Ex-aide Says Christie Lied About Bridge Closings
By: Steve - January 31, 2014 - 4:30pm

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie knew of politically motivated George Washington Bridge lane closings as they were happening, says a lawyer for the former port authority official blamed for the politically motivated incident.

A letter from David Wildstein's attorney says "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the Governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference he gave immediately before Mr. Wildstein was scheduled to appear before the Transportation Committee."

"Mr. Wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some," the letter also reads.

The letter, from attorney Alan Zegas and addressed to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, seeks a reconsideration of the authority's decision to not pay Wildstein's legal fees. The letter was first reported by the New York Times.

A spokesman for the governor said a statement would be released shortly.

Zegas letter sent shock waves through New Jersey's political community, with one veteran pundit saying the revelation was a "bombshell."

Haha, and of course Bill O'Reilly ignored it, even though he said he believes Christie knew nothing.

"Most of us who have watched this governor over the past several weeks anticipated this, given his demeanor has been rather un-Christie-like," said Brigid Callahan Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University.

Wildstein has been central in the probe into the lane closings, which occurred in September and snarled traffic in Fort Lee for hours over a period of four days. The closings led some Democrats to say the incident was meant as political retribution because the Fort Lee mayor declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid.

Originally, Wildstein, Christie and others claimed the closings were the result of a traffic study, but emails released earlier this month showed the closings were discussed between Wildstein and Christie Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly in August.

Christie said he fired Kelly and cut ties to Bill Stepien, who ran his 2009 and 2013 campaigns, and insisted during an extraordinary Jan. 9 news conference that he was "blindsided" by the content of the e-mails.

The Thursday 1-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 31, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Liberal Dissatisfaction with President Obama. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Some Democratic Senators who may lose in November are criticizing President Obama. That's self-serving and not very important; what's more striking is that some very liberal folks have turned against the president. In his first term, most of the media was very gentle toward the president, but now that's changing.

And even though most African Americans remain faithful, some activists are angry. There is no question that African Americans are suffering grievously in this economy. Black unemployment is about 12%, as compared to about 6% for whites, and young black men are unemployed at a rate of 22%. So after five years in office, President Obama has not really lifted the fortunes of African Americans.

Talking Points believes it is partially due to the culture. You may be tired of hearing that 72% of black babies are born out of wedlock, but that's what's driving economics in the black community. In many black precincts there's chaos in the streets, the schools, and the homes. From the very beginning of his presidency, I have suggested that President Obama take on the cultural aspect of poverty for all races. So far he has not.
And that is just ridiculous, to begin with, very few liberals are unhappy with Obama, and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. Now, how does O'Reilly know those Democratic Senators will lose, in fact, his political predictions are usually wrong. And what's really funny is how O'Reilly claims he said Obama should have helped black people more, that's a lie. O'Reilly had some ideas for Obama to help blacks, but they were stupid ideas that would not work. And if Obama had tried to help blacks with specific programs, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends would scream bloody murder and claim he was a racist who is only helping the blacks.

Then James Carville was on to discuss it.

Carville said this: "President Obama got 93% of the black vote, and by and large they are very supportive. I wish we had stronger black families, but high school graduation is up, crime is down, and teenage pregnancy rates have flattened out. So we are making some progress, but I'd like to see us make more. Funding for pre-K has gotten a lot of steam and the research shows this could be very helpful in the long run, and moving the minimum wage to $10 an hour is going to help considerably."

O'Reilly argued that federal legislation is not a real solution, saying this: "The president and the Democratic Party believe that spending more money is going to solve the problem, and I'm flat-out saying it isn't. The plight of African Americans under the first black president has deteriorated on every level."

And it's not because of Obama, idiot. it's because the Republicans who control the House have refused to pass anything Obama wanted to help the poor and minorities. The House Republicans are the problem, and to blame, not Obama, fool. And btw O'Reilly, Bush and the Republicans spent money like drunken sailors, and put us into debt that Clinton had got us out of, remember that the next time you lie that only liberals spend a lot of Government money.

Then O'Reilly had this right-wing anti-pot quack doctor Don Colbert on to talk about a pro-pot group that has put up billboards claiming marijuana is safer than alcohol and football. And guess what, no pro-pot guest was on for balance, just the anti-pot O'Reilly and the anti-pot quack doctor to give his biased opinions.

Colbert 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."

O'Reilly said this: "Another new study says pregnant women who smoke marijuana will damage the fetus, and when kids smoke marijuana their childhood is over."

What a bunch of BS, almost none of that is true. I smoked pot for 20 years and my IQ never dropped one point, in fact, I am pretty sure it went up. Because I am smarter now than I was before I smoked pot for 20 years. This Dr. Colbert is a nut, and most of what he said is right-wing propaganda, that is why O'Reilly had him on alone, so nobody could say he is nuts and tell you that what he is saying is his opinion not facts.

Then the insane O'Reilly says when kids smoke marijuana their childhood is over. That is so crazy it's hard to believe a Harvard graduate would say such a ridiculous thing. How is their childhood over, explain it in detail O'Reilly, because it's insane and it does not make sense.

Then Heather Nauert was on for made as hell. Georgian Russ Dodson, is ticked off about the focus on income inequality when some people obviously work harder than others.

Nauert said this: "The very term 'income inequality, implies that there is something unfair about the fact that you make more money than I do. Maybe you're more talented than I am. A surgeon makes more money than a librarian, sorry."

And that is just stupid, because that is not what they mean, when they talk about income inequality they are talking about the corporations not paying the workers enough, they are not talking about taking money away from rich people. Nobody I know thinks it is unfair that some people make more money than other people, and nobody is talking about that, except right-wing idiots who are lying about it.

I do not care if some people make more money than others, I just want the corporations who are making record profits, to pay their employees a living wage, and if they did the Government would not have to threaten to raise the minimum wage. The problem is the greedy corporations not paying their workers enough money, not the people calling for income equality.

Another viewer, Texan Kay Merkel, complained because the film "Lone Survivor" was not nominated for an Academy Award.

Nauert said this: "A movie reviewer called the movie propaganda, and that is the real mood among some of these Hollywood liberals. I spoke with a Hollywood movie producer today and he told me that the people who vote for the Academy Awards are the most radical leftists in Hollywood."

Then Joe Namath was on to talk about playing in the NFL.

Namath said this: "I didn't pay a horrendous physical price, and I've always felt lucky and blessed. Yes, I would do it all again in a flash. I've always looked at the physical suffering as a test - once I know that it's not going to kill me, I look at the good side. I feel great even though I've had tests that show some brain damage."

O'Reilly said this: "I'm glad that with all the punishment you took you prospered over the years."

And I would say this: Who cares, and how is this hard news. That interview should be on a sports show, not a so-called hard news show.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court , that will rule on whether the police can search the cell phone of a suspect who has been arrested. Kelly predicted that those searches will be declared unconstitutional. Which they should be, because they are, it's called the 4th amendment.

Kelly said this: "If a cop stops you now, he can pat you down to make sure you don't have any weapons or drugs. They're also taking cell phones from suspects and looking at them. This is taking liberties in the name of protecting society, but it is very dicey."

O'Reilly suggested this compromise: "When the police arrest a suspect, they should confiscate the cell phone, not look at it, put it into evidence, and then can get a warrant."

Kelly also gave her opinion on the federal government's decision to seek the death penalty against Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, saying this: "If you're going to give the death penalty to anyone, why not give it to someone who intentionally murdered three people, including a little boy who was standing right next to him? He had no trouble taking that boy's life."

And I say this: Kelly sure gives her opinion a lot for someone who claimed to be a neutral news anchor, and what a shocker, all her opinions are right-wing opinions. As far as Tsarnaev, I would say why not give him life in prison and let him die a slow death thinking about all the people he killed for no reason. The death penalty is actually better for him, because he is killed and it's over. I say let him suffer in prison for the rest of his life, getting beat up and raped.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Buyer Beware! Billy said this: "If you're thinking of purchasing any sports or rock and roll memorabilia, you're taking a huge chance because so much of the stuff is bogus. Before shelling out any cash, make sure you get a money-back guarantee in writing."




Republican Georgia Governor Slammed For Snowstorn Chaos
By: Steve - January 31, 2014 - 10:30am

Georgia's Republican Gov. Nathan Deal is taking heat from meteorologists and critics for claiming that the snowstorm that paralyzed Atlanta and left thousands stranded overnight was unexpected.

Activists and even Al Roker slammed the governor for delaying action on the storm and insisting that no one could have predicted what meteorologists had been predicting for days.

Georgia activist Bryan Long blasted the governor for his lackadaisical approach to the storm.

"Governor Deal and Mayor Reed continue to make excuses for their lack of response to the winter storm that created gridlock on Atlanta's roads and trapped children on school buses," Long said in a statement.

"It is shocking that just moments ago, Gov. Deal told reporters that he believed that they had done a reasonable job of managing this crisis. Those kids who are still stranded and the parents who waited at home for their children would disagree.

Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed's flat-footed response to the storm, Long said, put thousands at risk. It's time for them both to fully accept responsibility.

Roker appeared on Morning Joe to set the record straight on predictions about Atlanta's response to Winter Storm Leon.

"The mayor and the governor got on TV yesterday and said, 'Oh, this wasn't expected,'" said Roker. "And that's not true. We were talking about this Monday morning, that this was going to happen."

"They took a gamble," he continued. "They didn’t want to pre-treat the roads. I don't think they wanted to spend the money and do what they needed to. And then, they told everybody...everybody started going home right around noon."

By 1:30 p.m., Roker said, the city's highways were "a parking lot." "This was poor planning on the mayor's part and on the governor's part," he concluded.

Even the normally non-political Weather Channel network leveled criticism at the Tea Party governor, saying that his excuses don't square with the record.

"The entire metro Atlanta area was under a winter storm watch early Monday morning, giving plenty of time to prepare for a worst-case scenario," said meteorologist Chris Dolce of Weather.com. "By late Monday afternoon and evening, confidence increased that significant snow would impact Atlanta and winter storm warnings (south metro) and winter weather advisories (north metro) were issued."

As of 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Gov. Deal still insisted that state business should go on as usual and that schools should remain open. He said on Tuesday night that as of that morning, "it was still in most of the forecasts anticipated that the city of Atlanta would only have a mild dusting or a very small accumulation, if any. And that the majority of the effects of the storm would be south of here. Preparations were made for those predictions."

Dolce pointed out that at 3:38 a.m. Tuesday, the National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning for the metro Atlanta area, saying that the area should expect significant impact from the storm.

“Confidence increased more by early Tuesday morning that significant snow would affect Atlanta and winter storm warnings were posted for the entire metro area at 3:38 a.m,” he said. Nonetheless, Deal said at his press conference on Tuesday night that no one could have known what was coming.

When the order to close schools and the state government came out at 1:00 p.m., the first flurries were intensifying to snow showers. As bridges and overpasses began to quickly freeze and become treacherous, thousands of people were stranded in their vehicles. Hundreds of Atlanta schoolchildren were still hoping to return home as of Wednesday afternoon, more than 24 hours later.

