "minimized" the president, and more important, the presidency.

Geraldo was exactly right, O'Reilly did a biased and disrespectful interview with President Obama, O'Reilly also made a fool of himself and left no doubt that he is a biased right-wing hack. He asked all the questions the right-wing loons wanted him to ask, while ignoring questions about issues the people care about, like the economy, jobs, etc. then he is shocked when people claim it was a biased interview, give me a break.

O'Reilly played to his right-wing base, so he could go back on his show at Fox and be a hero to his viewers. Which he was, but now everyone else has seen what a biased right-wing stooge he is, even though he denies it, the proof is in what you see.

And what you see is a biased right-wing host of a cable news show on Fox, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. When the reality shows he is as biased as Hannity or Limbaugh, the only difference is they admit to being conservatives, O'Reilly lies about it.

Another Crazy Anti-Gay Republican O'Reilly Failed To Report About
By: Steve - February 9, 2014 - 10:00am

And they wonder why they do not get the gay vote or the black vote, here is a good example.

A candidate running for one of Michigan's seats on the Republican National Committee wants gays "purged" from the GOP and claims homosexuality is a perversion created by Satan.

Mary Helen Sears, vice chair of the Michigan Republican Party's 1st District, wrote a post on the Schoolcraft County GOP website claiming that homosexuals prey on children, arguing that "Satan uses homosexuality to attack the living space of the Holy Spirit."

She also said that Republicans "as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent."

Sears is currently running for a seat on the Republican National Committee recently vacated by Terri Lynn Land who resigned her seat, saying she wanted to focus on her U.S. Senate campaign.

In her post on the Schoolcraft County GOP website, Sears wrote that Communist college professors were guilty of indoctrinating young people and claimed that Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory "gave rise to Hitler's Third Reich, Mussolini's Italy and Stalin's Russia."

"If the GOP continues down this trend and stand for perversions and the daily social fad," Sears wrote "The GOP will be truly dead and Satan will have had his day."

Michigan Republican Party communications director, Darren Littel, said that, while the GOP supports a traditional definition of marriage, "we also believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect and these comments clearly don't reflect those principles."

Even though 80% of your party agrees with her, you just try to keep it a secret.

Should she be elected, Sears would join former state lawmaker Dave Agema, who has a history of anti-gay statements, in representing Michigan and the RNC.

And of course O'Reilly never reports on these nuts because they are in the Republican party, that he supports, and he does not want to make them look like the loons they are. But if a Democrat says something crazy O'Reilly is all over it, proving his bias once again.

The Friday 2-7-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 8, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Handling the Truth. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This has been a very interesting week as the country continues to digest my interview with President Obama. All I was trying to get at was the truth, but some people cannot handle the truth, so let's cut through the fog. On immigration, the Republican Party says it will not try to get reform this year. 68% of Americans want a pathway to citizenship, so the truth is that Republicans are hurting themselves.

On ObamaCare, the truth is that it's still chaos. Right now the health care law is hurting more Americans than it's helping. How about the IRS? The truth is that the agency did target conservative groups and misuse its power. On Iran, the Obama administration is doing the right thing. The truth is that if you don't engage the mullahs they'll develop nukes anyway.

On Benghazi, the truth is that the powers in Washington did not control the situation before, during, or after. Did the president participate in a cover up? We don't know. And on social justice and poverty, the truth is brutal. 10% of Americans will always be poor because they are irresponsible. 5% of the population is poor through no fault of their own and should be helped, but a nanny state is not going to help the poor.

Some of them will abuse the entitlements and some will settle for the minimum. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help, but it does mean we should have discipline in the process. And that's the truth!
Now remember this, that so-called truth is based on the biased right-wing opinions of Bill O'Reilly, who spins everything to the right to make the left look bad. O'Reilly is lying about Benghazi and the IRS, and the rest is spin. So take it with a grain of salt, and think about this, the majority of Americans agree with the Democratic party on almost every issue facing the country today, the polls prove it, but you will never hear that from O'Reilly because he does not want you to know the real truth.

Then of course 2 wealthy Republicans were on to discuss it, Sabrina Schaeffer and Steve Adubato. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Adubato said this: "On the issue of the poor, it sounded like you're saying, 'They're going to be the way they are, we can't help them.' The truth I see is that we have no choice but to provide them drug and alcohol assistance, to provide child care to women who want to work. I don't write them off."

Schaeffer said this: "One of the worst things is that President Obama and others in the Democratic Party perpetuate myths. The one that bothers me is the 'wage gap,' that women are in poverty because they only make 77 cents for every dollar made by men. And on health care, the administration knew all of these problems existed, but they just didn't want to admit it."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the O'Reilly interview with Obama, he pointed out that O'Reilly said President Obama was once a community organizer in Chicago, which he called insulting to the President.

Geraldo said this: "This was a culture clash, it was almost as if you were two equals with opposite worldviews coming together for a confrontation. It was the president of most white guys in America - that's you - and Barack Obama, the president of almost everybody else. The discussion didn't have the decorum and deference and respect you pay that office. When you say to the President of the United States, 'You're a community organizer from Chicago,' that's like me saying to you, 'You're a Carvel ice cream salesman from Long Island. The offense was profound and to watch it was unsettling to me."

And I would say Geraldo was right and wrong, he was right to point out that it was insulting to say the President was once a community organizer. that's an insult the right-wingers use against him all the time. But he was wrong about the culture clash, because it was an ideology clash, O'Reilly is an old right-wing stooge, and Obama is a younger liberal.

There is a culture difference, but most of it was just O'Reilly the right-wing hack, against a liberal President, who he does not like. O'Reilly is opposed to everything Obama has done and wants to do, because he is a Republican and he supports about 99% of the Republican agenda.

Then the biased right-wing Lou Dobbs was on to talk about a new report showing that America's poorest 20% will benefit from ObamaCare. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, just the biased Dobbs spinning out his right-wing opinions.

Dobbs said this: "The poor will see their income rise by about 6%, but the report is important because it also says that every other income group will have to pay more. The president assured us that the health care law would tax the top five or ten percent, but it turns out that people start getting hit at $21,000 a year."

Then O'Reilly had the draft-dodging insulting and revolting far-right loon Ten Nugent on, who has said the most vile and racist things about President Obama, Hillary Clinton, other Democrats etc. And of course it was a total softball interview, it was all fluff about rock and the other rockers Nugent knows and what they think about him.

A simple google search of Ted Nugent quotes brings up link after link of racist and offensive things Nugent has said, like this:

NUGENT: "I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up," he said, adding "Obama, he's a piece of s**t. I told him to suck on my machine gun."

NUGENT: "Yeah they love me in Japan, they're still a-holes. These people they don't know what life is. I don’t have a following, they need me; they don’t like me they need me... Foreigners are scum; I don’t like 'em; I don't want 'em in this country; I don't want 'em selling me doughnuts; I don't want 'em pumping my gas; I don't want 'em downwind of my life-OK? So anyhow, and I'm dead serious..."

NUGENT: "I use the word n****r a lot because I hang around with a lot of n****rs, and they use the word n****r, and I tend to use words that communicate," he said about African Americans.

That is the guy Billy loves, and kids around with. O'Reilly did not ask one question about any of the racist or offensive things Nugent has said about the President or Hillary, it was just pathetic how O'Reilly kissed his ass. O'Reilly loved him, laughed at everything he said, and at the end even called him one of a kind. Nugent is the worst kind of offensive and racist far-right nut. He was even visited by the secret service after comments he made about Obama, and O'Reilly never said a word about it.

Then Bernard McGuirk and Gretchen Carlson were on to talk about Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno. And of course, no Democratic guests for balance.

McGuirk said this: "Seinfeld's show parodied Jewish culture, and if he had black people on and parodied black culture he'd be accused of racism."

Carlson said this: "This has permeated culture to the point where you have reporters asking Jerry Seinfeld about this. It would be like saying the show 'Girls' should have more boys on it."

McGuirk also weighed in on Jay Leno's final Tonight Show, saying this: "It was moving and I'm sorry to see the guy go. It's a big blunder on NBC's part, they're bringing in a younger guy because their shallow mindset puts a premium on youth."

Then they named the pinheads of the week. Carlson went with Nancy Pelosi, who claimed ObamaCare gives Americans the freedom to pursue their dreams. "She's making it sound like people will suddenly find their passion, but I'm not for people just sitting home and collecting subsidies instead of going out and finding a job."

Which is not what Pelosi said, and of course the right-wing stooge Carlson spins it, and O'Reilly let her.

McGuirk singled out New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is refusing to march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade because parade organizers don't allow gay banners. "This controversy peaked in the early 90's but now he's bringing it back, so the regression of New York City has begun. I support gay rights, but this is a private event that honors St. Patrick. Bolshevik Bill de Blasio is being a religious bigot."

O'Reilly picked Republican Speaker John Boehner, who shut down immigration reform legislation. "I believe Boehner is secretly a Democrat because it's always the 'party of no.' This is handing a big gift to the Democratic Party by driving away Hispanic voters."

And for the first time I can remember a Republican was named a pinhead in this biased segment, but of course O'Reilly only did it because he is mad at Boehner, because he thinks it will cost Republicans votes from hispanics.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Fill It Up With Premium. Billy said this: "There is a myriad of benefits to becoming a Premium Member here on BillOReilly.com, so check it out over the weekend."

Ummmm, no thanks. If I want to pay for right-wing propaganda I will just go to the source and get it from the RNC.

More Proof O'Reilly Wrong About Bias In The Media
By: Steve - February 8, 2014 - 10:00am

Last year O'Reilly did a show crying about bias from the late night comedians, Leno, Kimmel, Letterman. He said they are biased against Republicans and that it could hurt those Republicans when they run for office, as in Congress or even the White House.

Even though that is ridiculous, because nobody is going to base their vote on a joke a late night comedian told them. Not to mention, they have comedy shows and they get paid to do jokes because they are comedians. That was the claim from O'Reilly. And now we find out he was even wrong about that, because it turns out that Jay Leno did far more jokes about Bill Clinton than any Republican, even Bush.

Leno did 4,607 jokes about Bill Clinton, while only doing 3,239 about George W. Bush, and that's not all. What makes it even worse for O'Reilly is that when you add the jokes Leno did about Gore, Obama, and Hillary it's about 7,600 total jokes about Democrats, to only 3,239 about Bush.

Even if you add jokes about Bush Sr., Quayle, Romney, Cheney, Palin, Gingrich, McCain, Perot, and Bob Dole, it's only about 5,600, which is still 1,000 less jokes about the 10 Republicans than the 4 Democrats.

So it turns out that Leno did far more jokes about Democrats than Republicans, which is the opposite of what O'Reilly said. Proving that he is a liar, and he does not use facts to make his arguments, he is biased and he just makes stuff up to fit his right-wing ideology and his partisan agenda.

And he even tried to use the late night comedians to make a political argument, when they do not care about politics, they are comedians who are going to do jokes about people in the news that get a laugh. They have no partisan agenda, they do jokes about Republicans and Democrats, all they care about is getting laughs. So basically O'Reilly just made it all up in his warped brain.

Florida County Spent $5 Million To Jail Homeless People
By: Steve - February 8, 2014 - 9:00am

This is where Government goes wrong, very wrong. Over a 10 year period one Florida county spent more than $5 million dollars jailing the same 37 homeless people over and over. Which is just insane, because they could have bought all 37 of them $100,000 houses and it would have only cost $3.7 million dollars, saving $1.3 million.