And btw, here in the Peoria area they put out a notice on a crawl at the bottom of the tv screen Sunday night that all the schools would be closed on Monday and Tuesday, so that way the kids would not be in the buses to get trapped or stranded in the weather. And they did that because they know what they are doing, and they care about the kids more than they do saving a few dollars in salt.

O'Reilly Tears Down Historic House On Long Island
By: Steve - January 31, 2014 - 10:00am

They are calling him Bulldozer Bill, and the property is surrounded by liberals. So much for O'Reilly not being one of the wealthy elite he slams on almost a nightly basis, while claiming to be one of us who is looking out for you.

From the NY Daily News: Bulldozer Bill has already demolished two buildings on the land. That paves the way for a true waterfront estate.

The only thing blowing harder than the winds off the Atlantic in Montauk may be the seaside hamlet's newest resident, Bill O'Reilly.

The Fox News anchor just plunked down $7.65 million for a quaint seaside bungalow on a bluff overlooking the ocean, brokerage firm Town and Country Real Estate announced Thursday.

He has already demolished the two-bedroom, one-bath shingle cottage, along with a beachside cabana, on the 1.5-acre property. So much for the "old world craftsmanship” and “interiors brimming with authenticity," as broker Theresa Eurell wrote in her listing for the spread, originally on the market for $8.5 million.

Eurell said she was "sad to see the structures come down." "As a Montauk native, I have always admired the Abbe property, along with many other locals," she said in a statement.

"At this point, it was so unique, I can't even remember the last time something like it was torn down," says Theresa Eurell, a life-long resident and broker at Town & Country Real Estate who had the listing on the 1.5-acre property.

The cottage was notable not just for being the last of its kind. Built during World War II by James Abbe, a successful magazine photographer, and his wife, Kathryn, it was small because of the rationing of materials.

It was listed with the local historical society to salvage the house. And O'Reilly had it bulldozed anyway, because saving it would have required plowing through much of the property, a sacrifice O'Reilly was unwilling to make.

Locals are also worried about how their new neighbor will behave once he is done building on this prominent bend in the Old Montauk Highway -- especially since his boss, Fox News Channel chief Roger Ailes, is notorious for reportedly terrorizing his neighbors in upstate Putnam County.

"It remains to be seen if the home will be as outsized and out-of-place as he is," said one local of O'Reilly.

O'Reilly will have plenty of company out on the East End peninsula, though not many friends. Neighbors include such liberal lions as Paul Simon, Julian Schnabel and Jann Wenner.

So big bad Billy O'Reilly sure hates him some liberals, but he sure dont mind living right next door to them, while bulldozing historic homes to do it.

Female Fox Host Proves She Is An Idiot (Again)
By: Steve - January 31, 2014 - 9:00am

Want proof the women at Fox News are right-wing stooges who are like robots you program to put out right-wing propaganda, here it is: Martha MacCallum.

Fox News host Martha MacCallum asserted on Wednesday that women did not want special laws ensuring equal pay for equal work because they already were compensated "exactly what they’re worth."

So not only is she a right-wing idiot, now she claims to speak for every woman in America. Defending equal pay discrimination against women, even though she is a woman.

After President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address on Tuesday to call on Congress to end workplace discrimination practices that "belong in a Mad Men episode," Fox News asked two men, liberal radio host Alan Colmes and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, to debate equal pay for women.

Carlson argued that women actually made more than men if the time they "voluntarily" took off work to raise children was factored in.

Which is a ridiculous argument, because you have women making $10.00 an hour doing the same job a man is doing, who makes $11.00 an hour, and that is a fact, that has nothing to do with how much time off women get to have kids.

MacCallum accused politicians of talking about female workers like they were victims "who we need to make sure she gets what she deserves."

"The numbers, when you look at them, do not bear out that there is a war on women in the workplace," the Fox News host added. "And I think it"s a question of how liberals and conservative view what needs to be done for women."

Yes they do you dumb right-wing blonde bimbo, the numbers show that women make on average 77 cents to a dollar a man makes for doing the same job, those are the numbers, you are just too biased and too stupid to admit it.

"I disagree that there is not a war on women when they're not making as much as men for the same jobs," Colmes replied. "The numbers don't lie in terms of sick leave, pregnancy and women are forced out of the workplace when they have to leave."

MacCallum interrupted: "I think most women do not want to be treated as sort of a special class of citizen. They want to go to work every day, they want to get paid for being a professional for doing their job really well, and they don't want to be treated like some special group of people who have to be given a little special handout just to make sure they're OK."

"Special handout?" Colmes shot back. "It's equal pay for equal work, it's having sick leave, it's having pregnancy leave."

"Women get paid exactly what they're worth," MacCallum said.

"Exactly what they're worth?" Colmes exclaimed. "Are they not worth the same amount of money for the same job as men?"

"They are worth a heck of a lot," the Fox News host remarked.

Give it up Colmes, she is an idiot, you are wasting your time arguing with the blonde bimbo, she is too far gone and a total right-wing fool. And btw, did you notice Fox did not have a debate on it with two women who were making less than a man for doing the same job, they used two Fox News men to discuss it.

Dont you think they should have had at least one woman on to discuss it who was getting paid less to do the same job as a man, I sure as hell do.

The Wednesday 1-29-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 30, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Women in the U.S. Workplace. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama's State of the Union speech was heavy on grievance, discussing Americans who are not doing as well as other Americans. It's almost like he's a teacher with favorite students, and last night American women fell into that category. The president wants more income 'fairness,' to lessen the gap between rich and working Americans.

That's a noble goal if it comes about in the private marketplace, but an imposition into private earnings by the feds goes directly against our capitalistic system. Nevertheless, the president and the Democratic Party have targeted women as a group that needs help.

But here are the facts: In 1963 the Equal Pay Act was passed so the feds can punish any employer who discriminates against women in the pay arena. Men are more often in unions and they tend to go into higher paying professions. Also, American men work more hours than women. But President Obama and the Democrats badly need women to come back into the tent.

With his job approval around 40%, he has to mobilize the base that elected him. Talking Points is here to set all the records straight, and we believe the 'war on women' stuff is, generally speaking, a political ruse.

One more note about last night's address: The Republican Party should wise up and stop opposing raising the minimum wage. It should be ten bucks an hour, but I would have a lower wage for teenagers just beginning in the workplace. The GOP needs to stop working against working people.
O'Reilly called Obama a liar when he says women make 77 cents to every dollar men make, based on what you ask, his say so. O'Reilly said they make the real number is 91 cents to every dollar a man makes, then he said there is no income inequality between men and women. Wow, let's just say O'Reilly is right, which he is not, so 91 cents is not the same as a dollar right?

That means even if it's 91 cents to a dollar, they are still being paid less than a man. So that also means O'Reilly is a right-wing idiot, because 91 cents is less than a dollar so they are being paid less. Let's face it, O'Reilly and the Republicans simply do not think women should be paid as much as men, that is a fact. So they lie and spin the numbers to make it look like it's close, but even if it is 91 cents to a dollar it's still breaking the equal pay laws, idiot!

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to discuss it.

Powers said this: "I agree with everything you said. The president is using this to excite the women's base and I don't like it. I have never been a fan of the 'war on women' because it's a cynical way to exploit women's fears."

Obenshain said this: "What radical feminists don't acknowledge is that women make different choices. A lot decide they want part-time work or they want to stay home with their kids and get out of the workforce for a period of time."

Obenshain also said this about O'Reilly's call to raise the minimum wage: "You're taking on the imperial, elitist leftist position, by telling the owners of a burger shop what they have to pay. You're totally on the wrong side, you're the social engineer!"

Obenshain is an idiot, and a corporate stooge. Remember this, she is paid to go on shows like the Factor and put out those opinions. The facts show that minimum wage is too low to live on, and the vast majority of the American people support raising it to $10.00 an hour. Obenshain says people who want to raise it are on the wrong side, and that is just laughable. Because almost 80% of the people support it, including a majority of Republicans, so she is on the wrong side, and a biased corporate liar.

Then the 2 Republicans Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on to give their analysis of the president's SOTU speech, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Rosen said this: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC told his viewers this was a masterful work of oratorical greatness, but the president's allies on Capitol Hill basically ran away from the speech. Democratic Senator Mark Begich of Alaska said he was disappointed, that he heard a lot of sound bites but no clear plan for economic growth. Democrats Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor also said they were disappointed."

So this is what we call journalism now? It's ridiculous, Rosen cherry picks what 3 moderate Democrats said about the speech and acts like all Democrats agree with them, it's just nonsense, and total right-wing bias from the Republican Rosen.

Cameron said this: "What we heard was an unfinished to-do list, a lot of things he started talking about five years ago. To push this into the mid-term election year of a second term, the exact point when presidents historically become lame ducks, is amazing. There is impetus for Democrats to be upset with the president for talking about things he said he was going to do five years ago."

Which is just laughable, because the reason Obama could not do any of that is the House Republican majority voted down all his proposals. Earth to Carl Cameron, Obama is not to blame for the Republican House blocking all the bills he tried to pass, they are the problem, not him.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on a so-called Indiana Exorcism, a segment with a former NFL player who admitted he did coke during the games, and a segment with the lame comedian Dennis Miller. Which I will not report on because it's not hard news, it's nonsense and tabloid news. Hey O'Reilly, you are not at Inside Edition any more, you claim to have a hard news show now, so do some hard news, moron.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she screened a few of Jesse Watters previously unseen outtakes, clips that the roving rogue finds rather embarrassing. "He likes everybody else to look dopey," MacCallum said, "but sometimes in these he looks a little dopey. In one of these he confused Moses and Muhammad, and he was terrified by a flock of pigeons."

MacCallum also analyzed an ad for a carbonated drink called SodaStream, which features Scarlett Johansson but was initially rejected for airing during the Super Bowl. "At the end of the ad she mentions Coke and Pepsi, which is why the ad was rejected. Pepsi is the sponsor of the huge halftime show and Coke is also a big sponsor. They're going to remove that last line and allow it to run."

Now of course O'Reilly never said a word to MacCallum about saying women are paid what they are worth. He just ignored that to do the stupid did you see that garbage. That is also not hard news, it's more crap from O'Reilly. And for a so-called hard news show there is not much actual hard news.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: "Higher" Education. Billy said this: "Parents of college-age kids should know that out-of-state admission applications are soaring at colleges in Colorado, where marijuana is legal. So before you shell out tens of thousands of dollars, you may want to ask your teen why he or she is so eager to attend school in the Rocky Mountains."

Republican Congressman Tells Reporter He will Break Him In Half
By: Steve - January 30, 2014 - 10:00am

After President Obama's State of the Union Speech, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) rushed to tell an NY1 television reporter that he found the speech divisive. When the reporter asked Grimm about a brewing controversy over his campaign finance practices, the second-term Congressman and former FBI agent threatened to throw the reporter off a balcony if he ever did so again.

NY1 reporter Michael Scotto was referring to an ongoing federal investigation into whether Grimm illegally solicited and accepted contributions from foreign donors, offered to help a foreign national get a green card in exchange for campaign cash, and filed false campaign finance disclosures.

A new report last week also suggested that he may have engaged in a controversial -- and potentially illegal -- donor swapping scheme, circumventing campaign contribution limits by having donors make contributions to a different campaign and then having that candidate transfer the money.

At the end of the interview, Scotto broached the topic. Grimm quickly cut him off, saying he would not speak off-topic and walked off camera. When Scotto noted to the television audience that Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances, Grimm confronted the reporter with the cameras still rolling:
GRIMM: "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f---ing balcony."

SCOTTO: Why? I just wanted to ask you...

GRIMM: If you ever do that to me again...

SCOTTO: Why? Why? It's a valid question.

GRIMM: No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy.
So the reporter was just doing his job, and for that he is told he will be broken in half and thrown off a balcony like a boy. And Grimm did not even say he was sorry, he put out a statement later saying this:
GRIMM: I was extremely annoyed because I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first in lieu of several other requests. The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview, because I did not have time to speak off-topic.

I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won't be the last.
And what's really funny is how this idiotic right-wing Congressman is crying about expecting a certain level of professionalism and respect to him, as he is telling a journalist he will break him in half and throw him off a balcony like a boy, yeah that's real respectful and professional from Grimm, not!

It was a valid question because just a week ago the FBI arrested Diana K. Durand, a fund-raiser for Congressman Grimm, on charges that she illegally funneled more than $10,000 into his campaign. And that's not all, Grimm is also involved in an ongoing federal investigation into accusations that he or his campaign illegally solicited money from foreign donors and filed false campaign finance disclosures.

Calling Mr. Grimm's behavior unacceptable, NY1's political director, Bob Hardt, demanded a full apology from the lawmaker.

"It is extremely disturbing when anyone threatens one of our reporters -- let alone a U.S. Congressman," Mr. Hardt said in a series of messages on Twitter.

Hardt also said that Grimm's "bizarre and scary rant" was "not an isolated incident," but rather "part of a pattern in which the congressman has tried to avoid questions from NY1 about an ongoing probe into his campaign finances -- and then become enraged when we dared to ask him about a legitimate news story."

Grimm's widely-reported meltdown will likely bring more attention to the controversy he sought to avoid discussing. The New York Times reported, in January 2012, that Grimm, a former FBI agent, had raised more than $500,000 from followers of an Orthodox rabbi.

Members of the rabbi's congregation claimed that an aide to Grimm had pressed them to illegally contribute funds to Grimm's 2010 campaign. The FBI and a U.S. Attorney launched an investigation into the matter that year -- still ongoing -- and the House Ethics Committee agreed to defer its own probe until the Department of Justice is done.

Questions about Grimm's integrity surfaced even before he was elected. During a tough primary race against an opponent backed by the state party establishment, Grimm used a campaign flier with a picture of himself in uniform wearing two combat ribbons that he had not earned. Grimm blamed an administrative screw up for the error. And of course O'Reilly has never reported any of this, even though Grimm is a Congressman from New York, where O'Reilly lives and does his show.

The latest revelations, reported by the New York Daily News last Monday, were that in 2010, more than 20 transactions suggest supporters of Grimm and candidates in California, South Dakota, Illinois and Virginia swapped more than $75,000 in donations. Melanie Sloan, head of the non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and a former federal prosecutor, said the donations "certainly are suspicious."

For the past three years, her group has listed Grimm as one of the "Most Corrupt" members of Congress. And even after all that, Grimm won re-election in 2012, by a 52 to 47 margin.

So then after all the media attention Wednesday Grimm finally apologized for his conduct, writing this: "I was wrong. I shouldn't have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool. I have apologized to Michael Scotto, which he graciously accepted.

More Proof Bill O'Reilly Has A Right-Wing Bias
By: Steve - January 30, 2014 - 9:00am

On his Tuesday night show O'Reilly reported on the Democratic former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, he was indicted on 21 counts of accepting more than $200,000 in bribes, free loads of granite for a family business and trips to Hawaii, Jamaica and other places.

O'Reilly reported it during his weekly legal segment that he does with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. The story is basically about a Democratic mayor accepting gifts and bribes.

On the Tuesday Factor show O'Reilly and Wiehl slammed him, saying it was serious, and Guilfoyle said this: "He's looking at a total of 100 years for very serious charges, including conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud. He allegedly accepted gifts in the form of cash and services and trips from contractors who stood to benefit from the city during the rebuilding of New Orleans. The evidence is very damning against him."

Now think about this, O'Reilly has not said a word about the former Republican Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia and his wife, Maureen, who were indicted last Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of accepting more than $140,000 in loans and gifts in exchange for promoting the business of a political patron who was seeking special favors from the state government.

O'Reilly has totally ignored that story, and he has also not reported it during his weekly legal segment, and Nagin was just a small time mayor of one city, the Republican McDonnell was the Governor of an entire state. But O'Reilly ignores it because he is a Republican.

The 14-count indictment against McDonnell was filed by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, it included charges of fraud and soliciting loans and gifts from Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the chief executive of Star Scientific, a maker of dietary supplements, who hoped to use the governor to promote his products.

The indictment accuses the McDonnells of accepting some $135,000 in cash from Mr. Williams, thousands of dollars in golf outings, designer clothing and a Rolex watch engraved "71st Governor of Virginia" on the back. It accuses the former first couple of lying about the gifts on loan statements and to government investigators.

Once a rising Republican star, mentioned as a possible running mate for Mitt Romney in 2012 and as an aspirant for his party's 2016 presidential nomination, McDonnell has taken a spectacular fall since details of his relationship with Mr. Williams surfaced last spring. Under Virginia law, he was limited to one four-year term, but details of his relationship with Mr. Williams and the threat of his indictment colored the race to succeed him.

This is how O'Reilly operates folks, he reports on a Democratic mayor for corruption, but when a Republican Governor is indicted for corruption he says nothing, not a word. This is right-wing bias, by not reporting something.

And what makes it even worse is the hypocrisy and the double standard from O'Reilly, because he complains that MSNBC has a left-wing bias by ignoring stories that are negative to Democrats. O'Reilly and Goldberg cry every week about the bias at MSNBC by not covering negative stories about Obama and other Democrats, while they are doing the very same thing with Republicans.

Not only is it hypocrisy, bias, and a double standard from O'Reilly and Goldberg, it's a violation of the rules of journalism. The rules of journalism these two right-wing fools claim to follow, and complain about when other journalists do the same thing. So they are breaking the very same rules of journalism they complain other journalists are doing.

O'Reilly Gets It Wrong About Obama Speech Ratings prediction
By: Steve - January 29, 2014 - 4:30pm

During the State of the Union speech by President Obama, Fox News had 4.719 Million total viewers.

O'Reilly predicted that almost nobody would watch the Obama speech, and that his Factor show before the speech (on Fox) would get higher ratings than the Obama speech on Fox.

And as usual, he was wrong! Because the Factor had 3.575 Million total viewers, which is not even close to the 4.719 Million viewers that watched it on Fox.

Of course you have to remember one thing, O'Reilly will claim he had 5 million viewers for his Tuesday show, and then call anyone who disputes that an un-American America hating liar. Even though the ratings clearly show he did not have 5 million viewers, or 4 million, and that the Obama speech was much higher rated than his lame cable news show that about 2 percent of America watches.

And btw, 31 million people watched the speech. Which means that 26 million of them did not watch it on the Fox News Network.

Great Example Of Right-Wing Bias At The Fox News Network
By: Steve - January 29, 2014 - 11:30am

Update - 5:00pm: I got an e-mail from a guy telling me that O'Reilly is not going to report on the Republican Congressman telling the reporter he will break him in half and throw him off the balcony on the Wednesday night Factor show. To which I wrote him back and said, now tell me something I don't know, lol.

Update - 8pm: As predicted, O'Reilly (the so-called journalist) did not say one word about the biggest story of the day, the Republican Congressman who told the reporter he would break him in half and throw him off the balcony like a boy. O'Reilly ignored the entire story, but he sure had time to report on some Indiana exorcism nonsense andtime to talk to a former NFL player who said he used coke during a game.

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

A check of the foxnews.com website finds one small headline about the Republican Congressman Michael Grimm, who told a reporter he would break him in half and throw him off the balcony like a little boy. It links to a video of a Fox host reporting it on the Fox News Network.

But here is the headline: New York congressional representative threatens reporter

Which does not mention Grimm is a Republican, and during the short 2 minute report on it with Martha MacCallum and a Fox news reporter, they never tell their viewers that he is a Republican. They refer to him as representative Grimm, at no time did either one of them say the word Republican when talking about what Grimm did.

And that was it, no guests on to discuss it, no reports on it later in the day, nothing. One 2 minute segment was their entire reporting on the story.

Now imagine if a Democratic Congressman had done the same thing to a Fox news reporter, or a reporter from a conservative news outlet. All hell would break loose, it would have been a Fox news alert, that said DEMOCRATIC Congressman in big letters on the screen, they would have covered it all day, and had multiple guests on to discuss it, as if the world had just ended.

But when a Republican Congressman does it, they have one small headline on the foxnews.com website, with no written story to go with it, and one video link to a short 2 minute segment on it, where nobody mentions he is a Republican.

The Tuesday 1-28-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 29, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: State of the Union. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Let's take a look at the most recent poll about the USA, conducted over the weekend by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. As for President Obama's job performance, 43% approve and 51% disapprove. Just 13% approve of the way Congress is doing its job, while a whopping 81% disapprove. 28% of Americans believe the country is heading in the right direction, 63% say it is not.

The most telling answer from the folks is that just 3% of Americans believe the USA is a strong nation today. So there is no question that President Obama's first five years in office have been troubled. Tonight he will try to regroup, but Talking Points believes few Americans will be paying close attention. The Obama administration has a lot of work to do, because right now Americans are not believing or hoping in the president.

But this country is a very resilient place and things can change fast. No other nation can fight worldwide terrorism as effectively; no other nation will spend blood and treasure trying to give people liberty; and no other nation has sacrificed so much fighting evil on this planet. So if America becomes weak, the whole world is in trouble.

When asked what the most important priority for the Obama administration should be, the American people said loud and clear that creating jobs is the highest priority, and next was reducing the federal budget deficit. I believe the president should concentrate on those two areas in his final three years. This country needs a vibrant economy in order for people to pursue happiness and reach their potential. That should be the president's main concern.
Now it is true that 63% of Americans believe the country is not heading in the right direction. But here is one thing O'Reilly failed to mention, that for the last 10 years straight less than 40% of the country has said they think we are headed in the right direction. Which means that even during the Bush years and during good economic times 60% (or more) of the people were saying they do not think the country is headed in the right direction.

What that means is that the American people do not like what Congress is doing, ever, because they are corporate stooges that do what the wealthy and the corporations want them to do. This is when you have Democrats in control and when you have Republicans in control, it does not matter.