Over the past decade, municipalities in Florida's Osceola County, just southeast of Orlando, have spent more than $5 million to repeatedly jail three dozen homeless people for quality-of-life offenses.

Rather than major crimes like assault or burglary, nearly every one of these arrests were because of violations of local ordinances prohibiting activities that many homeless people do to survive, such as sleeping in public or panhandling.

The data was collected by Impact Homelessness, an advocacy group in central Florida. The organization identified 37 homeless people in Osceola County who were collectively arrested 1,250 times between 2004 and 2013 at a cost of $104 per booking.

During that time, these people spent 61,896 days incarcerated at an average cost of $80 per day. Altogether, Osceola County communities spent $5,081,680 over the past decade to repeatedly jail just 37 homeless people.

Each year, Osceola County municipalities paid approximately $15,000 each per individual to repeatedly incarcerate them. But this data actually underestimates the amount of money the county spent on each homeless person because it doesn't account for other major costs, including ambulances, emergency room admissions, and other medical treatments.

One of those individuals, whose name was not given, accounted for nearly $400,000 of that total alone.

"It makes no sense," Andrae Bailey, CEO of Central Florida Commission on Homelessness said. "The police look bad, the community looks bad, and it does nothing to solve the problem."

A far cheaper option than criminalizing and jailing the homeless is to provide them with permanent supportive housing. An average permanent supportive housing unit in Osceola County costs $9,602 per year, which includes $8,244 for rent and utility subsidies and $1,358 for a case manager (with a case load of 30 clients).

In other words, each supported housing unit costs the county 40 percent less than what they're currently paying to put homeless residents in jail.

"The answer is housing," Bailey argued. "If mayors and county commissioners and community leaders want to solve a problem like Osceola County has, they need to invest in permanent supportive housing."

However, right now there are just 26 permanent supportive housing units in the entire county, far less than what's needed for the 237 chronically homeless individuals identified in last year's homeless census.

Now who wants to bet me the reason they do not have more supportive housing units is because Republicans will not approve the money for it, because they do not believe in helping the homeless with taxpayer money. So they spend 60% more of the taxpayers money to jail them over and over, which is just stupid.

The Thursday 2-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 7, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Democrats and Benghazi. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: One of the major positives coming out of my presidential interview is that I learned a lot. The far right is making a huge mistake in thinking that President Obama is actively trying to harm the nation. He is not, and his overriding concern can be summed up in two words: social justice. The president sincerely believes the deck is stacked against minority Americans and many working poor people, and he is trying to right that perceived wrong.

Accepting that premise, you begin to understand his posture on almost every other issue. Take Benghazi, where the president believes the issue is trumped up by Fox News and others. He doesn't see Benghazi or the IRS situation or the ObamaCare screw-ups as important in the long run. He sees them as mistakes, believes we should all move on and support his goal of social justice.

Presidents Nixon and Clinton also thought their troubles were inconsequential because they believed what they were doing for the country was far more important. Talking Points believes that the Benghazi, IRS, and ObamaCare stories are very important to the nation, but President Obama and his supporters disagree. But the president has brought some scrutiny upon himself by claiming the Benghazi attacks were 'not some systematic, organized process.'

Based upon our investigation here, the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was an organized terrorist action. Also, there is strong suspicion that the Obama reelection campaign did not want that made public because it could lose the president some votes. That's a big deal.
Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to discuss it.

Chaffetz said this: "I thought the president was elusive. I would like to ask him, 'Mr. President, the Benghazi facility was attacked three times in 2012, what did you do to protect our facility after it had already been bombed twice?' Nobody has ever asked him that question."

Chaffetz also said this: "He went to the United Nations, he went on The View, and he went on Univision up to two weeks after the attack and was still talking about the video."

O'Reilly was mad and he urged Chaffetz's committee to get testimony from former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, saying this: "He's the key, put him under oath! Nobody has asked him under oath if he told the president that it was a terror attack. I'm asking you to get your butt in gear and get your committee to get Panetta in there."

Folks, this is right-wing insanity. It's over, they had the hearings and we heard all we needed to know. O'Reilly is a right-wing idiot, and that is a fact. And I would bet the farm that if Hillary Clinton said today that she was not going to run for President in 2016, O'Reilly and the Republicans would drop all Benghazi reporting in 2 seconds. And one last thing, in the 8 years Bush was in office there were multiple attacks on American embassies, and something like 19 people were killed.

But not once has O'Reilly or any Republican asked for hearings to find out why, they do not care. But they want a million hearings over Benghazi, it's i-n-s-a-n-e and total right-wing bias. Mistakes were made in Benghazi, and those mistakes were talked about and we hope it never happens again, case closed. And I will never talk about it again, or report what O'Reilly says about it.

Then Dana Perino was on to cry with O'Reilly about how the rest of the media is slamming O'Reilly for his biased and disrespectful interview of President Obama. And of course Perino took the side of O'Reilly, she is a Republican and works for Fox.

Perino said this: "I thought your interview was just fine in terms of tone, and some people are arguing that you weren't aggressive enough. Journalists flock to protect the president from any tough questioning, so they always think that it's nasty. But nobody ever thought the questions to George W. Bush were nasty. I warned President Bush that you would interrupt him because you'd want to cover a lot of ground in the time we had allotted. President Bush expected tough questions."

Then the biased paid right-wing stooge Karl Rove was on to cry with O'Reilly about how the rest of the media is covering the Chris Christie scandal.

Rove said this: "Don't just look at MSNBC, they're the tool. Look behind them and you'll see a lot of Democrats, particularly those concerned about 2016. They looked at Christie and saw him as the front-runner on the Republican side. Their object is to tear him down and to send a message to other Republicans that this is the treatment you can expect. Christie is clearly interested in being a presidential candidate, he's ambitious, and they want to take him down."

O'Reilly criticized the anti-Christie barrage, saying this: "It is a big story if it can be proven that the governor lied to the people, but there isn't anything coming out."

Talk about tools, you 2 are massive right-wing tools. And the fact that you cry about the media coverage of Christie and claim nothing has come out to show he did anything wrong, is 100% proof you are biased right-wing stooges. Because if either one of you had an ounce of objective reporting in your body, you would not be crying about the media reporting it. Especially O'Reilly, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent. When you complain about this stuff you prove you are a right-wing stooge, dont you understand that?

Then Heather Nauert was on to respond to letters from angry viewers. One of them, Sean Conrad of Montana, is mad because it took the death of a famous actor to spur action against heroin dealers in New York.

Nauert said this: "I had the same reaction. We hear about people dying all the time from overdoses and rarely do we hear about the arrest of dealers. But I spoke with one narcotics official who told me there could have been an ongoing investigation into these dealers."

Another viewer, Donna Kay Furniss, complained because President Obama showed up to the pre-Super Bowl interview sans necktie.

Nauert said this: "People used to dress up for important occasions, and the topics you were going to discuss were important and deserved a little more respect."

Wow, this is garbage, and not news. Nobody cares, drop this worthless segment and report some real news.

Then the Republican Megyn Kelly was on, she reported on the serious problems facing visitors to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

Kelly said this: "Just be glad you're here, because not only are half the hotels not built, but the water isn't drinkable in many of these hotels and it'll burn your skin. You cannot take a shower, construction workers and stray dogs are coming in and out of the hotels, there's a pillow shortage for the athletes, and people are reporting bugs in their food. The runner-up city to host these games was Salzburg, Austria, which would have been perfect."

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the idiot Speaker of the House John Boehner, who now says that immigration reform should be delayed until next year at the earliest.

Ingraham said this: "We don't have any credibility in immigration. Obama has brought down the deportation level and there's a big welcome mat at the border. We have to do border enforcement and we have to have employment verification. We also have to make it more difficult for people who are in this country illegally to stay here - they can't be opening up bank accounts and getting drivers licenses and other benefits. People want the rule of law and the Constitution followed."

Which is ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin. When she says people, she means Republicans who hate Mexicans and they will use any excuse they can to keep as many Mexicans out of the country as possible. In fact, I would not doubt that she goes to white power meetings on the weekends.

Take note of this folks, not one liberal guest was on the entire show, not one Democratic guest either, O'Reilly did not even have one of the fake Fox News pretend Democrats on either, every single guest was a Republican, which is not fair and not balanced. And a shocking thing to do at this time, when O'Reilly is trying to fool people into thinking he is not a biased right-wing stooge. It's just more proof he is, and everyone knows it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Deliver on Your Promises. Billy said this: "When you look someone in the eye and say you'll do something, do it! If you don't, you lose respect because your word is no good."

Don't Look Now O'Reilly: You Are Wrong Again About Obamacare
By: Steve - February 7, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly said that Obamacare will be a failure and that it will cost everyone more money, which of course was a lie, and a new study from PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Research Institute found that health plans offered through the Affordable Care Act exchanges were 20% less expensive than comparable employer-provided coverage.

The only people who will pay more are the wealthy who can afford it, everyone else pays less, and that is a fact, and yet O'Reilly used the Republican talking points to lie it would cost more, even as he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who does not use Republican talking points.

The study compared the lowest-priced gold and platinum plans (80% and 90% coverage, respectively), which researches said were equivalent to the average employer-backed plans, which cover an average of 85% of medical expenses.

A spokesperson for the HRI said that overall cost is the driving factor in coverage selection.

HRI said that the increased competition in networks, and the lower premiums that result, will likely compel employers to segue into similar plans, creating a marketplace of increased competition for narrower networks.

"I think we're really going to learn a lot about what consumers want now that they really have this opportunity to choose from a lot of different plans," said Ceci Connolly, managing director for HRI. "And ultimately competition coming to health care is a good and healthy thing."

And of course O'Reilly did not report any of this, because if he did he would have to admit he was wrong, and that everything he said about Obamacare was nothing but right-wing propaganda, which he will never do in this lifetime.

Tea Party Idiot Says Obama Should Be Executed As An Enemy Combatant
By: Steve - February 7, 2014 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored this story, but if a Democrat said this about Bush O'Reilly would be all over it.

At a recent Tea Party event in Oklahoma, the discussion centered around whether or not to execute Pres. Obama for his "crimes against America."

Tea Party Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) stood quietly while a woman in the audience asked about "the Muslims that Obama is shipping into our country through pilots and commercial jets," before moving on to say, "Obama, he's not president, as far as I'm concerned, he should be executed as an enemy combatant," drawing a big laugh from the crowd.

She continued, calling the president a "criminal" and claiming that congress is "doing nothing and that legally allows this moron to make decisions. He has no authority, none!"

Then a different woman got the microphone and said that "we should impeach the SOB!"

And that ridiculous comment drew even more laughter from the crowd.

Adding insult to injury, Congressman Bridenstine, rather than call out her disrespect towards our highest office, actually found the whole thing funny, laughing and responding sarcastically, "You know, you look so sweet!"

It's Official: O'Reilly's Giant Ego Is Off The Charts
By: Steve - February 6, 2014 - 2:00pm

If you want a good laugh, just read this:

Bill O'Reilly has been getting a lot of negative feedback for his big Super Bowl interview with President Obama, and during an interview on Geraldo Rivera's radio show Thursday, O'Reilly predicted that his interview will "go down in journalistic history," in spite of the wave of criticism O'Reilly got for perhaps not giving the office of the presidency the deference and respect it deserves.