Because they people know that the Congressman and Senators are all millionaires who are in the back pocket of the wealthy and the corporations, and that is why 60% or more of the people always think we are headed in the wrong direction. O'Reilly acts like it's Obama's fault that 63% say the country is headed in the wrong direction, when the people feel the same way every year, no matter who is President and no matter how well the economy is doing.

Then Republican Senator Marco Rubio was on to talk about Obama, who he hates so he is biased.

Rubio said this: "His biggest mistake is a lack of focus on robust economic growth, and that's coupled with a government that continues to spend more money than it has. These two things create the state of the union now, which is insecure. A growing number of Americans are insecure about their economic future, and the reason is that our economy is not growing in a dynamic way. People who create jobs have no confidence in the future because of the debt and burdensome regulations and the tax code."

Which is just ridiculous, because the Republicans have blocked all the Obama economic proposals and job plans, then they complain he has not done enough on the economy and creating jobs. It's just laughable, they vote down all the Obama job bills then complain he is not creating enough jobs.

Then the biased O'Reilly pulled one of his old tricks, have a so-called Democrat on who is really a moderate Republican, and claim it is a view from the other side, which is just ridiculous. For the people that do not know, Manchin is a moderate Republican who ran as a Democrat because he lies in a Democratic area, so he knew he could not win as a Republican.

O'Reilly said this: "For a view from the other side of the aisle, I welcome Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.

Manchin said this: "The people want the president to be president of all the people. He ran as a uniter and it's time to unite this country and move it forward. He has to get his financial house in order, there should be a tax system that people believe in and one they think is fair. They should not begrudge you for doing well in life, as long as they know you paid your share. The mobility to raise people from the lower end to the middle class has to be available, but it's not and that's what was promised."

Now think about this: Does that sound like a Democrat? Hell no! It sounds like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and this guy claims to be a Democrat. That is laughable, and O'Reilly even admits that Manchin sounds just like a Republican, but he still put him on as a Democrat with an opposing view to Rubio, which is laughable.

O'Reilly pointed out that Manchin seems to be at odds with his fellow Democrat in the White House, saying this: "You're sounding like a Republican, but what holds President Obama back from that is the 'income inequality' deal. He says the system isn't fair and the government has to take from the wealthy and distribute to the poor to make it more fair. All that balloons the debt and the deficit."

Which is not what Obama is saying, what Obama is saying is that the workers need to be paid more, they are underpaid, and if we do that the economy will improve and the debt will go down, because they will make enough to live on and not need food stamps etc. O'Reilly misrepresents what Obama said, he does not say he wants to take from the rich and give it to the poor. He just wants the workers to be paid more.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on for is it legal. They discussed an Indiana mom who claims that she and her three children were possessed by demons. Really O'Reilly? How is this hard news, or a legal story?

Wiehl said this: "The mother says there are demons in these kids, and you had a police officer and a nurse and a child care worker who say they saw the boy walking backwards up the wall. The mother and grandmother also say the daughter was levitating in her bed. This would be hard to believe if it was just the mother, but there are child services workers and the nurse saying they saw these things. A clairvoyant said there were 200 demons in the home."

Guilfoyle talked about former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who is facing hard time in Louisiana, saying this: "He's looking at a total of 100 years for very serious charges, including conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud. He allegedly accepted gifts in the form of cash and services and trips from contractors who stood to benefit from the city during the rebuilding of New Orleans. The evidence is very damning against him."

So here is the deal, O'Reilly uses the legal segment to report on fricking demons in kids and a former Democratic mayor Ray Nagin. While totally ignoring the legal story about the Republican Governor McDonnell and his wife who were indicted on 14 felony counts of fraud and corruption.

And finally, Charles Krauthammer was on to provide a few final thoughts just before President Obama's State of the Union address. With no Democratic guest for balance, as usual.

Krauthammer said this: "There's very little he can do rhetorically, and that's been the failure and nemesis of his presidency. He imagined himself as a rhetorical, charismatic president who could change the world with his words. But it's taken him five years to realize that you can't change the world with words and he's basically going to admit it. He'll say he'll use executive orders because he can't move the Congress, meaning he can't move the country."

And of course what Krauthammer fails to mention is that from day one of the Obama presidency the Republican party has done everything they can to block every policy Obama wanted to pass to help the country. Because the Republicans have the majority in the House they just block every bill Obama wants to pass, which hurts the American workers and the American people.

All of which Krauthammer supports, because if Obama does good and the country does good Hillary Clinton will easily win in 2016, and the Republicans are doing everything they can to stop that, by putting partisan politics ahead of the good of the country and the people. Which is borderline treason in my book, but O'Reilly and Krauthammer never say a word about any of it, because they are Republicans who are glad the Republicans are blocking everything Obama wants to do.

Ted Cruz Caught Lying About The Government Shutdown
By: Steve - January 29, 2014 - 10:00am

CBS host Bob Schieffer was driven to laughter on Sunday after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) repeatedly refused to take responsibility for last year's government shutdown.

The veteran newsman led off his Sunday interview by simply asking if Cruz would be willing to once again hold the government hostage to try to get concessions from President Barack Obama.

"Well, Bob, with all due respect, I don't agree with the premise of your question," Cruz replied. "Throughout the government shutdown, I opposed a government shutdown. I said we shouldn't shut the government down. I think it was a mistake that President Obama and the Democrats shut the government down this fall."

Which is just laughable, because along with the rest of the country, even the other Republican Senators blamed Cruz for the government shutdown, and asked him if he has a plan to end it. Here is a quote from an October Politico article about it:
Ted Cruz faced a barrage of hostile questions Wednesday from angry GOP senators, who lashed the Texas tea party freshman for helping prompt a government shutdown crisis without a strategy to end it.

At a closed-door lunch meeting in the Senate’s Mansfield Room, Republican after Republican pressed Cruz to explain how he would propose to end the bitter budget impasse with Democrats, according to senators who attended the meeting.

A defensive Cruz had no clear plan to force an end to the shutdown -- or explain how he would defund Obamacare, as he has demanded all along.

As the government shutdown heads into day three, a number of Republican senators privately blame the Texas freshman for contributing to the mess their party finds itself in. And now that they're in it, they say it's up to Cruz to help find a solution.

"It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn't have a strategy -- he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was," said one senator who attended the meeting. "I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch."
Schieffer continued: "The question I asked you was, would you ever conceive of trying to shut down the government again?" Schieffer pressed, clearly not buying in to the alternate reality Cruz was putting out.

"As I said, I didn't threaten to shut down the government the last time," Cruz insisted. "I don’t think we should ever shut down the government. And I repeatedly voted..."

"Well," Schieffer interrupted, laughing out of frustration. "If you didn't threaten to shut down the government, who was it that did?"

"President Obama," Cruz said.

Schieffer dropped his head as the Republican senator's rant continued: "I understand the White House said over and over again that the shutdown is the Republicans fault. And I understand that's what you're repeating. But the reality is, I voted over and over again to fund the federal government."

"Senator, I know what Republicans were telling me -- like House Speaker John Boehner -- that this was a disaster and never again," Schieffer shot back, frustrated but also clearly amused at the senator's talking points.

Here is a fact check, Ted Cruz is a dishonest right-wing liar.

In Ted Cruz's mind the people who are to blame for the government shutdown are Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and Mitch McConnell. Cruz has never blamed himself, and the tea party House Republicans that he advised for causing the shutdown.

Ted Cruz spent all of August and September traveling the country urging a government shutdown. Sen. Cruz made speeches on the Senate floor calling for a government shutdown. Cruz was caught holding multiple secret meetings with tea party House Republicans where he plotting the government shutdown strategy.

The government shutdown belongs to Ted Cruz, and the Republicans who caused and enabled it. Sen. Cruz is demonstrating sociopathic behavior. The Texas Senator has shown no sense of responsibility or conscience over the damage that he has done. His blame of everyone that isn't Ted Cruz or his allies reeks of a dangerous personality.

Sen. Cruz doesn't care that he put millions of people in economic jeopardy and cost the US economy $24 billion. He only seems concerned with personal enrichment and growing his anti-government cult. Like all sociopaths Ted Cruz is never going to take responsibility for his actions, and he isn't going to stop trying to destroy the government as long as he thinks this kind of behavior is his ticket to the White House.

Dishonest Kurtz Breaks Promise To Cover Book On Ailes
By: Steve - January 29, 2014 - 9:00am

Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz backed out of his promise to cover a new biography offering a harsh critique of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes on Fox's media show, MediaBuzz.

On the January 19th MediaBuzz, Howard Kurtz said he would cover the newly released book by New York writer Gabriel Sherman (The Loudest Voice In The Room) on the following week's show, Kurtz said this:
KURTZ: First, a programming note. A biography of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes by a New York Magazine reporter has been getting plenty of media attention. We will talk about it, on next week's show.
But Kurtz did not report on the book as promised during his next show, as Variety noted. Segments featured on the show instead included discussions of Glenn Beck's time at Fox News, media coverage of Wendy Davis' campaign for Texas governor, and the Chris Christie bridge scandal.

Fox News has attempted to discredit the Loudest Voice for more than a year, attacking Sherman personally and reportedly firing a top Fox executive for leaking information to the author. Ailes also cooperated with conservative journalist Zev Chafets 2013 biography Roger Ailes, Off Camera, "because he was eager to preempt Sherman's version with a more favorable and hopefully sympathetic account of his legacy."

A review of Sherman's book found that Fox was right to be worried; unlike Off Camera, Sherman's biography revealed an unflattering portrait of Ailes as a vindictive, paranoid partisan who uses his cable news network as a clearinghouse for Republican propaganda.

Kurtz has been giving his new employer a pass since taking the position as Fox's media analyst last year. An analysis of Kurtz's television appearances and online columns during his first two months on the job found that he almost entirely avoided criticizing Fox News, including ignoring controversies related to the network that had been widely covered elsewhere.

Variety's Brian Lowry noted that Kurtz's failure to report on Sherman's Ailes biography once again calls his credibility into question:
LOWRY: For in-house media critics to have any credibility, they have to be willing to at least occasionally explore the shortcomings of their employers. And given all the coverage regarding Ailes' concern regarding the book and his alleged campaign against the author, Kurtz looked caught between the proverbial rock and hard place -- so much so that ignoring the book would have been preferable to creating the appearance of acting as Ailes' surrogate.

Nevertheless, to promise coverage -- as Kurtz did on air at the close of last week's program -- and then renege creates an impression of Kurtz as Ailes' lap dog.
As expected, once Kurtz got to Fox he lost all fairness and all credibility, because that is how you get hired and stay hired at Fox, ignore all Republican scandals and never talk bad about Roger Ailes.

The Monday 1-27-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 28, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Civil war in Washington D.C. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The President will give his fifth State of the Union address Tuesday and Talking Points predicts that many Americans will not pay attention. That's because the USA is stuck, little is getting done in DC, and the folks are getting sick and tired of the logjam. Mr. Obama has promised that if Congress does not cooperate more with him, he will sign a bunch of executive orders getting things done by fiat.

Barack Obama hasn't been crazy with the executive order business, but now he is under siege. All the polls show that his approval rating is low and his credibility has been damaged. The President has the very difficult task of trying to convince Americans that his administration will solve vexing problems going forward. One of the big concerns with the President's tenure so far has been his inability to persuade Congress to give him a break.

Even if he uses executive orders, his presidency will not be successful until he reaches some kind of detente with Congress. That is an exceedingly difficult task because Republicans smell blood in the water and are in no mood to expand the federal government the way the President wants. Barack Obama is not in a good place and his job Tuesday night is to begin to turn it all around.
Then O'Reilly had the Republican Brit Hume on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest on for balance. So what you got was all right-wing opinion on it, with nobody to make it a fair and balanced discussion.

Hume said this: "He has a tall order, and I don't know how much he can really do in a speech. These State of the Union addresses tend to make news for a few days but then are quickly forgotten. The President is talking about what he can do with a pen and a phone, but the cold reality is that there is not much he can do. Presidents must go to Congress to get the authority to do anything big, you can't do much without legislative authority."

And most of the low approval rating for Obama is because he can not get anything done, which is because the Republicans control the House and they refuse to pass anything Obama wants to do to hurt him politically. What Obama should do is bypass Congress and do what it takes to get the country on the right path again.

Then Juan Williams & Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the far-right loon Rand Paul. In defending the Republican Party against charges that it is anti-woman, Senator Rand Paul brought up President Clinton and accused him of "predatory behavior" in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Which is a ridiculous comparison and a stupid thing to say, but he said it anyway.

Williams said this: "Rand Paul is a loyal Republican, and his party is facing devastation in 2016, a tsunami of women voters who will vote for Hillary Clinton. And the Republicans are pressing for invasive ultrasound and saying Obamacare shouldn't deliver on contraception for women."

Ham said this: "The allegation is that if you disagree with Democrats on policy and whether everyone should pay for everyone else's birth control, that's a 'war on women.' Hillary Clinton's allies will say that everything is a 'war on women.' If you're attacking her over Benghazi or disagree with her on health care, that will be a 'war on women.'"

Wrong! There is a war on women in the Republican party, they oppose birth control, equal wages, and they think they can tell women they can not have an abortion. And of course O'Reilly agreed with Ham because he is a Republican. That's a war on women, idiots.

Then the right-wing stooge Karl Rove was on to talk about Hillary Clinton, and of course no Democratic guest was on to make it a fair and balanced segment. Just O'Reilly and Rove spewing out right-wing spin and propaganda.

O'Reilly asked Rove to analyze Hillary Clinton's emerging campaign organization, Rove said this: "She is sucking up all the money and attention, but there may be a price to be paid for that. Democrats are saying, 'Shouldn't she be focused on 2014, is this all about her, or is it about our candidates for the Senate?' If there's a big loss for the Democrats this year, they're going to point fingers and say she didn't help us."

Which is just insane, because Hillary has not even said she is going to run for President in 2016, she is barely doing anything in the public view, and I rarely hear about her or see her anywhere. Rove is just a partisan idiot who spins out lies. And O'Reilly lets him because he agrees with him and likes what he says.

Rove also insisted that he is not leaning toward any Republican hopeful, saying this: "I don't have a guy and the Republicans don't have a guy, we have a large field of contenders. Republicans want the potential candidates to help re-elect the House, grab the Senate, and keep the governorships we have."

Then the Factor media watchdog Bernie Goldberg was on, and of course there was no Democratic media watchdog on with him to make it a balanced segment, because O'Reilly does not have one. He has one media watchdog, who is a Republican with a bias, and his name is Bernie Goldberg.

Goldberg cried about ONE so-called far-left writer named Steve Almond, who wrote an article saying Americans should eschew the Super Bowl, which he calls a "proxy" for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Okay, so what, he is an opinion writer and he is one man, I do not agree with him and I am as liberal as it gets. To imply all liberals support this nut is just wrong.

Goldberg said this: "I watch a lot of football, and I have never thought of it as a proxy for the wars. My guess is that unless you reside on a liberal college campus, you haven't thought of it that way either. But he makes the interesting point that football players have suffered catastrophic brain injuries from playing in the NFL. This is not a crazy position, but if you follow his logic it means you can't watch college football or high school football or boxing or mixed martial arts. His position is fine for him, but I and millions of others get too much pleasure from watching."

And I also watch a lot of football, it's my favorite sport. I am a liberal and I have never in my life though it is a proxy for wars, so as usual Goldberg is wrong, he says it is a liberal view of football, I disagree, and I sure do not see it that way. I see it as a football game, a sport, nothing more and nothing less. It's nothing like a war, and anyone who says it is, is a nut in my book, liberal or not.

Then the right-wing moron Jesse Watters was on with his worthless weekly segment, he went across the GWB bridge to interview some Garden State residents.

Here are some of their reactions: "It took me two hours to go six miles" ... "I wanted to rip the steering wheel out of the car" ... "Everybody's all bent out of shape over a little bit of traffic, they're making a big issue out of nothing."

Watters concluded with some poll data involving Governor Christie's presidential prospects, saying this: "In December Christie was leading Hillary Clinton, but after the scandal he's down eight points, so it has taken a toll. He's lost a lot of political capital, but he can still get it back."

Yeah, if and only if nothing else comes out that shows he had anything to do with the bridge closings, or any other corrupt things. It's a big if, and some people may not vote for Christie now (if he wins the Republican nomination) because of the scandal and all the other stuff that has come out about his management style, as in being a partisan bully.

Not to mention this, if it is true that Christie did not know what his top level staffers were doing when they closed the bridge, including his deputy chief of staff, should he be trusted to run the country and the people under him, I do not think so, and a lot of people agree with that. But of course O'Reilly and Watters think Christie can recover, because they are biased Republicans who plan to vote for him.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Reflecting on the Rear View Mirror. Billy said this: "We should always respect our past, both the good and the bad, and the people who have shaped our lives."

Huh? What the hell does that even mean, and how is it a tip? It's just stupid and not a tip, c'mon O'Reilly you can do better than that, right? For a so-called smart guy your tips are worthless and just stupid.

Obamacare Signups Hit 3 Million: Bill O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - January 28, 2014 - 10:00am

Three million people have signed up for private insurance coverage through the health-care law's marketplaces, the Obama administration announced Friday.

And that is close to hitting the monthly sign-up expectations the Obama administration set in September.

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, but when the news of the day was that the website was having software problems O'Reilly reported on it every night, had multiple segments discussing it, even saying it was chaos on a nightly basis. Then as soon as the software bugs were fixed and it was good news about the number of signups, O'Reilly drops the story and never says a word about the 3 million number.

In a blog post, the Department of Health and Human Services said that at least 800,000 people had signed up for coverage during the first three weeks of January alone. In September, the Obama administration had projected that the insurance exchanges would add 1.1 million enrollees this month, a target that is in reach with one week still left in January for people to sign up.

Since the federal government implemented significant fixes to HealthCare.gov on Dec. 1, monthly enrollment totals have inched significantly closer to the targets. Instead of netting a quarter or a third of the expected sign-ups, as the administration did in October and November, now the numbers are coming in much more in range of expectations.

This is yet another example of right-wing bias from O'Reilly, when a story comes out with bad news for Obama, O'Reilly is all over it, doing a TPM every night on it, having 2 or 3 segments a show on it, and reporting with follow up segments every day. But as soon as the news is good and it makes Obama look good, O'Reilly drops the story like a hot potato and never does any follow up reporting to tell you all the good news.

And if you only watch the Factor for your news, you still think the Obamacare website is broken and it's a disaster, you do not know that the website is fixed and they have 3 million signups, which, even with the website problems is still almost hitting their target numbers.

It also proves that all the crying from O'Reilly that is was chaos was right-wing propaganda. Because if they are still almost hitting their target numbers then it could not have been that bad in the first place. O'Reilly was saying it was so bad it would never work and they would never reach their target numbers. Proving that he just made it all up and lied to you, because even with the website bugs it all worked out and things are going great.

Right-Wing Nuts Come Out In Full Force
By: Steve - January 28, 2014 - 9:00am



Roland Martin Says Eric Bolling Is Stuck On Stupid
By: Steve - January 27, 2014 - 10:00am

On Wednesday's edition of The Five, the Fox News show went over North Carolina NAACP head Rev. William Barber's comments about Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). During that segment, co-host Eric Bolling asked: "Is there racism? I don't think there's racism."

Roland Martin took issue with Bolling's insane assessment, so Thursday morning, he named him his "Stuck on Stupid Person of the Week."

He then played a clip of Bolling saying this: "It's getting tiring. We have a black president, black senators, we have black heads -- captains of business, companies, we have black entertainment channels. Where is the... Is there racism? I don't think there's racism. I think the only people perpetuating racism are people like this gentleman from NAACP, are the Al Sharptons of the world. Let's move on. Let's move on."

"Really, Eric?" Martin said. "No racism? A black president, and other black folks have all these jobs, and there's no racism, it's magically disappeared? Here's what Bolling could have discovered in a 0.43-second Google search, using the words EEOC and racism."

Martin then spent several minutes recounting some of the results of that Google search, specifically some of the EEOC's significant race/color cases. As Martin pointed out, there are even a few cases where white people were being discriminated against.

"It is idiotic when you go on television and actually say there's no racism," Martin continued. "How simple is it to use Google to find it? None of this includes what happens on the state level, in schools, in the criminal justice system, and what happens in private lawsuits."

"If you're going to go on television and talk to all the white folks who watch Fox News, because you've got a really small black audience, at least have the decency to find some facts," he added.

Iowa Republican Party Posts Graphic Mocking Racism
By: Steve - January 26, 2014 - 2:00pm

O'Reilly, Bolling, and pretty much every one at Fox News say there is no racism anymore because we have a black President, and yet, not only is there racism, it's from the Iowa Republican party. This was not just one Republican with a Facebook page, it was the Iowa Republican Party Facebook page.

The Iowa Republican Party posted a flowchart defining racism on its Facebook page Friday evening. The post capped off a rocky one-year anniversary since the Republican Party announced it would redouble efforts to appeal to minority voters.

The flowchart instructed the reader to determine racism as whether the person saying it is white and whether you like him. It includes the note, "If you think this flowchart isn't funny, then this flowchart is racist."



According to the Daily Beast, the Iowa GOP quickly removed its posting from Facebook that night, and in its place now is an apology from Chairman A.J. Spiker. "Earlier tonight, a contractor of the Iowa GOP made a post referencing a discussion on race that the GOP believes was in bad taste and inappropriate," it says. "We apologize to those whom were offended, have removed the post and are ensuring it does not happen again."

This week, the Republican National Committee gathered for a strategy meeting before the 2014 midterm elections, nearly one year after its so-called autopsy report declared the GOP would "grow the Party and improve Republican campaigns" by appealing to African-Americans and Hispanics demographics.

So let me get this straight, they are not going to change any of their policy positions that would get minority votes for GOP candidates, they are just going to put out a different message in the hopes that it will fool minorities into voting for them, yeahhhhhhhh, that will work, NOT!