So after I was done laughing for 5 minutes, I thought about it, and here is my opinion. In a week nobody will remember anything about the lame, biased, and disrespectful interview O'Reilly did with President Obama.

The only people who will even remember it after a week are the right-wing stooges who thought O'Reilly did a good job, and after 2 weeks nobody will ever mention it again, except maybe some Journalism Professors who use it to teach Journalism students how not to do an interview with anyone, let alone the President of the United States.

O’Reilly actually said that he was absolutely fair to Obama and let the president know ahead of time he wanted it to be a "conversation" more so than an interview.

Geraldo (who works for Fox News and is friends with O'Reilly btw) noted Obama's sporadic references to Fox News, and O'Reilly explained "we're an annoyance to him. I'm not disrespectful, I'm being persistent, that's my job."

O'Reilly also told Geraldo that anyone who was bothered by that interview at all "is annoyed because of ideology," and made this rather bold claim about how well it actually went down.

Then O'Reilly said this: "I'm going to predict that that interview I did is going to go down in journalistic history as what should be done... It takes a certain skill to pose questions in a factual way and be persistent without being disrespectful."

Which is just laughable, and not part of any reality I know of. O'Reilly was dishonest and disrespectful to the President, his questions were biased and he is biased. The interview was a laughing stock with the entire country who saw it or read it online, except for the partisan right-wingers who love O'Reilly and hate Obama, who loved it.

The vast majority of the people care about the economy, jobs, debt, the deficit, health care, immigration reform, taxes, income equality, and gun policy. O'Reilly never asked the President about any of that, instead all he talked about were a laundry list of out-dated old fake right-wing scandals made up by the Republicans, like Benghazi, the IRS, and Obamacare.

Nothing about the economy, jobs, immigration, taxes, guns, nothing, It was all right-wing propaganda based questions about things that are history and that nobody cares about. O'Reilly did it to look good for his right-wing base that watch his show, and to get his ratings up, which worked in the short term. Because he had 4 million viewers on Monday, but on Tuesday it was back down the 3 million, so he lost a million viewers in one day.

And of course O'Reilly can not admit to any of this, because he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. Even though it's the worst secret in the history of the world, because everyone who watches just one Factor show can see that O'Reilly is a 100% right-wing propagandist.

He is not an Independent, he is a pro-life, pro-corporation, partisan Republican who agrees with the Republican party on 99% of the issues facing the country today, and there is no such thing as a no spin zone. In fact, it's almost an all right-wing spin zone, because not only do you have O'Reilly spinning out 99% right-wing ideology, the guests he has on are 95% Republicans to only 5% Democrats.

The Wednesday 2-5-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 6, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Making Jon Stewart understand his country. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The left in this country is extremely creative; they spin and put out stuff that never ceases to amaze. The latest is about my interview with President Obama. The spin is that I dealt with phony issues, stuff trumped up by Fox News. Jon Stewart accused me of 'dipping wholesale into the faux Fox scandal grab bag.' He echoed President Obama by saying that some of the issues I brought up have been 'thoroughly investigated.'

That's a farce. There have been no cogent explanations about why the administration misled the world over Benghazi. With the IRS, there has been no explanation about who was behind the targeting of conservative groups. And on ObamaCare, only 8% of people using the website say it's working well. These issues are not important to Jon Stewart or even to the president because they don't pertain to social justice or global warming.

Now, I'm going to speak very slowly so Stewart and his crew can take some notes. Number one, there are serious charges that the administration would not tell the truth about Libya because of the upcoming presidential election. Number two, if the IRS is abusing its vast power, every American should be concerned. And finally, the people are being forced to accept ObamaCare and it's still chaotic. Are you hearing me out there in left-wing fantasy land?
Haha, and now the truth. Most of what O'Reilly said is lies, and right-wing spin. Jon Stewart is 100% accurate about O'Reilly and Fox, and he nailed them for their bias on made up scandals nobody in America cares about. The people care about the economy, jobs, health care, immigration, taxes, and guns. Benghazi and the IRS do not even make the list.

O'Reilly just can not handle the truth so he goes on the attack against Jon Stewart, that was frankly pathetic. He had nothing, because he knows Stewart is right, so he says Stewart is spinning for the left and he does not understand America. When it is O'Reilly who is spinning for the right, and he does not tell the truth about what the people care about. Only right-wing stooges care about Benghazi and the IRS, nobody else cares, and that is a fact.

Then Republican Kate Obenshain and Democrat Kirsten Powers were on to talk about Jon Stewart's criticism of the White House interview. And of course they both agreed with O'Reilly, even the so-called Democrat Kirsten Powers, because they both work for Fox and they are O'Reilly ass kissers. Nothing they say is true, Stewart nailed it, and that is why O'Reilly got so mad at him.

Powers said this: "I was interested to learn about the 'multiple investigations' that have been done. Regarding the IRS, there actually have been no conclusions from any investigation and no one has been held accountable. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I did not think you were rude to the president."

Obenshain said this: "He is ticked off because you didn't follow the talking points of the White House and the mainstream media. And they're ticked about the fact that you actually exposed that there are none of these ongoing investigations. The mainstream media expect you to ask questions like a subject would to an imperial monarch."

Wrong! Look at the polls, idiots. NOBODY cares about the so-called Benghazi and IRS scandals, no-body, except partisan right-wing stooges who want to use it for political reasons.

Then Alesandra Rain and Daniel Bober were on to talk about actor Philip Seymour Hoffman's death, New York police have arrested four suspected heroin pushers. And of course they were both put on the show because they are Republicans who agree with the insane O'Reilly that selling drugs is a violent crime, which is just ridiculous, and no guests were on for balance to dispute it.

Rain said this: "Selling narcotics is a violent act, and it should be treated as a violent act. There are four times more deaths due to heroin than there are murders, so what could be more violent?"

Bober said this: "These are parasites who peddle their poison and they are responsible for some of the worst ills, including violent crime, unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases. They prey on society and they need to be treated like violent criminals."

Earth to right-wing idiots, all 3 of you, selling drugs is not a violent crime, never has been, never will be. And anyone who says it is are right-wing idiots who are just stupid. It's a free country, and if you want to buy drugs you can, then if you overdose and die it's your fault, not the persons fault who sold you the drugs. You buy drugs of your own free will, nobody makes you buy them, so if you die from the drugs YOU decided to buy, then you are at fault. Where is the violence, there is none, it's a drug deal not someone getting beat up with a bat or a tire iron, there is no violence.

Then Maria Bartiromo was on to talk about the stock market.

Bartiromo said this: "There are a few headwinds coming at us. The Federal Reserve is beginning to taper the monetary stimulus, which was one of the big factors in the market. We were up huge in 2013, valuations probably got ahead of themselves, so it's no surprise to see some giveback."

In other words, it's just a normal market correction, when stocks get higher than their actual value there is always a market correction, and stocks go down to realistic prices, it's a normal part of the stock market.

Bartiromo also said this: "The stock market is based on corporate earnings, which are doing very well. If you're a long-term investor you have to be in this market, and sell-offs open up a great opportunity."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on, because he is a right-wing comedian who is only on to make jokes about liberals, and because O'Reilly likes it, with no Liberal comedian on for balance to make jokes about conservatives, and because it is not news.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that. She cried about a host on MSNBC that implied the modern welfare state is akin to the G.I. Bill.

MacCallum said this: "The message they're trying to give you in a very smug tone, is that Levittown on Long Island never would have happened without help from the government. The truth is that the Levitt family built a great real estate business and the government did not help them build that business. That panel and the president claim the G.I. Bill situation is equivalent to today's food stamps and disability program."

O'Reilly made a clear distinction between the G.I. Bill and today's handouts, saying this: "After World War II, the feds provided education and mortgage benefits to veterans, but they weren't freebies. Our military people earned them because they sacrificed years of their lives. My father, a naval officer, got a low mortgage so he could buy an $8,000 house in Levittown. He earned it, there was no nanny state attached to it."

And now the facts, the Government paid for schools, postal delivery, sewage and water systems, and other infrastructure elements. So the Levitt family did not do it all on their own, they had help from state and federal governments. So when O'Reilly says they earned it, they did, but they also had taxpayer money to help get it all to work. They also used non-union labor, and only sold their homes to white people, which cause a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and they lost, which O'Reilly failed to mention.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The "Facts" of Life. Billy said this: "Because so-called "facts" are often twisted to fit a certain ideology, take the time to do your own research on issues that are important to you and to the nation."

I agree, and in the dictionary under "Facts That Get Twisted" is a photo of Bill O'Reilly, because he takes the so-called facts and twists them to fit his right-wing ideology, and then denies he does it, so whatever O'Reilly says you need to do your own research and find out if he is lying or not, because 90% of the time he is. And all his lies favor the Republican side of the issues, none of his lies ever favor the Democratic side of the issues.

Jon Stewart Destroys O'Reilly & Fox For Their Right-Wing Bias
By: Steve - February 6, 2014 - 10:00am

Here are 3 video clips from the Daily Show, in these clips Jon Stewart destroys O'Reilly and Fox News for their bias against President Obama. In fact, it was such a good job O'Reilly responded to it, but of course what Stewart said was true, so what O'Reilly had as a comeback was about as weak as you can get.

Part 1:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook


Part 2:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook


Part 3:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook


After Stewart's blistering takedown of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly's Super Bowl interview with President Obama, O'Reilly responded Wednesday night by saying Stewart was simply disappointed he deviated from the liberal media talking points in his questions to the president on Benghazi and Obamacare.

The title of the O'Reilly TPM was: Making Jon Stewart understand his country

As if Stewart does not understand what is going on in his own country, when all Stewart did was state the facts, he played clips of O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. reporting non-stop on all the made up right-wing non-scandals O'Reilly and Fox make a living from.

O'Reilly rolled his eyes at the charge he grilled Obama about "phony issues," saying Stewart was simply "echoing" the president in his dismissal of the big scandals his administration's been hit with in the past year.

He said, "These issues aren't important to Jon Stewart or even to the president... because they don't pertain to social justice or global warming."

He walked through all the reasons Obamacare, Benghazi, and the IRS are still important issues to talk about, concluding with a question to Stewart: "Are you hearing me out there in left-wing fantasyland?"

All that from O'Reilly is garbage, and just for fun I went to pollingreport.com to see what issues facing the country today the people care about, and guess what, Obamacare, Benghazi, and the IRS do not even make the list, nobody cares about those old news stories.

Under national priorities it says this:

The Economy/Jobs - 39%
Budget/Deficit - 23%
Health Care - 16%
Immigration - 5%
Taxes - 4%
Gun Policy - 3%

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Obamacare, Benghazi, and the IRS are not even on the list, they did not even get 1%, nothing, zero, nobody cares about what you claim the people care about. They care about the economy and jobs, and the budget/deficit, health care, immigration, taxes, and guns. And you never talked about any of it in your stupid interview with the President of the United States.

Those are the facts, read em and weep, you are a biased fool, just admit it, Jon Stewart was exactly right and you just can not handle it when people tell the truth about you and Fox News.

O'Reilly Slams AP For Reporting The Truth About Him
By: Steve - February 6, 2014 - 9:00am

On Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, Bill O'Reilly finished up a discussion about his pre-Super Bowl interview with President Barack Obama by slamming the AP and other news outlets for characterizing his selection of questions as partisan.

Even though they were exactly right, and almost all the questions O'Reilly asked Obama sounded as if Karl Rove had wrote them, or the RNC. The questions were all partisan slanted garbage about the IRS, Benghazi, and the Obama health care law. In fact, it's as if O'Reilly met with the RNC to ask them what he should ask of Obama, but of course O'Reilly claims they were not partisan, and he has other right-wingers defend him, which is just laughable and pathetic.

Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck began by praising what she seemed to think was bipartisan praise of O'Reilly's interview. "You united everyone in terms of how they felt about the interview," she said. "It was certainly fair, it was tough, and you followed up on a number of points that Americans deserve answers on."

Wrong! It was a ridiculous biased interview, O'Reilly just re-hashed all the old so-called scandals made up by Republicans, and asked questions Obama has already answered, and hearings have shown are not true. But O'Reilly went through all the old dishonest right-wing talking points on it anyway.

"I don't know if everybody felt that way," O'Reilly said. "I was watching the cable competition last night, and the unusual suspects are going, 'Oh! A Republican!' The Associated Press, their headline of the interview was: President Obama Defends Himself from Republican Charges."

Because it's true, idiot. You are a Republican and everyone knows it, you just will not admit it because you sell yourself as a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. But guess what Billy, nobody buys it, and you are a fool to even make such ridiculous claims. We all know you are a Republican.

O'Reilly also said this: "These aren't questions that all Americans should be interested in? No. Just Republicans should be. And it's just -- they'll never be honest about it."

Which is just insane, because they are 100% accurate. They were biased Republican questions, and nobody cares about them but other Republicans. The people care about jobs, health care, and the economy, not years old fake right-wing non-scandals that only Republicans think are scandals. And O'Reilly has proven once again that he is a biased Republican by asking those questions.

The Tuesday 2-4-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 5, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Presidential Interview Reaction. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's fascinating to watch the discussion after my talk with President Obama Sunday. The usual suspects are complaining that I was rude and obnoxious, while the hard right is moaning because I didn't slam the president to the floor. But the vast majority of Americans were given a clear view of some very important issues. I managed to get the president on the record about controversial topics, something which has not been done before.

Initial ratings say about 20-million people watched the interview live, with hundreds of millions more seeing it on the Internet. The president was cool throughout and I did my usual stuff, I pressed him. Enter the far-left zealots who can not report anything honestly because their job is to distort. Dana Milbank called it the 'nastiest exchange' of my three interviews with President Obama.

Milbank is intellectually dishonest - he writes a column for the Washington Post and spouts nonsense on TV. On a wider front, the mainstream pretty much ignored or covered the story casually. In a surprising move, CNN almost totally ignored the story. Perhaps they didn't have enough time, being a 24-hour news channel. All in all, we have more information about the president now than we did before Super Bowl Sunday. And no nastiness was involved.
Okay, to begin with, O'Reilly is milking the presidential interview for all it's worth, to get ratings, because the Monday show had 4 million viewers. And 2nd, Milbank never once at any time called it the 'nastiest exchange' of O'Reilly's three interviews. He never said it, and if you doubt me go read what he wrote at the Washington Post website. O'Reilly made it up, he is a liar, what Milbank said is that it was a hostile interview, which it was.

Then Howard Kurtz and Katie Pavlich were on to evaluate coverage of Sunday's interview. And of course they both kissed O'Reilly's butt, and told him what a great job he did, and that he was not nasty at all. Without noting the fact that Milbank never said it was a nasty interview, proving they are both right-wing stooges who were on to stroke O'Reilly's ego and deny reality.

Kurtz said this: "Your interview wasn't nasty, it was aggressive, and I'm surprised Dana Milbank can't see the difference. Sure, you interrupted the president a lot but you had to do that because he's the master at running out the clock with lengthy answers."

Earth to Howard (the Fox stooge) Kurtz, Milbank did not say it was nasty, ever, not once, go read what he wrote and get your facts straight.

Pavlich said this: "Joy Reid went on a tirade saying you only covered topics that were far-right conspiracy theories. But if you break down the main topics you covered, particularly the IRS and ObamaCare, they affect every single American. 70% of Americans want a special prosecutor for the IRS scandal. Those aren't far-right questions."

Which is just laughable, the facts show that O'Reilly was hostile and argumentative, and he spent 90% of the interview on far-right conspiracy theories that only right-wing loons care about. Pavlich is a conservative who supports whatever O'Reilly says or does, so she is as biased as it gets.

Then Larry Sabato and Rick Klein were on to discuss it.

Sabato said this: "I think he gets credit for one thing. He let himself be interviewed by you and that's not always easy, you're not a powder puff interviewer. So that's a plus for him, but otherwise we still live in a polarized era and there's hardly anybody left that doesn't already have a firm opinion about Obama."

Klein agreed that the interview may further cement already-hardened opinions on both sides, saying this: "I don't think you're going to undo six years worth of stories in one interview, but I think it's a win for President Obama because you reached an audience that's hard to reach. He did a good job of defending his view of government and his view of the various scandals and issues."

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to discuss the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, who died from a heroin overdose, police are trying to track down the dealer who sold him the dope. O'Reilly asked Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley whether selling drugs should be classified as a violent crime. Which is ridiculous, because there is no violence, just someone buying drugs to get high.

Colmes said this: "It is a non-violent crime, just as selling a gun is a non-violent crime. If you use a gun badly that's a violent crime, it all depends on what the person does when they use it. Drugs can be used recreationally."

And of course the Republican Crowley disagreed with Colmes and agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "Perhaps it should be classified as a violent crime because it tends to lead to violence more often than other things do. A drug deal can go bad and erupt into violence."

Which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, so if there is a chance a drug deal could go bad and end in violence it should be classified as a violent crime? That is just pure insanity.

O'Reilly urged the police to hunt down Hoffman's drug dealer and mete out serious punishment, saying this: "By selling Philip Seymour Hoffman heroin, you are exacerbating his disease. I think selling narcotics is a violent crime because it leads to harm, you're selling a dangerous drug to another human being."

Wrong! Hey O'Reilly, it's a free country and if you want to buy drugs and you do it of your own free will it's not the dealers fault if you die. You are an idiot, and if someone dies from drug use it is their fault, not the dealer. Let's say I sell you a chainsaw and you cut your foot off with it, is it the chainsaw dealers fault, or your fault? It's your fault, idiot.

Then former Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist was on, who explained his switch from Republican to Democrat.

Crist said this: "When I ran in 2006 in the Republican primary. I said I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy on some social issues. I'm fiscally conservative and don't want to waste anyone's money. So I haven't really changed that much, but my former party changed. The Tea Party emerged and a lot of Republicans didn't like that I literally embraced President Obama and his policies."

Crist, now running for governor as a Democrat, also defended ObamaCare, saying this: "Having health care for people who can't afford it is the right thing to do."

O'Reilly reminded Crist that he flipped on what many consider a life-and-death issue, saying this: "You wanted the state of Florida to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape and incest, but now you're telling us that a woman should control her body. That's a big switch."

And Crist said he was wrong, that he has always been pro-choice, so he did not switch. But O'Reilly refused to listen to him and kept saying he flip-flopped on abortion, as Crist kept saying he did not, O'Reilly just would not listen to him. Crist said he left the Republican party because the Tea Party moved it to the far-right and he was a moderate, that is a fact, but O'Reilly would not believe it because he is a Tea Party supporter.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Governor Chris Christie, whose top aides exacted revenge on a political enemy by closing some lanes on the George Washington Bridge.

Wiehl said this: "He's in great jeopardy right now, with two separate investigations. One is at the state level and there is also a federal investigation. That means that the feds think there is enough there to open a grand jury investigation."

Guilfoyle pointed out that the case is long on accusations and innuendo, but short on proof, saying this: "He seems to be holding the course very well, saying he didn't know about this in advance. We know there has been a rush to judgment in the liberal media, across television and print, but if some evidence existed we would have seen it by now."

O'Reilly said this: "I'm not defending Christie, who won't come on my show, but I haven't seen anything to convict him."

And that is just wrong, O'Reilly and Guilfoyle both spent the entire segment defending Christie, as Wiehl tried to lay out some facts, they both talked over her and defended Christie. O'Reilly even said they have nothing on him, and if they did they would have leaked it by now, which ignores all the facts. And ignores the fact that the top 3 Christie staffers have all taken the 5th, so their information is still unknown.

On top of that only 4 of the 14 people who were subpoenaed have complied, so they do not even have all the evidence yet. Once they get all the subpoenaed evidence and they get one or more of the staffers that took the 5th to talk under immunity, then we will know if they have anything or not. So we do not know if they will find anything yet or not, but O'Reilly said they have not found anything yet so they never will, which is just ridiculous.

After spending 4 minutes defending Christie, O'Reilly says "I'm not defending Christie," when that is exactly what he did. In fact, he believes Christie, and he said he has not seen him do anything wrong. Which is not only defending Christie, it's lying and covering for him.

Take note of this folks, in the IRS case the head of the IRS retired and took the 5th, who was a Democrat, so O'Reilly said because she took the 5th we know she did something wrong and they are covering it up. Now, in the Christie case not one (but three) top aides are taking the 5th, but O'Reilly does not say it proves they did something wrong and they are not covering something up. Proving his right-wing bias, and his double standards.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: False and Defamatory. Billy said this: "If someone brands you a "racist" without any proof, walk away and remove the false accuser from your life."

Unless you are Bill O'Reilly, then you say and do proven racist things and just deny you are a racist, then you walk away and remove the valid accuser from your life.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Number Of Keystone Pipeline Jobs
By: Steve - February 5, 2014 - 10:00am

Here it is folks, 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a lying right-wing fraud of a journalist.

Monday night O'Reilly played a clip of him saying this to President Obama, take note of the number of jobs O'Reilly claims the Keystone pipeline will create. Basically, O'Reilly is saying it will create all these jobs so why have you not approved it yet, and btw, the Republicans generally support the pipeline and the Democrats do not.

From the Monday Factor show:
O'REILLY: Keystone Pipeline, a new study comes in, environmental impact negligible, 42,000 jobs. You're going to OK it, I assume?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, it's not 42,000, that's not correct. It's a couple thousand to build the pipeline.

O'REILLY: Forty-two all told.

OBAMA: Well, the bottom line is what we're going to do is to the process now goes agencies comment on what the State Department did. The public is allowed to comment. Kerry is going to give me a recommendation.

O'REILLY: All right, so I assume we're going to do that after five years.

OBAMA: We'll take a look at it.

O'REILLY: Okay, I'll take that as a yes.
Notice the 42,000 jobs number, it's wrong. O'Reilly is lying, Obama corrects him and he still refuses to drop the right-wing propaganda on it. Nobody is saying it will create 42,000 jobs, except right-wing spin doctors, and Republicans who are biased and support it.

Even the CEO of the company said it will only create 13,000 jobs, and that was lowered to 9,000. Trans-Canada CEO Russell Girling claimed that the project would produce 13,000 construction jobs. But in April of 2013 the company revised that number even lower, to 9,000 jobs.

That is from the company who will do the job, so they are the best source for the real numbers, not Obama, not O'Reilly, and clearly not the Republicans. And for the record, they are temporary jobs, when the construction is done those jobs are gone. Only about 40 or 50 jobs will be created to maintain the pipeline.

The Sierra Club, one of the leading environmental groups opposed to the pipeline, used the 3,900 annual jobs number. They claim it will only create 3,900 jobs over 2 years, which is about 2,000 jobs a year.