In fact, the GOP continues to be its own worst enemy. The Republican National Committee also congratulated Rosa Parks last month for ending racism in America, while prominent Republicans have insisted the justice system is colorblind.

Yet another example is Congressman Steve King (R-IA), who has compared immigrants to violent criminals and drug mules to make the GOP's case for holding up long-awaited immigration reform.

The old line, it's like putting lipstick on a pig comes to mind here. The GOP is never going to get more than 3 or 4 percent (at the most) of the minority vote, until they change their positions on the issues minorities and the poor care about. You can change your message until you are blue in the face, but if you keep supporting the same anti-minority policies you have supported for 100 years you are never going to get the minority vote.

Duck Dynasty Ratings Fall Even More In Second Episode
By: Steve - January 26, 2014 - 10:00am

It looks like Duck Dynasty's relatively low premiere ratings following the Phil Robertson controversy that swept the nation at the end of last year were not a fluke.

In the second episode of the show's fifth season, the show's ratings dropped even further to 6.6 million total viewers, the lowest the show has seen since December 2012.

And of course O'Reilly has not reported it, he also did not report the ratings drop for the first show either. Because it shows he was wrong, he predicted the show would be fine and the ratings would go up because all the so-called real Americans would tune in to watch it, and he was wrong. So he just ignores it.

There were high expectations for season premiere on January 15th after the weeks of free publicity the show received due to Robertson's comments about homosexuality and the subsequent, short-lived suspension he was given by A&E.

But the notion that an even larger Christian conservative audience would flock to the show in support of Robertson was dispelled after the first episode of the season on Wednesday, January 15th drew 8.5 million viewers, a 28% drop from the fourth season premiere last August, which had 11.8 million.

Last week's episode, with 6.6 million viewers, marked another large drop from the second episode of the fourth season, which had 8.5 million viewers. In the 18-49 demographic that is particularly attractive to the advertisers, the show also saw a decline.

While last season's premiere had a 5.0 rating, this week's episode was just 2.9. That put it below network competition like American Idol (4.5) and Modern Family (3.4).

Conservative Filmmaker Indicted For Violating Election Law
By: Steve - January 26, 2014 - 9:00am

And as expected O'Reilly has not said one word about the story. Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative commentator and best-selling author, has been indicted by a federal grand jury for arranging excessive campaign contributions to a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

According to an indictment made public on Thursday in federal court in Manhattan, D'Souza reimbursed people who he had directed to contribute $20,000 to the candidate's campaign. The candidate was not named in the indictment.

Attempts to reach D'Souza and a lawyer representing him were unsuccessful. D'Souza was charged in the indictment with one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others, and one count of causing false statements to be made.

Federal law in 2012 limited primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 each, for a total of $5,000, from any individual to any one candidate. "As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process," the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, said in a statement released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

D'Souza, 52, is a former policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and has been affiliated with conservative organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

He also directed a 2012 film critical of President Barack Obama, "2016: Obama's America," and has written books including "The End of Racism," "Life After Death: The Evidence" and "Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream."

And O'Reilly has had him on the Factor many times to help him promote his dishonest books and movies, and said he was an honest man who did good work that you can trust. But now we find out he is a wife cheating dishonest right-wing fool, and O'Reilly says nothing. O'Reilly covered the Justin Bieber arrest, but not this, which is far worse, proving his bias once again.

D'Souza campaigned in 2012 on behalf of Wendy Long, a lawyer and Republican who sought to unseat Democratic incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand as New York's junior senator. Long graduated from Dartmouth College in 1982, a year before D'Souza.

Long could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

Gillibrand, herself a 1988 Dartmouth graduate, ended up winning re-election to her first full term, collecting close to 72 percent of the vote.

In late 2012, D'Souza resigned his post as president of King's College, a small Christian college in New York City, after admitting he had become engaged to a woman even though he was legally married, though separated from his wife. He has been an outspoken defender of traditional marriage.

The Friday 1-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 25, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Marijuana in the U.S. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It looks like marijuana will soon become acceptable in this country. Millions of Americans like to use the drug and do not want to be told they are wrong to do so. On the flip side, most drug counselors will tell you that pot harms children and many adults can not handle it either. The primary argument for legalizing pot is that booze is legal, but that argument is foolish.

You don't add another intoxicant to the marketplace unless there's a good reason to do so. That being said, I'm not an anti-pot crusader. The law of the land should not allow public use of marijuana, but what you do in private is your own business if you're an adult. The USA was founded on individualism and many of us do not want the federal government to control our lives.

We want to be able to protect ourselves, we want to be able to make a living without the feds taking 50%, and we want to be able to recreate in a way that pleases us. Talking Points is somewhat amused that the liberal agenda is pro-drug, but anti-gun and pro-nanny state.

Today the New York Times scorched the cigarette industry, but the same newspaper doesn't think THC is so bad. Believe me, the health hazards, both mental and physical, of using marijuana are at least as pernicious as using tobacco. In a perfect world all Americans would discourage the use of destructive chemicals, so why don't we have an anti-pot campaign while we decriminalize it?

Why do we want children to think intoxication is a good thing? When you alter your state of consciousness, bad things happen. Children should hear that message over and over. Is that too much to ask?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, time to move on O'Reilly, you lost.

Then Democratic strategist Alexis McGill Johnson and the conservative Penny Nance were on to talk about Mike Huckabee and his idiotic comments about women and birth control.

Johnson said this: "How could that not offend me. He's saying women can not control their libido, we're so promiscuous that we're going to 'Uncle Sugar' to help with our contraceptive needs. That is suggesting that women are un-empowered and dependent."

Nance said this: "I am relieved that he spoke up, I am tired of Republicans going weak in the knees when this issue comes up. What he said was accurate, Democrats have portrayed us as weak, powerless, and dependent."

Then Ben Stein was on to talk about a new study that claims the world's 85 richest people have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest. Author and economist Ben Stein opined on that disparity.

Stein said this: "I don't applaud it, but it's always been true that a tiny minority of the richest people control an enormously disproportionate amount of the wealth. The media has been playing this as if there is a finite amount of money in the world and so if rich people have a lot, poor people have less. Nobody should be starving, but the fact that there are 85 very rich people is not the cause. The issue is how we make the poor people better off."

Which is the right-wing spin on it, with no Democratic guest on for balance. Liberals would say it's a bad thing and that the workers need to be paid more to make the income equality more equal.

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about fricking comedians making jokes about Chris Christie.

Gutfeld said this: "It's easy to make jokes about fat people, because you won't be accused of racism. But if this were an overweight woman, none of these jokes would be made because it would be sexist. I am pro-fat because it means that person is less into vanity. A guy consumed by his abs can not run a state."

McGuirk said this: "They make jokes because it's easy, but there is a movement to turn telling fat jokes into hate crimes. It's called 'fat shaming,' but along comes this popular Republican white male and all that p.c. gibberish goes out the window. The media have all turned into a bunch of Captain Ahabs."

Gutfeld and McGuirk were back for a 2nd segment to name the week's most outrageously stupid people. And of course no liberals are on to name any stupid people for balance, just three Republicans.

McGuirk went with comic Sarah Silverman, whose new video uses a Jesus-like character to mock abortion opponents, saying this: "This is a manifestation of religious bigotry. This chick was on SNL for one year and was fired, then Jimmy Kimmel and Comedy Central dumped her, so she turned to political activism and offending targets like Christians, but not Muslims."

Gutfeld selected the recently-arrested pop singer Justin Bieber, saying this: "You don't drag race in a rental car because no one can win ownership of the car. Also, he can not be deported because the crime must involve 'moral turpitude' and his crime is 'moral twerpitude.'"

O'Reilly picked the IRS boss John Koskinen, whose bureaucracy is giving a hard time to a conservative group called Friends of Abe, saying this: "A liberal group out in LA called People for the American Way does advocacy on the left and they are tax-exempt, but Friends of Abe can't get a tax exemption. The most powerful agency in the country, the IRS, is politicized and that is so dangerous!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Tea Time. Billy said this: "Drinking a cup of Japanese tea in the morning is good for you and can actually be a calming influence."

Eric Bolling Claims Racism Is Gone From America
By: Steve - January 25, 2014 - 10:00am

And what is his evidence, the fact that we have a black President and a black entertainment channel. Yes he really said that, he thinks racism is dead because Obama is the President and blacks have their own tv channel.

Which is so idiotic it's hard to even comprehend. It's an argument you expect to hear from a mental patient, not a so-called journalist. And what makes it even worse is that he is a part-time fill-in host for O'Reilly, every once in a while when Laura Ingraham or Greg Gutfeld are not filling in, Eric Bolling is the fill-in for O'Reilly.

Here is the story:

The Five's discussion about the war of words between North Carolina NAACP President Rev. William Barber II and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) took a sharp turn on Wednesday when it was Eric Bolling's turn to weigh in. Denying that African-Americans are still discriminated against in America, he declared definitively, "I don't think there's racism."

Which he is not even qualified to decide, because he is not black or a minority. To find out of racism is dead you need to ask blacks and minorities, not a rich Republican white guy.

In reference to the tea party senator, who also happens to be the only black member of the Senate, the NAACP official said, "A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy."

An NAACP spokesperson later stood by Barber's comments.

"You know, it's almost getting -- it is getting tiring," Bolling said of Barber's suggestion that Scott's conservative policies don't help his fellow African-Americans.

"We have a black president, black senators, we have black heads -- captains of business, companies, we have black entertainment channels."

"Is there racism?" he asked. "I don't think there's racism. I think the only people perpetuating racism are people like this gentleman from NAACP, are the Al Sharptons of the world. Let's move on."

Yes Bolling you are right, because there is ONE black Senator racism is dead, really? And you have a tv show? How?

It's one of the dumbest things I have even heard, and this is a Factor fill-in host. So O'Reilly puts him on the air, probably because he agrees with him.

Food Stamp Story O'Reilly Ignored In His Own City
By: Steve - January 25, 2014 - 9:00am

New York City Pantries Ran Out Of Food After Food Stamps Were Cut, and of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though it happened in the very same city he does his show in, New York. And after he said too many people are on food stamps, he supported the cut and said people are abusing the system, even though it was checked and found that about 1% was fraud in the system.

After food stamps were reduced at the beginning of November, New York City food pantries and soup kitchens ran out of food, turned people away, and reduced the meals they handed out after experiencing a surge of demand, according to a new report from Food Bank For New York City.

The organization surveyed 522 food pantries and 138 soup kitchens and found that in November 2013, nearly half had either run out of food altogether or the particular kinds of food they need to make adequate meals. About a quarter had to turn people away since they didn't have enough food, and another quarter had to reduce the number of meals they provided.

The survey asked them to compare conditions in November of last year to September and October, as well as to November 2012. Three-quarters saw a surge in visitors in November as compared to the months before, with 16 percent saying demand increased by more than 50 percent.