Funny how O'Reilly never mentions any of that, he just has this 42,000 jobs number, and I wonder where he got it. Duh, from right-wingers who support it, and websites like www.breitbart.com, who make it up and O'Reilly quotes them. O'Reilly got his numbers from biased and dishonest spin doctors who get paid to put out Republican propaganda.

The 42,000 number is garbage, it's pure 100% right-wing lies. And O'Reilly was caught red-handed spewing it out like a good little Republican, and he did it during an interview with the President of the United States, which makes it even worse.

And btw, The politifact.com truth-o-meter rated the statement from a Republican Congressman that the pipeline would create 20,000 jobs, false. This is the same truth-o-meter that O'Reilly himself has said is honest and non-partisan. So he can not claim it was said by some liberal group, because politifact is non-partisan and they have no bias.

From Politifact:
TransCanada has said in a press release that those 20,000 jobs include 13,000 for constructing the pipeline and 7,000 to manufacture steel pipes and other equipment. It predicts it will take two years to complete.

But TransCanada's estimate does not mean they expect 20,000 people to work on the project, a spokesman told us.

Each "job" represents one "job year" or one job lasting for one year, they said. This means that if a single person works on the project for both years, his or her stint is counted as two "jobs."

This could place the number of actual people employed by the pipeline closer to 10,000, or some 6,500 workers in construction and 3,500 in manufacturing. Not 20,000.

These construction jobs are not permanent, and for the most part, they aren't local. The positions will disappear when the pipeline is complete.

The U.S. Department of State, which is in charge of evaluating the project, estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of these jobs can be filled with workers from communities in the pipeline’s path.
O'Reilly also said a study shows the environmental impact will be negligible, without telling you that study he is talking about was done by a conservative group that supports the pipeline, so their conclusions are biased and can not be trusted. So that's another lie O'Reilly was caught spinning for the Republican party.

Here is what peoplesworld.org says about it, they are opposed to the pipeline, and of course O'Reilly (the right-wing stooge) never reported any of this information either. They give 6 reasons to oppose the pipeline, and here they are:

1) The employment impact of this Keystone XL pipeline will be far less than advertised. The GOP leadership says the pipeline "would create up to 100,000 jobs," but this is a gross inflation. According to the State Department, it will provide about 6,000 temporary jobs for construction workers over a two year period.

2) Meanwhile the project will put at risk a quarter million ranches and farms that provide real jobs in the Great Plains states.

3) The environmental impact of the pipeline is potentially huge. It will cross more than 2,000 waterways, including the Yellowstone River in Montana, threatening rivers, lakes and streams with the same kind of pipeline accidents that have occurred elsewhere.

4) Alberta's tar sands produce bitumen, a low-grade crude oil, through a very dirty process that is destroying Canada's boreal forest. In doing so it is putting at risk woodlands, watersheds, animals, plants, and an entire way of life for native peoples living there. The current mining moonscape is the size of Chicago, but pales in comparison with the future size of the mining operation if the pipeline is built.

5) Oil from the tar sands won't reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil as claimed. Most of the oil will be refined and then exported to other countries.

6) The extraction of oil from the tar sands produces three to four times more pollution than is caused by the conventional production of North American crude oil. This is not to defend the latter (we need energy alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels), but only to give some sense of the scale of the emissions of carbon into the atmosphere from the mining of tar sands.

None of this was reported by O'Reilly, instead he just spewed out some made up RNC numbers that it will create 42,000 jobs. When the facts show it's somewhere between 2,000 and 9,000, depending on who you ask. And the company that would build the pipeline says it will create 9,000 jobs, and they are only going to last for 2 years, then drop to 40 or 50 jobs.

This is not information from the right or the left, it's from the CEO of the company in Canada who would build the pipeline and hire the people to do the jobs, so they would know.

The last person you can trust is O'Reilly, who is a proven biased and partisan right-wing liar. And then he wonders why he is called a Republican spin doctor who asked Obama biased Republican questions, because he is, and this one blog I wrote prove it. Along with the 13 years of documented right-wig bias from O'Reilly I have here on the website.

O'Reilly Calls For Milbank Firing For Doing Same Thing He Does
By: Steve - February 5, 2014 - 9:00am

In his assessment of Bill O'Reilly's Super Bowl interview with President Obama, Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank took issue with the tenor of the interview and said it was a perfect encapsulation of the Fox News/right-wing "Obama hysteria" with questions about Benghazi, the IRS, and Obamacare.

O'Reilly did not take kindly to Milbank's criticisms and called him out on The Hugh Hewitt show Tuesday for "lying" about the interview. O'Reilly said Milbank called the tone of the interview nasty.

Even though Milbank never once used the word nasty in his article about the O'Reilly/Obama interview. Milbank said O'Reilly was hostile from the start, waving his pen and pointing his finger at the president. Which is true, but he never once used the word nasty, so O'Reilly was lying about what Milbank said, as he complained to the right-wing stooge Hugh Hewitt, that Milbank lied about him.

After some light banter about interview prep, Hewitt asked O'Reilly if he would ever invite Milbank on his show. O'Reilly wasted no time in calling Milbank a "weasel" who's "beneath contempt" and would never invite him on his show. And it's not even Milbank O'Reilly has that big of an issue with, it's the fact that he works for The Washington Post.
O'REILLY: "I'm not on a jihad against Milbank. I'm on a jihad, a holy war, against declining standards of journalism. The Washington Post editors... had to know that Milbank was lying. And they had to know that he was lying for a reason, that he's a far-left zealot. It's okay to be a liberal columnist, but once you cross the line into lying to promote what you want, then the paper's got to take action."
Now that is the funniest thing O'Reilly has ever said, and the most hypocritical. O'Reilly is calling for the Washington Post to fire Milbank for something he said, even though when liberals say the same thing about people at Fox O'Reilly screams bloody murder and says liberals want to deny them their free speech rights.

So in O'Reillyworld somehow it's ok for him to call for someone to be fired for what they said, even though they are an opinion writer, but when someone calls for a conservative in the media to be fired for what they said, it's not ok with O'Reilly, and a free speech issue.

O'Reilly also said he never calls anyone any names, and then he called Milbank a weasel, stay classy Bill!

O'Reilly also says it's ok for the opinion people like Hannity and Rove to give their opinion at Fox, and they are different from the straight news anchors. And Milbank is an opinion writer at the Post, so he is different from the straight news part of the paper. But O'Reilly wants him fired anyway, for something he said about O'Reilly.

Hey Billy, what happened to his free speech rights as an opinion writer?

So what was it that Milbank said, you have no idea because O'Reilly does not tell you, well I will, here is what Milbank wrote, that is 100% true btw.

MILBANK: Bill O'Reilly's Super Bowl interview of President Obama was extraordinarily revealing -- not because of what the president said but because of what the interviewer did.

The Fox News host and purveyor of anti-Obama sentiment was given 10 minutes to question the man he decries to millions nightly. O'Reilly devoted nearly 40 percent of his time to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, 30 percent to the Obamacare rollout and 20 percent to IRS targeting.

Along the way, he interrupted the president 42 times, by my count -- although, given the amount O'Reilly spoke, it may be more accurate to say Obama was interrupting him. Sometimes he argued with Obama as though the president were a guest on The O'Reilly Factor. Of the 2,500 words uttered during the interview, O'Reilly spoke nearly 1,000 of them.

This was O'Reilly's third such session with Obama -- and as such it served as a milepost on the conservative movement's road to Obama hysteria. O'Reilly's first sitdown with Obama, in 2008, was a lengthy and affectionate encounter.

The second meeting, another Super Bowl interview in 2011, had its share of interruptions, but there was lighthearted banter and the questions were more neutral ("What is it about the job that has surprised you the most?").

But this time, O'Reilly gave only a passing pleasantry at the end ("I think your heart is in the right place") and otherwise was hostile from the start. He leaned forward in his seat, waving his pen and pointing his finger at the president. He shook his head doubtfully at some of Obama's answers.

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

That was what Milbank said, now tell me what is not true? Because every word he wrote about O'Reilly is 100% accurate. And yet, O'Reilly got mad at him, called him a weasel, and said the Post should take action against him. It's ridiculous, especially when O'Reilly does the very same thing Milbank does, he's a far-right zealot who works for Fox. And he crosses the line into lying to promote what he wants.

Now we get to the worst part of what O'Reilly said, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "And they had to know that he was lying for a reason, that he's a far-left zealot. It's okay to be a liberal columnist, but once you cross the line into lying to promote what you want, then the paper's got to take action.”
Think about that, because O'Reilly does the very same thing, he is a far-right zealot who crosses the line into lying to promote what he wants, so using his logic Fox should take action and fire O'Reilly for doing the very same thing Milbank does. And O'Reilly is worse, because he lies every night for the right on the #1 rated cable news show, Milbank just does it in a newspaper column.

The worst thing Milbank did was tell the truth about O'Reilly, and for that he is called a weasel, which is most likely a badge of honor for him. Now it would be different if Milbank was wrong, but he hit the nail on the head and everything he wrote is true. That is why O'Reilly got mad at him, because he hates it when someone calls him out for his bias, and then he attacks them as the biased one.

It's laughable, and an old tactic from O'Reilly, attack your attacker. When someone calls out your bias attack them, call them names, and claim they are the biased one, then put right-wing guests on your show to agree with you, and claim they back you up so it proves you are telling the truth. This is how Bill O'Reilly operates, and more proof he is not only a biased hack, he is a fool.

The Monday 2-3-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 4, 2014 - 11:00am

There was no TPM, instead O'Reilly re-aired part of his interview with President Obama, and as I predicted he cherry picked part of it, instead of showing you the entire un-edited interview. O'Reilly asked Obama to defend his health care law, so he did, saying this:
OBAMA: "I don't think I anticipated the degree of the problems with the website. The good news is that right away we decided how are we going to fix it, it got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and running and now it's working the way it's supposed to and we've signed up three million people."

Asked about Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama said this: "I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable."

O'Reilly also claims Obama evaded some pointed questions about the terror attack in Benghazi and insisted that there was "not even a smidgeon of corruption" in the IRS alleged targeting of conservative organizations."
Which is just right-wing lies from O'Reilly, Obama answered the question, O'Reilly just did not like the answer so he moved on to another question. Not to mention all that has been covered, over and over, they had investigations and hearings and we know everything, O'Reilly and the right just refuse to move on, even though they are year old stories and nobody cares about them anymore, except partisan right-wing idiots.

Then O'Reilly cherry picked parts of Sunday's interview with President Obama. After the live portion ended, the president took questions for another ten minutes. Among the topics, the dissolution of the American family:
O'REILLY: On your watch, median income has dropped 17 percent among working families in this country. Part of it was this terrible recession, everybody knows that. But 72 percent of babies in the African-American community are born out of wedlock now. Why isn't there a campaign by you and the first lady to address that problem very explicitly?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Actually, Bill, we address it explicitly all the time. I'll send you at least 10 speeches that I've made since I've been president talking about the importance of men taking responsibility for their children, talking about the importance of young people delaying gratification, talking about the importance of, when it comes to child-rearing, paying child support, spending time with your kids, reading with them. Whether it's getting publicity or not is a whole different question.

O'REILLY: But I don't see the pressure from the federal government to go in and say, this is wrong, this is this is killing futures of babies and children.

OBAMA: I've just got to say, Bill, we talk about it all the time. And we'll continue to talk about it. We're convening, for example, philanthropists and businesspeople city by city who are interested in addressing these kinds of problems at the local level. What's interesting, when you look at what's going on right now, you're starting to see, in a lot of white working class homes, similar problems. When men can't find good work, when the economy is shutting ladders of opportunity off from people, whether they're black, white, Hispanic, it doesn't matter, then that puts pressure on the home. So you've got an interaction between an economy that isn't generating enough good jobs for folks who traditionally could get blue collar jobs even if they didn't have higher education and some legitimate social concerns that compound the problem.

O'REILLY: Keystone Pipeline, a new study comes in, environmental impact negligible, 42,000 jobs. You're going to OK it, I assume?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, it's not 42,000, that's not correct. It's a couple thousand to build the pipeline.

O'REILLY: Forty-two all told.

OBAMA: Well, the bottom line is what we're going to do is to the process now goes agencies comment on what the State Department did. The public is allowed to comment. Kerry is going to give me a recommendation.

O'REILLY: All right, so I assume we're going to do that after five years.

OBAMA: We'll take a look at it.

O'REILLY: Okay, I'll take that as a yes.

O'REILLY: I can't speak for Fox News, but I'm the table setter here at 8:00. Do you think I've been unfair to you?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely, of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway. O'REILLY: Give me how I'm unfair. You cant make that accusation without telling me.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Bill, we just went through an interview in which you asked about the health care not working, IRS was wholly corrupt, Benghazi.

O'REILLY: But these are unanswered questions ... it's my job to give you a hard time.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think regardless of whether it's fair or not, it has made Fox News very successful. What you guys are going to have to figure out is what are you going to do when I'm gone.

O'REILLY: I gave President Bush a real hard time.

O'REILLY: Are you the most liberal president in U.S. history?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Probably not ... In a lot of ways, Richard Nixon was more liberal. He started the EPA, he started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has helped make our air and water clean.

O'REILLY: I thought you were going to say FDR.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, FDR, Johnson. But I tend not to think about these things in terms of liberal and Democrat or liberal and conservative because at any given time, the question is, what does the country need right now?

O'REILLY: I think that you are much more friendly to a nanny state than I am. I'm more of a self-reliance guy, you're more of a big government will solve your problems guy.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I disagree with that because I think that what used to be considered sensible, we now somehow label as liberal. Think about it, Social Security, Medicare.

O'REILLY: But you're paying for that, it's the freebies that are the problem.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What freebies are we talking about? Welfare actually is worth less now than it was 20, 30 years ago, it's worth less than it was under Ronald Reagan.

O'REILLY: Take a look at the disability explosion. I mean it's insane. The workplace isn't any more dangerous now than it was 20 years ago. It's through the roof, you know people are conning you.

OBAMA: We have not massively expanded the welfare state, that's just not true. When you take a look at it, actually, the levers of support that we provide to folks who are willing to work hard are not that different than they were 30 years ago, 40 years ago or 50 years ago. You and I took advantage to certain things. I don't know about you, but I got some loans to go to college.

O'REILLY: No, I painted houses, I didn't get any loans.

OBAMA: I painted houses during the summer, too. It still wasn't enough. So the so my point is is that that's not a nanny state, that's an investment in the future generation. I think self-reliance is alive and well in America. I think the problem is people don't see as many opportunities to get ahead. My job as president, as long as I'm in this office, is to give them the tools to get ahead. They've got to work hard, they've got to be responsible. But if they are, let's make sure that they can make it in America. That's what it's all about. That's how you and I ended up sitting here talking.
1) O'Reilly lied about the keystone pipeline jobs, here are the facts, as reported by forbes.com, a conservative website: In January of 2010, Trans-Canada CEO Russell Girling claimed that the project would produce 13,000 construction jobs, and this past April the company revised that number even lower, to 9,000 construction jobs.

Which is not even close to the 42,000 O'Reilly claimed, so he was clearly lying. And btw folks, those 9,000 are temporary jobs to build it, so after it is built there will only be 35 permanent jobs in pipeline maintenance and inspection.

2) O'Reilly was never hard on Bush, he spent 8 years defending everything he did, and even called people who criticized Bush un-American traitors, for simply disagreeing with what Bush was doing. So O'Reilly lied his ass off when he said he was hard on Bush, it's ridiculous and just a laughable claim.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to give us more right-wing spin on the Obama interview, and of course no liberal guests was on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "The headline is that he knows how to run, but he can't always hide. On some issues he was able to escape, but on Sebelius he never answered the question. On the Keystone Pipeline, he kind of escaped by saying it still has to be studied. This thing has been studied for five-and-a-half years, longer than the Second World War, and he's still holding out."

Krauthammer also said this: "He largely pretends that these are distractions invented by Fox News as a way to deflect them. When he tells you they were straight with Benghazi, it is simply not true."

Then O'Reilly gave his assessment of the interview and the president, saying this: "I don't think he thinks my questions about Benghazi, the IRS, and the rollout of ObamaCare are important. In his own mind, he feels like he's doing what's right for the country and these are just little annoyances."

That's because they are not real scandals O'Reilly, they are made up scandals by you, Fox News, and the Republican party to try and hurt Obama and Hillary politically, so it will make it harder for Hillary Clinton to win in 2016.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss Sunday's interview, particularly President Obama's declaration that there was not a "smidgeon of corruption" in the IRS scandal.

Williams said this: "The president was right to tell you that there were boneheaded mistakes, but not a smidgeon of corruption. So far you and I haven't seen any findings of corruption. He also told you that he hasn't fired Kathleen Sebelius because he wants people in place that he trusts."

Ham said this: "He initially came out saying they would get to the bottom of this, which is what he does with everything. The IRS admitted wrongdoing and people did bad things to other people, they abused the power of the government. He was very defensive about it with you."

But there is a big difference between someone making a bad decision or making a mistake, from corruption, there was no corruption, and no evidence of corruption. O'Reilly and the right made most of it up, and made it into a scandal that never was, the whole thing was a right-wing propaganda fake scandal.

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

Goldberg said this: "I thought the interview was only mildly more interesting than the Super Bowl, and not nearly as interesting as the halftime show by Bruno Mars. The questions were fine, but this president wasn't going to level with you or the American people. Just take the IRS, where he said there was no corruption. This was a dog-and-pony show, ten minutes of you getting what you needed, which was speaking to the president before a huge audience, and the president getting what he needed, which was taking on big, bad Bill O'Reilly!"

And of course, it was never mentioned that Obama called O'Reilly and Fox out for staring these bogus scandals and reporting lies about him, O'Reilly never reported on that, he just ignored it as if it never happened. Even though Obama was right, he said the people think all this crap waa scandal because O'Reilly and Fox say it was, even though they were not scandals.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Making the Grade. Billy said this: "Whether you're writing a book report or interviewing the President of the United States, just try to be well-prepared and to do your best. It's all anyone can ask."

Obama Calls Out O'Reilly & Fox For Promoting Right-Wing Propaganda
By: Steve - February 4, 2014 - 10:00am

On Sunday, Bill O'Reilly got the chance to sit down and interview the president of the United States before the Super Bowl. For a political journalist, landing such an interview before such a large audience is in itself kind of like performing at the Super Bowl.

It's a big, big stage, and a great opportunity to ask important questions of the most powerful politician in the world. So, obviously, O'Reilly decided to spend the majority of his one-on-one with President Obama talking about the stuff that really matters (sarcasm alert) like Benghazi and the IRS.

When it came to Benghazi, O'Reilly asked the president whether he was told, in the moments following 2012's attack on the U.S. mission in Libya, that it was an act of terror.

Which of course he was, Obama even noted that in his first official comments the day following the attack, he referred to it as an act of terror.

"The insane O'Reilly was still not buying it (even though it's a fact) and pressed on with his right-wing talking points, saying this: "Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out," O'Reilly continued. "That's what they believe."

So Obama gave him a reality check, saying this: "And they believe it because folks like you are telling them that," Obama quickly responded, with clear frustration.

As the interview went on, O'Reilly continued to focus his questions on right-wing conspiracy theories, turning next to the so-called targeting of conservatives by the IRS. (Like questions about the president's response to Benghazi, this story is not only years old news, but has been thoroughly debunked.)

"What some people are saying," O'Reilly began, "is that the IRS was used at a local level in Cincinnati, maybe other places..."

"Absolutely wrong.” Obama quickly interrupted.

"But how do you know that, because we still don't know what happened?" O’Reilly said.

Obama shot back: "Bill, we do -- that's not what happened," was Obama's response. "Folks had multiple hearings on this."

The president then noted that the only reason people were still talking about these conspiracy theories is because Fox News and its employees (like Bill O'Reilly) keep bringing them up. Because O'Reilly does not know the real truth, he has ignored it, all he knows is the lies the right-wing propaganda machine has told him, so even though we know what happened, O'Reilly and the right will never drop it.

Obama then said this: "These kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station promote them," Obama said.

O'Reilly then said this: "But don't you feel there are unanswered questions?"

Obama then began to explain what actually happened at the IRS, but O'Reilly wasn't interested. He cut him off and moved on to the next right-wing propaganda talking points question. O'Reilly made a fool of himself asking about old non-scandals that are over, but he refuses to let it go because he is a partisan right-wing idiot who wants to use them to hurt Obama and Hillary Clinton politically.

I read that O'really interrupted President Obama 48 times in 15 minutes, which is more than 3 times a minute. It's very disrespectful and for the life of me I don't know why the President agreed to this interview. Hopefully it will be the last time Obama talks to that idiot.

Then on the Monday Factor show O'Reilly ran cherry picked clips of the interview to make himself look good. And then he had a bunch of right-wing guests on to talk about it and tell him what a great job he did, basically they were put on to stroke his ego and lie to him and say it was a great interview by him.

When in reality it was terrible, O'Reilly constantly cut Obama off and did nothing but recycle years old right-wing talking points about non-scandals.

The Real Facts About Marijuana Use
By: Steve - February 3, 2014 - 10:00am

Last Thursday O'Reilly had some quack right-wing doctor who is an anti-pot Republican on to talk about how dangerous pot is, and how it can hurt you. What he did not tell you is that it is mostly his opinions, and not based on facts.

This quack even said after you smoke pot the effects can last weeks, which is ridiculous, traces of THC can be found in your system for weeks, but the effects of smoking weed only last a couple hours. And THC is harmless, it has no known cause to any medical problems, and in fact, can actually help people.

The so-called doctor even said marijuana is addictive, and it's a gateway drug, which are both lies, it is not addictive and it is not a gateway drug.

The quack O'Reilly had on is Dr. Don Colbert. He said this:
I've been treating patients for 30 years, and I see the detrimental side of marijuana all the time. We are seeing how it affects the mental function and there's a new syndrome where marijuana use takes away ambition and motivation and desire. A study shows a drop of eight IQ points after years of chronic pot use, and the psychological effects are even more disturbing.
He also said pot is worse than alcohol or cigarettes, which is just insane. And O'Reilly put him on because he agreed with him, with no guest on who disagreed to give the counterpoint. So it was a one sided biased segment with no fairness and no balance. Which is typical O'Reilly, and what he does when he wants people to believe what he believes, with nobody to question anything they said.

Think about this folks, If you drink too much it can kill you, you can pass out and vomit, then choke to death on it, and even if you live, an alcohol overdose can lead to irreversible brain damage. The worst that can happen to you when you smoke a lot of weed is that you get really hungry and eat everything in the house.