Even more reported that the number of visitors climbed compared to the year before, making it likely that the uptick was about the food stamp cut, rather than seasonal changes. The report notes that "the SNAP cuts that took effect November 1 represent the biggest systemic factor reducing the food purchasing power of low-income people."

In November, an increase in benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) that was included in the stimulus bill to respond to increased need during the recession was allowed to lapse, reducing benefits by about $9 per person per month, bringing the value down to an average of less than $1.40 per person for each meal. Food Bank For New York City reports that nearly 1.9 million New York City residents rely on food stamps, or one in five.

And let me add this, I live in Peoria Illinois and I am on food stamps. I was getting $200 a month in food stamps, and now I only get $189 a month in food stamps. That's a whopping $6 a day for food, and it does not last me the whole month, especially if I buy any fruit, which is very expensive. I usually run out of food stamp money with 5 to 7 days left in the month, and I have to stretch it to even make it that long, which means eating a lot of canned soup and cheap food like ground hamburger.

The experience in New York City has played out across the country. Mayors in different cities reported in December that the need for emergency food programs like pantries and soup kitchens had increased over the year before.

In many of them, facilities turned people away due to a lack of resources, reduced the quantity of food they handed out, and reduced the number of visits they allowed each month. Even before the cut took place, private charities had warned they wouldn’t be able to pick up the slack, especially with charitable giving down in the aftermath of the recession.

But they may be asked to take on even more need, as Congress is poised to reduce SNAP benefits again. While Republicans had tried to cut the program by about $40 billion over five years, which would have kicked as many as 6 million people out of the program altogether, the bipartisan agreement seems to be settling on reducing the program by about $9 billion.

Yet if Congress is worried about reducing spending on the program, all it has to do is wait. It will fall by about half over the next decade as the economy improves and demand decreases. Cuts, on the other hand, can hurt not just those who rely on them to eat, but the economy, as every $5 spent on benefits generates $9 in economic activity.

The Thursday 1-23-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 24, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: An O'Reilly-Obama interview. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Super Bowl Sunday, during the pregame show, I will be interviewing the President of the United States live. This is the ultimate journalistic high-wire and it's the third time I'll be talking with President Obama.

A short, live interview is exceedingly difficult because both the President and I get a little windy on occasion. President Obama is clearly under fire - a new poll shows that a majority of Americans disapprove of all his key policies and 53% disapprove of the President's overall job performance.

In another poll, just 31% believe he has been an above-average president. So clearly we have a lot to talk about in the Super Bowl interview. On a personal note, the President told me man-to-man in December that he would talk with me and he has kept his word.

He doesn't have to do the interview, he knows it's going to be a tough one, but he's coming in anyway. If you have a question for the President for me, email it to me at oreilly@foxnews.com.
Then James Carville was on to say what question he would ask the President, Carville said this: "I would say you've had a rough 2013 and what assurances can you give that 2014 will be better. I would also ask him to give himself a grade on the health care rollout. There's no doubt he's had a bad 2013 but I think 2014 will be a much better year. I think the economy is starting to strengthen and I think Obamacare is going to work fine."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to cry about something a stand-up comedian Sarah Silverman said in a new video that uses a Jesus-like character to mock opponents of abortion.

Ingraham said this: "This was made by a group called The Creative Majority, and they're trying to get 'reproductive rights' to the forefront. But that ad is not going to convince anyone, it's just going to make more people think that Sarah Silverman is a complete buffoon and aggressively unfunny. If she did that ad and invoked the prophet Mohammed, I'd think she was really gutsy. But she's just ridiculing Christians it's not unusual. The pro-life movement in the country is growing and it's becoming more acceptable among young people to be pro-life."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the National Football League, which rakes in about $9 billion a year in revenue, is officially classified as a not-for-profit organization. Which is ridiculous, but Dobbs defended it anyway, because he is a right-wing loon.

Dobbs said this: "The money is taxed, but it's taxed at the team level rather than at the hub of the NFL, which is a not-for-profit. This is unique because Congress just sort of slipped this into the tax code when the AFL and NFL merged in 1966. Senator Tom Coburn came out wanting to change this, but all that money at one point or another gets taxed and the players are paying immense taxes. The NFL is paying its fair share, it is driving business, and it is tremendously important to our economy."

Then Elisabeth Hasselbeck was on to talk about so somehow say the Super Bowl makes sex trading easier, which is just insanity, but O'Reilly put this loon on to spew out that garbage anyway.

Hasselbeck said this: "Human trafficking means being forced into servitude, and sexual trafficking is being forced into sexual servitude. The problem is that around big athletic events like the Super Bowl the amount of people moving in and out provides shield to those who are being sexually traded. This is one of the most evasive and growing criminal activities happening right now, it's modern-day slavery and one million children are involved."

O'Reilly then made a distinction between hookers and unwilling victims, saying this: "Prostitutes are adults who come and do what they do, but there are others who are forced to do it through threats against them. If any of them are listening, I advise them to run away and go to the police. That's what you have to do."

And none of it has anything to do with the Super Bowl, except a few more hookers will be near the game for about a week to make some extra money. Both of you are right-wing lunatics to link sex slavery to the fricking Super Bowl.

Then Heather Nauert was on for the stupid mad as hell segment that is not news, let alone hard news, it's a waste of time and pure garbage. From the guy who claims to report hard news in a no spin zone.

New Yorker Sarah Stodolka wrote to express anger at her governor, Andrew Cuomo, who implied that conservatives aren't welcome in the Empire State.

Nauert said this: "It's ironic that the state with the Statue of Liberty, now does not want to people who don't believe in the Governor's far-left point of view. He said he was referring to his political rivals, but we know he was talking about conservatives not being welcome here if they are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. A lot of people are upset about this, these folks claim to be tolerant but they're only tolerant when people agree with them."

Floridian Jon Hale is peeved over reports that an Oregon prison has found a way to shift prisoner medical expenses to ObamaCare.

Nauert said this: "It's not just this prison, it's a lot of states across the country. Medicaid pays for health care for county prisoners and now states are signing up prisoners and putting them in Medicaid. The feds pick up the cost under the Medicaid expansion."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a Wisconsin middle school teacher (Andrew Harris) who was fired after being caught looking at porn on school property, but the teachers union helped him win back his job and collect $200,000 in back pay.

Kelly is mad as hell, saying this: "This was during school hours and dozens of times. He's sitting there with your 7th grader and you're okay if he's looking at this stuff? He's a disgusting pervert and he shouldn't be anywhere near children, but now he's going to go teach another 7th grade science class!"

O'Reilly agreed and took aim at the union that defended Harris, saying this: "The union racked up almost $1 million in legal fees trying to get him back and they're celebrating like they did something good."

This is so funny, earth to right-wing idiots, every man in America is looking at porn on the internet, including school teachers, you dimwits. And 99.9% of them do not attack any kids or anyone. It's normal, and they are also looking at your daughters and thinking of them naked, so do you want to arrest them all, what a bunch of idiots. The teacher did nothing wrong, and you two are the morons in this story.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Questioning the President. Billy said this: "If you want to pose a question to President Obama, send your suggested query to OReilly@foxnews.com. Bill will include one question in his interview with the President on Super Bowl Sunday."

Republican Governor Indicted & O'Reilly Ignoring It All
By: Steve - January 24, 2014 - 10:00am

Here is a perfect example of right-wing bias from O'Reilly, not by what he reports, by what he does not report. And it's an example of the same thing he complains that MSNBC does, ignore news that is negative to Obama and the Democrats.

O'Reilly does the very same thing, he ignores negative news about Republicans, then takes time out from his show to cry about bias at MSNBC in news they ignore about Obama or other Democrats. It's massive bias and total hypocrisy.

You have a former Republican Governor that just left office, who was indicted on 14 felony counts of taking gifts as bribes, which is the worst thing an elected official can do, and O'Reilly has not said one word about the entire story in months, not one word.

Ten days after he left office, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen McDonnell, were formally charged on Tuesday with illegally accepting a variety of gifts from a wealthy businessman who sought special treatment from the state government in exchange.

In what Republican state legislator Bob Marshall called the "type of activity" that undermines public confidence, McDonnell and his family accepted more than $135,000 in gifts and loans from Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the then-CEO of Star Scientific Inc.

The gifts received from Williams included luxury vacations, a Rolex watch, Louis Vitton shoes, loans, and even $15,000 in catering fees for McDonnell’s daughter's wedding. Authorities say that the McDonnells helped promote Williams struggling dietary supplement business in exchange for the gifts.

Both McDonnell and his wife were charged with 14 felony counts including making false statements to a federal official. Maureen McDonnell is also charged with obstructing an investigation.

According to the indictment, the former governor and his wife conspired to commit wire fraud to accept bribes, knowingly made false statements on loan applications to avoid reporting the Williams loans, and obstructed justice.

"I deeply regret accepting legal gifts and loans from Mr. Williams, all of which have been repaid with interest, and I have apologized for my poor judgment for which I take full responsibility," McDonnell said in a statement released following the indictments.

Then-Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) even had to recuse himself from a state investigation into the McDonnells because he too had received thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Williams. That investigation is still ongoing.

And O'Reilly ignored that story too, about the Republican Attorney General.

Now get this, McDonnell ran for governor on a platform of "trust and accountability."

And while this marks the first time the former Governor has been on the receiving end of a criminal indictment, this is not McDonnell’s first time under fire: in 2005, he exploited a loophole to evade disclosure requirements, hiding corporate contributors to his AG campaign.

This is real news, hard news, about Government corruption. This is the kind of story the founding fathers gave the media freedom of the press for, and this is the kind of story the media is in business for, it is their #1 priority. O'Reilly even claims to do a hard news show, and yet he has ignored this entire story, even though it has been in the media and the internet for at least a month.

Instead he does segments about pot use, is Obama the anti-christ, and other tabloid nonsense. While ignoring real news, he even ignored the story about a judge striking down the Pennsylvania voter ID law, not a word.

This is flat out right-wing bias from O'Reilly, because if McDonnell was a Democrat O'Reilly would have reported it at least 10 times, done 2 or 3 talking points memos about it, had 50 guests on to discuss it, and covered every detail in the case. He even does a legal segment once a week and he still ignored it, even though it's a legal story.

But when it's a Republican O'Reilly never even mentions the story, as he complains about MSNBC ignoring stories that are negative to Democrats, while he is doing the very same thing with Republicans.

The Wednesday 1-22-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 23, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Income in America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A centerpiece of the Democratic Party strategy is to convince Americans that the federal government can get you more money. In some cases that's true; new data shows that 20% of all American homes are now receiving food stamps. Plenty of those people need help because income in America is dropping. Since President Obama took office in 2009, the median income has fallen by nearly 7%.

There are many reasons, but competition is the main one. The USA has signed trade deals that have moved jobs out of this country to China where wages are very low. Also, China puts high tariffs on our products, making our stuff too expensive for many Chinese people to buy. So American workers are getting hosed. Also, ObamaCare is making health insurance more expensive for many workers, and taxes and fees and tolls are draining our wallets.