Now here are some facts about pot, from a website called www.drugpolicy.org. The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) is the nation's leading organization about drug policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. And their supporters come from all walks of life. The DPA Board includes prominent figures from both the left and the right who are renowned for their leadership in the fields of business, law, medicine, media and politics.

They have a page on their site with the 10 most well known facts about marijuana, and despite the fact that marijuana's effects are less harmful than most other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, it is the most common drug that people are arrested for possessing. Notice that O'Reilly and his so-called doctor never told you about any of this.

From www.drugpolicy.org:

People who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug and the vast majority of those who do try another drug never become addicted or go on to have associated problems. Fact #1 - Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs, and it is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today.

Fact #2 - According to a federal Institute of Medicine study, less than 10 percent of those who try marijuana ever meet the clinical criteria for dependence, while 32 percent of tobacco users and 15 percent of alcohol users do.

Fact #3 - The average THC in marijuana is less than 5 percent, a figure that has remained unchanged for nearly a decade. In the 1980s, the THC content averaged 3 percent. Regardless of potency, THC is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe Marinol, an FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC.

Fact #4 - Marijuana has not been shown to cause mental illness. Some effects of marijuana ingestion may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. One study demonstrated that psychotic symptoms predict later use of marijuana, suggesting that people might turn to the plant for help rather than become ill after use.

Fact #5 - Several studies have established that long-term use of marijuana is not associated with elevated cancer risk. A more recent (2009) population-based case-control study found that moderate marijuana smoking over a 20 year period was associated with reduced risk of head and neck cancer. And a 5-year-long study found even long-term heavy marijuana smoking was not associated with lung cancer.

Fact #6 - Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders. A synthetic capsule is available by prescription, but it is not as effective as smoked marijuana for many patients.

Fact #7 - For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use marijuana in government-regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating marijuana use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States.

Fact #8 - The short-term effects of marijuana include immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Fact #9 - Marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performance – changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment – consistently less than produced by low to moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious.

Fact #10 - Marijuana arrests comprise nearly one-half (approximately 48 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. Approximately 42 percent of all drug arrests nationwide are for marijuana possession. Of all the arrests made for marijuana violations, approximately 88 percent (658,231) were for possession only. The remaining 91,593 arrests were for charges of sale/manufacture, a category that includes virtually all cultivation offenses.

Chris Christie's National Poll Numbers Take A Dive
By: Steve - February 2, 2014 - 10:00pm

Americans have taken a decidedly more negative view toward Chris Christie, according to a poll out Tuesday, a sign that the New Jersey governor's once-solid national profile has been damaged by the scandals surrounding his administration.

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that the Republican governor's individual rating has taken a dip.

Only 22 percent said they have a positive view of Christie, down 11 points from the NBC/WSJ poll in October. Moreover, his negative rating has climbed from 17 percent in October to 29 percent in the latest survey.

The reversal to Christie's standing dovetails with a rise in public skepticism toward his denials that he ordered or knew about the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge last summer.

Forty-four percent now say that Christie is not telling the truth, while 42 percent say they buy his story.

An NBC/WSJ poll earlier this month showed that 44 percent believed Christie, compared with only 33 percent who didn't think he was telling the truth.

O'Reilly Spins The PPP Trust In Media Poll Like A Top
By: Steve - February 2, 2014 - 9:00pm

Remember, O'Reilly claims to have a no spin zone. But after you see how much spin he put on the (Public Policy Polling) trust in the media poll, you will see that he is not only a spin doctor, he is the king of spin. Because frankly, you could not possibly spin a poll any more than O'Reilly did on Friday night.

And on top of the spin, he had two biased right-wing guests on to agree what he said was true, which is just laughable, because no guests were on for balance, just O'Reilly and two Republicans on to kiss his butt and tell him how right he was.

To begin with, here is what O'Reilly said, right from his own show transcript:
O'REILLY: The Public Policy Polling group recently surveyed registered voters about who they trust in TV news and Fox News won by a landslide. 35% of the public trusts FNC, while just 6% of Americans trust MSNBC.

So, like us or not, we are a force in the USA, despite the dishonest pounding we take from crazed left-wing critics.

As for me, the survey found that I have a 41% approval rating, while 37% disapprove. Shockingly, that approval number is higher than any of the current crop of possible Republican presidential candidates.
Okay, now we get to what O'Reilly did not report from the poll, and it is a lot. In fact, he left so much out it's going to take a while to report everything he did not tell you the poll said.

To begin with, O'Reilly did not even mention the headline from the poll that says this:

Fox News Once Again Most And Least Trusted Name In News

O'Reilly never reported this either, the very 1st sentence from the poll says this:

PPP's 5th annual poll about trust in TV news continues to find what it does every year: Fox News is both the most trusted and least trusted name in news.

O'Reilly never once mentioned they were voted the most and least trusted, he only reported that they were the most trusted, which is a violation of the rules of journalism.

The poll says that 35% of Americans say they trust Fox News more than any other TV news outlet, followed by 14% for PBS, 11% for ABC, 10% for CNN, 9% for CBS, 6% each for Comedy Central and MSNBC, and 3% for NBC.

But what O'Reilly did not tell you is that Fox was only voted the most trusted because of almost total support among Republicans as the place to go for news- 69% of Republicans say it's their most trusted source with nothing else polling above 7%.

Meanwhile Democrats split their vote between a lot of different outlets when it comes to who they have the most trust in- PBS at 21%, CNN and ABC at 18%, and CBS and MSNBC at 12% all poll in double digits.

So the only reason Fox was voted the most trusted is because almost 70% of the robot brainwashed Republicans who took the poll voted for Fox. While Democrats spread their vote out to multiple different news outlets. If 70% of the Democrats voted for one news outlet, as the Republicans did, Fox would come in dead last.

In other words, the majority of Americans do not trust Fox news the most, only the 70% of the Republicans who took the poll do. O'Reilly does not tell you this fact, instead he spins it to mean all Americans trust Fox the most, when in fact, they trust Fox the least, when you discount the biased Republican votes in the poll.

Fox News also leads the 'least trusted' list in our annual poll. 33% give it that designation to 19% for MSNBC, 14% for Comedy Central, 11% for CNN, 5% for ABC, 4% for CBS, and 2% each for NBC and PBS.

That's largely because 57% of Democrats give it their least trusted designation, with only Comedy Central at 18% also hitting double digits with them. MSNBC leads the way among Republicans at 38%, but CNN at 17% and Comedy Central at 13% both hit double digits as well. It's interesting to note that Republicans hate MSNBC more than Democrats like it.

Now here is the most important part of the poll, and O'Reilly never said a word about it, not a word, it says this:
When you look at the 8 outlets we tested individually, only one is clearly trusted by a majority of Americans. That's PBS, which 57% say they trust to 24% who don't. Most Democrats (80/6) and independents (49/31) trust it and it at least gets an even split with Republicans at 38%.
Take note, PBS is the only one trusted by a majority of Americans. The great no spin journalist Bill O'Reilly never reported that, ever, not once.

Voters are closely divided about most of the rest of the outlets- Fox News comes in at 44/42, CBS at 39/37, CNN at 40/40, NBC at 39/39, and ABC News at 37/38.

In Fox's case 75% of Republicans trust it while only 20% of Democrats do. For all the rest of them around 60-70% of Democrats trust them, but only around 20% of Republicans do.

The two outlets that poll the lowest on trust are Comedy Central (29/38) and MSNBC (34/44). In both of their cases the share of Republicans trusting them drops down to about 10%. So the main reason Comedy Central polled so low is 1) they are a comedy network and not a news network, and 2) only 10% of Republicans said they trust them. The main reason MSNBC polled so low, is because only 10% of Republicans said they trust them.

Basically, Republicans say they only trust Fox News, and nobody else, while Democrats say they trust everyone but Fox News. So if you took the Republican votes out of the poll, Fox would be dead last in the most trusted category. And the only reason they were voted the most trusted, is because the Republican votes all went to Fox.

O'Reilly left all that out of his reporting, which is all the stuff you need to know. What he did was cherry pick one part of the poll, that says Fox was voted the most trusted, without telling you how they got that #1 position, or the fact that they were also voted the least trusted. And this is coming from the guy who claims to have a no spin zone, when the reporting he did on it was almost all spin.

If you ran this same poll with Democrats and Independents only, Fox would be dead last in the most trusted vote, and first in the least trusted vote. So in other words, the poll is misleading, and the Republican vote makes it look like they are the most trusted, when in fact, they are not. And O'Reilly dishonestly put a spin on it while not reporting all the facts that show the real truth.

The Friday 1-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 1, 2014 - 11:00pm

The TPM was called: O'Reilly-Obama Interview Preview. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Super Bowl Sunday I will once again interview the President of the United States. The interview will be short, but the president has kindly granted some additional time on tape afterward that we'll show you Monday. Although the president sometimes criticizes Fox News, he knows its power.

The Public Policy Polling group recently surveyed registered voters about who they trust in TV news and Fox News won by a landslide. 35% of the public trusts FNC, while just 6% of Americans trust MSNBC. So, like us or not, we are a force in the USA, despite the dishonest pounding we take from crazed left-wing critics.

As for me, the survey found that I have a 41% approval rating among Americans, while 37% disapprove. Shockingly, that approval number is higher than any of the current crop of possible Republican presidential candidates. I am looking forward to seeing the president on Sunday.

Last time I interviewed him I got lashed by both the far-left and the far-right. I expect the same reaction this time around, although I think fair-minded Americans will appreciate the questions.
Folks, almost all of that is spin, O'Reilly never mentioned that Fox was also voted the least trusted by 33% of the people, or that the only reason it was voted the most trusted by 35% of the people is because 69% of the Republicans who took the poll voted for Fox. It's all right-wing spin, in the so-called no spin zone, and I will do a blog about it with the details that prove it.

Then Michelle Fields and Howard Kurtz were on to evaluate the survey mentioned above. With no liberal on for balance, to mention the details of the poll that show O'Reilly was spinning it.

Kurtz said this: "With those polling numbers, you should consider running for president, although it would be a big pay cut. I think President Obama is sitting down with you because politicians do better when they have to hit major league pitching. When Obama sat down with Chris Matthews, it was such a love fest that it disappeared without a trace. If you press him and he pushes back, that's what generates headlines."

Fields criticized a recent interview with the president conducted by CNN's Jake Tapper, saying this: "Tapper didn't really press him on the issues that people care about. He didn't press the president on Benghazi, ObamaCare, or the IRS scandal. I hope you press him more on those issues."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about taxes and the Super Bowl. Because this year's Super Bowl is in New Jersey, players will be hit with a hefty tax bill. As if anyone cares that multi-millionaire NFL players will have to pay some taxes, but O'Reilly and Dobbs.

Dobbs said this: "Peyton Manning may wind up paying more in taxes to New Jersey, than he makes for the game. They'll compute the number of days that he's working in New Jersey, then they'll apply a 9% tax on those total days. It could amount to more than the $92,000 each player gets for winning the Super Bowl."

Really Dobbs? Who cares? Nobody but you, and so what, they are all millionaires. Hell, they should donate the money to charity anyway, they do not need it.

Then O'Reilly asked Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk for advice on how to approach Sunday's interview with President Obama. As if anyone cares what those two idiots think about it.

McGuirk said this: "He knows this is not going to be a puff piece, so you have to charm him and disarm him with a little rope-a-dope. Maybe you ask him who he's watching the game with, who he's rooting for. Then you throw him an easy little multiple choice: 'Bill Clinton, Bob Gates, Ted Cruz, who would you most prefer to throw off a balcony.' Now he's laughing a little bit and you have him in your pocket. Then you hit him with, 'Where were you the night of Benghazi, what were you doing?'"

Gutfeld said this: "He's going to try to say 'folks' more than you, so whenever he says 'folks' you should say 'folks squared.'"

Then the two right-wing stooges were back to name the week's biggest pinheads.

McGuirk picked the Norwegians who hand out the Nobel Peace Prize, saying this: "My question is, who anointed the Norwegians as the arbiters of what's good, bad, or peaceful? What have the Norwegians given us since the Vikings, except for good-looking people?"

Gutfeld went with Cal Poly University professor Emmit Evans, saying this: "He teaches a class called 'World Food Systems' and he claims Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter taking on the evil imperialist United States. If the United States were a tooth, the professor would root for the cavity."

O'Reilly went with himself, saying this: "I am a pinhead because I am now going to predict the winner of the Super Bowl, and by doing so I alienate half my audience. I am compelled to tell you that Denver is going to win the game unless Seattle's Marshawn Lynch runs for more than 100 yards. Payton Manning is brilliant and he will find Seattle's weakness."

Which is just stupid, although he is a pinhead, how does he know half his audience is for Denver and half is for Seattle, maybe it's 60/40 or 80/20, he has no clue, so his statement that he could alienate half his audience is just dumb. The only thing he got right is that he is a pinhead.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dough for Woe. Billy said this: "Government researchers are looking for some volunteers who will allow doctors to spray the flu virus up their noses. The bad news is that you'll be quarantined in a hospital for at least nine days; the good news is that they're paying $3,000 to each human guinea pig."

Note: I checked on this and it's pretty much impossible for most people, because almost nobody would qualify for the study, and you have to be in Maryland, or go to Maryland to do it, and that's if you are in the 1% who would even qualify to take it.

O'Reilly's Make $3000 Tip Of The Day Is Ridiculous
By: Steve - February 1, 2014 - 10:30pm

Friday night in the Factor tip of the day O'Reilly asked if you would like to make $3000 for sitting around doing nothing, he said the National Institute of Health will pay you to sit around watching tv and playing games. And all you have to do is get a flu virus sprayed up your nose, and spend 9 days in a hospital.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Government researchers are looking for some volunteers who will allow doctors to spray the flu virus up their noses. The bad news is that you'll be quarantined in a hospital for at least nine days; the good news is that they're paying $3,000 to each human guinea pig.
Sounds great right, simple and easy quick $3000, wrong!

Because O'Reilly failed to mention a few things, like a million things that are a problem. He implied that anyone can just sign up, get the flu virus, and 9 days later you get paid $3000. It's total dishonesty, because 99% of the people are most likely excluded from doing the study and getting the $3000. So that great tip to make $3000 turns out to be a tip that almost nobody will be able to do, let alone qualify for.

I checked it out, and here are the details:

1) The study is in Maryland, so unless you want to travel to another state to do it for 9 days, you are out of luck.

2) If you test negative for the flu you go home after 2 days and you are not paid the $3000.

3) You must have 4 follow-up visits over an 8 week period. So if you do not live in Maryland it would be pretty much impossible for anyone in the other 49 states to do it.

4) They are only taking 200 people, so in reality, the study is limited to 200 people who live in Maryland, and who can stay in a hospital for 9 days.

O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, not a word, and there are many many other things that disqualify you from taking the study, here is a partial list, there are too many to list them all. If you have any of this you CAN NOT do the study.

1) If you are younger than 18 or older than 50, you are not eligible.

2) If you have asthma or emphysema, you are not eligible.

3) If you have any Chronic cardiovascular diseases, you are not eligible.

4) If you have any Chronic medical conditions during the past 5 years, like diabetes, etc. you are not eligible.

5) If you have any Neurological or neurodevelopmental conditions, you are not eligible.

6) Now get this: If you have close contact (or live with) someone over 65 or under 5, you are not eligible.

And that's not all, if they are a resident of a nursing home, you are not eligible. So if you have kids under 5, or live with someone over 65, or just visit someone over 65 in a nursing home you are not eligible.

And that's still not all: If you are in close contact with any persons of any age with these chronic medical conditions, you are not eligible:

-- Chronic pulmonary disease (e.g., asthma).
-- Chronic cardiovascular disease (e.g., cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, cardiac surgery, ischemic heart disease, known anatomic defects).
-- Contacts who required medical follow-up or hospitalization during the past 5 years because of chronic metabolic disease (e.g., diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, hemoglobinopathies).
-- Immunosuppression or cancer.
-- Neurological and neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., cerebral palsy, epilepsy, stroke, seizures).
-- Individuals who are receiving long-term aspirin therapy.
-- Women who are pregnant or who are trying to become pregnant.

And that's still not all, if you are too skinny or too fat, you are not eligible.

-- People with a body mass index (BMI) less than or equal to 18.5 and greater than or equal to 40.

-- If you smoke more than 4 cigarettes or other tobacco products on weekly basis, you are not eligible.

-- If you have a known history of alcoholism or drug abuse, you are not eligible.

And that's still not all, if you have any of these 16 more problems, you are not eligible.

-- Complete blood count (CBC) with differential outside of the NIH DLM normal reference range and deemed clinically significant by the PI.
-- Chemistries in the acute care, mineral, and/or hepatic panels, and/or any of the following: lactate dehydrogenase, uric acid, creatine kinase, and total protein outside of the NIH DLM normal reference range and deemed clinically significant by the PI.
-- Urinalysis outside of the NIH DLM normal reference range and deemed clinically significant by the PI.
-- Clinically significant abnormality on electrocardiogram.
-- Clinically significant abnormality as deemed by the PI on echocardiographic testing.
-- Clinically significant abnormality as deemed by the PI on the Pulmonary Function Test (PFT).
-- Recent acute illness within 1 week of admission to the isolation facility.
-- Known allergy to treatments for influenza (including but not limited to oseltamivir, nonsteroidals).
-- Known allergy to 2 or more classes of antibiotics (e.g., penicillins, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, or glycopeptides).
-- Receipt of blood or blood products (including immunoglobulins) within 3 months prior to enrollment.
-- Receipt of any unlicensed drug within 3 months or 5.5 half-lives (whichever is greater) prior to enrollment.
-- Receipt of any non-influenza related unlicensed vaccine within 6 months prior to enrollment.
-- History of current alcoholism or drug abuse, or positive urine/serum test for drugs of abuse (i.e., amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines, opiates, or metabolites, but not tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or metabolites).
-- Self-reported or known history of psychiatric or psychological issues deemed by the PI to be a contraindication to protocol participation.
-- Known close contact with anyone known to have influenza in the past 7 days.
-- Any condition or event that, in the judgment of the PI, is a contraindication to protocol participation or impairs the volunteer s ability to give informed consent.

WOW! O'Reilly forgot to mention all that, and from what I can see, 99% of the people in America would be excluded from taking the study. So that $3000 O'Reilly claimed anyone can make for doing nothing watching tv and playing games, turns out to be a total sham.

Because unless you live in Maryland and you can get past all those restrictions, you CAN NOT take the study or make the $3000 for doing it.

Thanks for nothing O'Reilly, you are a massive idiot and your tips of the day are worthless garbage, please stop doing them and use the time for something else. I got it, why dont you use the time to report on something with a liberal, a real liberal, so your show would have at least a 5% liberal guest percentage. Because now it's about 98% conservative to 2% liberal.

Ontario Raises Minimum Wage To $11.00 An Hour
By: Steve - February 1, 2014 - 10:00pm

Ontario's first minimum wage hike in four years will take effect on June 1. The wage will rise to $11 from $10.25 an hour, Premier Kathleen Wynne announced Thursday at an inner-city cafe in Toronto.

"In this calculus, we needed to balance the needs of small businesses....with the needs of people to have a living wage," Ms. Wynne said.

"We have to take care of people. For me, the fairness agenda is part of our economic well-being."

The government will also introduce legislation to tie future minimum wage increases to inflation.

Which is what our Congress could do, if they actually represented the people instead of the corporations.

Republican Says She Supports Equal Pay Laws She Voted Against
By: Steve - February 1, 2014 - 9:00pm

This is why you should never believe anything a Republican says, because they lie. You have to check what they do, not what they say. Listen to what they say they did, then check to see if they did it, or not.

On Wednesday, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) told host Wolf Blitzer that she supports equal pay for women despite voting against a measure that would help women achieve that goal.

In response to a question from Blitzer about President Obama's call for equal pay in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday and whether she is "with the President when he says that there should be laws mandating equal pay for equal work for women," McMorris Rodgers, who gave the official Republican response, replied:
RODGERS: Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Republicans and I support equal pay for equal work.

My message last night was one about empowering everyone in this country, no matter what your background, no matter where you live, what corner of the country, no matter what your experiences are. We want you to have the opportunity for a better life.
And now the truth: McMorris Rodgers actually voted against laws meant to address the pay disparity between men and women four times.

She voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act twice, which lengthened the time for victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint.

She also voted twice against the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure aimed at closing the gender wage gap by ending the practice of salary secrecy, thus giving women and others a better chance of rooting out discrimination, narrowing the guidelines for what pay disparities are justified, and strengthening penalties for discrimination as a way to deter it, among other things.

Republicans say they support equal pay, but they voted unanimously against the Paycheck Fairness Act in the Senate 2010 and only 10 Republicans voted for it in the House.

Senate Republicans blocked it again in 2012 with a filibuster.

Meanwhile, progress on closing the gender pay gap has stalled. As of 2012 women made just 77 cents, on average, for every dollar a man makes for the past five years.

And here are some facts for O'Reilly, who claims there is no pay gap and that women make 91 cents to every dollar a man makes.

In September of 2013 the Census Bureau released new numbers showing that the gender wage gap was 77 percent in 2012, meaning women make just 77 cents for each dollar a man makes.

Median earnings for men working full-time were $49,400 while women's were just $37,800. These numbers didn't show any significant change from 2011 and there hasn't been an increase since 2007.

While many factors go into the disparity between what men and women make, even accounting for factors such as job tenure, whether someone goes part-time, industry, occupation, race, and marital status can't explain the gap.

Women make less than men no matter what job they take, what industry they enter, or how much education they attain. They are paid less beginning with their first jobs out of college right up until they reach the highest ranks of their companies.

Which destroys the lie that O'Reilly and the Republican put out that women make less because they take more time off to have kids, etc.

And individual women report experiencing this discrimination. Thirty-one percent say they would be paid more if they were a man. Thirteen percent say they have been denied a raise because of their gender. And 70 percent of women say that being paid less than men is a big problem.

While the Lilly Ledbetter Act was an important step in giving women more power to fight discrimination, the wage gap has actually widened since then.

Now remember this, it is surely worse than that, because a lot of women do not know what men doing the same job they are doing make, it's a secret at most companies.

Another important fix would be to end salary secrecy so that women can find out whether they are being discriminated against. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been introduced but voted down in Congress many times, would do just that.

Other steps would include raising the minimum wage, enacting paid family leave policies, and increasing child care support. And of all those, the only one O'Reilly currently supports is raising the minimum wage to $10.00 an hour. O'Reilly even told Kirsten Powers, who said one problem is not knowing how much men make for doing the same job, that what you dont know wont hurt you, as he was saying women get almost the same pay as men so move on.