In response to the pressure on income, Democrats promise entitlements, but of course we the people must pay for that. I want every American to have good food and I'm willing to pay my fair share to make that happen, but most workers do not make a lot of money and they are taxed to the hilt. The solution to the problem is simple - more well-paying jobs. But the feds can't create those jobs, that must be done by the private sector.

ObamaCare discourages hiring in many places and the high corporate tax rate in America means more money is kept overseas and not being invested here. The nanny state economy, driven by far-left social justice people, is wreaking havoc in the working class precincts. That's the truth, but the truth is complicated. Thus the false promise of 'income equality' is seducing some voters.
Listen up folks, Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor. What he just told you is mostly right-wing propaganda. The reason income equality is so bad is simple, the wealthy and the corporations are greedy. They make a fortune and give most of it to the people at the top (the 1 percent) and the shareholders who own stock in the company.

Then they give the actual working men and women the scraps. The working men and women in America are underpaid, and that is a fact, it's why the rich are getting so much richer, and the rest are losing ground. O'Reilly is right about jobs leaving the country, because corporations want to increase profits by using cheap foreign labor, but wrong about competition.

This was allowed because the wealthy and the corporations basically bribe Congress to let them do it. If we had a real Congress that represents the people instead of the wealthy/corporations they would have passed laws to block it, but we dont. And when I say Congress I mean mostly the Republicans in Congress, who are almost all in the back pocket of the corporations and the wealthy, and some Democrats too.

Congress let the jobs go to foreign countries, because they are corrupt, they do what the people that give them money to get elected/re-elected tell them to do, which is the wealthy and the corporations. If the Congress actually represented the people, the minimum wage would be $10.00 an hour (or more) right now, and they would pass a law making it illegal for American companies to make their products out of the country.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about Hillary Clinton, with no Democratic guest on for balance, just the right-wing stooge Goldberg who hates her.

Goldberg said this: "She says she takes 'full responsibility' for what happened in Benghazi, but I'm not sure what that means. There were no consequences and no one paid a price. Politicians in general use the term 'I take full responsibility' so that nothing happens to them. I'm hoping that when Hillary announces her candidacy some reporter asks her what is the consequence of taking full responsibility, what is the price."

But when Christie did the very same thing Goldberg accepted it and said ok let's move on. And complained the media was reporting on bridgegate too much. So when Hillary does it he wants her to keep explaining it over and over for years, what a biased dirt bag Goldberg is, and O'Reilly is just as bad for doing it with him and allowing him on the air to spew out this garbage.

Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the Wisconsin middle school teacher Andrew Harris, who was fired after being caught browsing pornography during school hours. But the teachers union helped him win back his job and collect $200,000 in back pay.

Powers said this: "There were seven other people doing the same thing who only got suspended, and an arbitrator found that he was singled out unfairly. Should a person be fired over that? I just don't think so. He wasn't looking at porn with the children."

Obenshain of course agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: These teachers are influencing our children and this guy was looking at porn during instructional time. He showed the porn to female teachers during school hours. Fire him!"

You idiots should be fired for reporting this nonsense, it's not hard news, it's tabloid news for Inside Edition.

Then O'Reilly asked the psychology professor Chuck Williams how ordinary people are affected by the extreme cold weather.

Williams said this: "I don't want to go out in this weather. We get frustrated, we get annoyed, we become agitated, and we get cabin fever because we can't go out. The other challenge is that during the cold months it's also very dark and the sun is not out as much. All of this can have an impact on our moods. 10-million Americans have Seasonal Affective Disorder, where their mood is affected negatively by the cold weather and the dark. It's just a tough time for most of us."

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she watched tape showing Toronto Mayor Rob Ford in yet another drunken display.

MacCallum said this: "He said he had quit drinking, and he said we'd never see another video of him drunk again. There's also the issue that he was most likely drinking and driving. But he got a lot of credit for being a strong mayor during this ice storm."

MacCallum also commented on a Japanese TV commercial some people criticized as being offensive to Caucasians, saying this: "In a very Japanese way, they took the ad down immediately and thanked everyone for complaining. Of course, it was good advertising because it got a lot of attention."

This is not hard news O'Reilly, where is the hard news you claim to report?

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Proceed With Extreme Caution. Billy said this: "Always be very skeptical about what you read on the Internet, where the comments and reviews are often driven by an agenda."

Thank you, Mr. Obvious!

Megyn Kelly Helped Dana Loesch Put Out Right-Wing Propaganda
By: Steve - January 23, 2014 - 10:00am

And not only did Megyn Kelly let this Glenn Beck employeee Dana Loesch dishonestly put out right-wing propaganda, she thanked her for it. Even though what Loesch said is almost all lies that can easily be checked out. Kelly did not look into any of what Loesch said, she just let her spin it out as if it's all true. Breaking her promise to be a non-partisan and to not be a propaganda outlet for the right.

When Megyn Kelly moved to 9pm, she promised the same so-called hard news sensibility that she had brought to her afternoon show, and now we know that was all bull.

Kelly said this: "We are drilling deeper tonight on a new proposal that would make psychological evaluations mandatory for all public school students in the state of New York."

Kelly then had conservative media star Dana Loesch on to discuss the measure, which Loesch claims is currently in committee, and that deeper drilling by Kelly consisted of Loesch promoting false and misleading conservative media paranoia, and Megyn Kelly thanking her for it.

That requirement, for a health history and/or exam at the school's discretion, is already the law.

The only change this bill makes to the law is to require a mental heath certification, and when Kelly asserts that the evaluation will be performed by "who knows who," she ignores the fact that the bill says who will do it. It's a terrible idea because no doctor is going to assume the liability of signing off on a student who later becomes a huge problem, so the result would be an extremely small number of kids attending public schools.

Loesch then explains that this New York measure, which has not received a single vote, is all part of a broader strategy that includes "an effort to require parents to report any firearm ownership to their respective school district, and we know that with Common Core, and with all the data mining, there's been a lot of questions not only into the political beliefs of each student's parents, but also their religious believes and their extracurricular activities, that all has to be reported as a result of Common Core."

The effort that Loesch describes is a bill by a Democratic State Senator named Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-MO), a bill that is stuck in committee in a state senate in which Republicans outnumber Democrats 24-9.

This effort is roughly the equivalent of the push for the Mandatory Snowball Storage Act of 2013, as drafted and sponsored by Assemblyman Satan (R-Hell).

In other words, it will never pass, and that's if it even gets a vote, which it will most likely not.

Loesch's claim that "political beliefs of each student's parents, their religious believes and their extracurricular activities" all have "to be reported as a result of Common Core" is a total lie.

For a conservative media spin doctor like Dana Loesch, this is pretty normal, ginning up panic by drawing tenuous connections between dubious claims. In fact, this segment demonstrates the power and resilience of Dana Loesch with the right and the people at Fox.

After a bitter separation from Breitbart.com and a quasi-blackball by CNN, she has more than landed on her feet. Loesch now has the run of Glenn Beck's website TheBlaze, and a much larger cable audience.

As Kelly reveals in the final seconds of the segment, Loesch now also has a hand in influencing the editorial direction of a major hard news program, her show on Fox.

Kelly said this: "Dana, thanks for being here," adding "Thanks for bringing it to our attention."

So Kelly thanked her for spewing out lies and right-wing propaganda about a bill that will never get a vote, let alone pass, and for lying that it adds a law that is already on the books.

Loesch put out 99% right-wing lies, and Megyn Kelly thanked her for it, without telling you any of the facts I am reporting now. Facts that anyone with a computer and internet access can find in 2 minutes, let alone a so-called hard news non-partisan journalist.

The Tuesday 1-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 22, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Network News versus The Factor. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Surveys show that Americans depend on TV news for vital information; newspapers and magazines have lost a lot of influence. Enter Tom Brokaw, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News and a first-rate journalist. Recently he said this: 'When I talk to audiences, I say, "How many of you think that Bill O'Reilly is the most popular guy in news?" They'll all raise their hands, but Bill O'Reilly would finish dead last if he were on the evening news.'

Dead last? Me? Mr. Brokaw is correct that the nightly news has a larger audience than cable news, how could it not? The three networks are on all television sets in America, but you have to pay for Fox News Channel. Nevertheless, we average between 4 and 5 million viewers a night. We asked Mr. Brokaw to appear tonight, but he declined. He has never been on The Factor because he knows that we know he has an agenda, and that agenda is power.

Since the rise of cable news, network news has lost a lot of influence. Network reporters are generally strong, but it is the presentation that should concern alert Americans. For example, the website NewsBusters analyzed coverage of the Benghazi revelations last week as opposed to Michelle Obama's 50th birthday. They found that the First Lady's celebration was given twice as much airtime as the Benghazi story by the three networks.

Without cable news, Americans would not be getting vital information. The network news broadcasts are pretty much all the same, they don't provide much analysis or perspective, and all three networks lean left. Tom Brokaw should be overjoyed that The Factor and cable news exist because we provide a voice you would never hear on the network news.
This is all so ridiculous it's laughable, because the point Brokaw was making is 100% accurate. That if you take O'Reilly off the Fox news channel and put him on a network nobody would watch him, because he loses most of his viewers who tune into Fox for partisan right-wing news. Brokaw is 100% correct, and it was not an insult to O'Reilly, he was just making a point.

But O'Reilly took it as an insult and then lied about his ratings, what he does, how important he is, and he is just mad that he does not get the respect that Brokaw does. Less than 1% of the people watch cable news, so nobody even knows what O'Reilly is spewing out, because 99% of the country is not watching him. Reality check: You are nothing O'Reilly, but a lame and biased cable news host that 99% of Americans do not watch.

Brokaw was getting 10 million viewers a night, and he was a real journalist, you are a microscopic piece of dirt on his shoe, you are nothing compared to Tom Brokaw.

So then what does the great journalist Bill O'Reilly do, have a balanced debate about it with a liberal and a conservative, haha, of course not, he had the biased far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, with no liberal guest for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "The networks had a total monopoly on the news for almost two generations, and they were ideologically all the same. They don't like the fact that they no longer have a monopoly. Everybody knows that the network news all give it from the same perspective and Fox News has offered a new way to look at the news. That's why it has been so unbelievably successful and that's why there's some resentment from the mainstream media. The networks pretend to be non-ideological, which is not true, and they pretend to be superior, which is also not true."

Wrong! Fox has good ratings because Republicans like to watch a biased news network that puts out biased news that agrees with their outlook on life and politics, it's that simple. You take any show off Fox and put it on one of the big three networks and nobody would watch it, except a few Republicans, and it would be dead last in the ratings every night.

Then Col Ralph Peters was on to talk about the Winter Olympics in Russia, that have been threatened by terrorists eager to cause mayhem on a world stage.

Peters said this: "If I were going to the Olympics I would be very concerned, because the terrorists from the region are going to do everything they can to embarrass Putin. They only have to score one goal to get the gold medal for propaganda. Putting the Olympics in this terrorist heartland was an act of incredible hubris and arrogance."

I guess Peters forgot that we also had a terrorist attack at one of our Olympics, so they can strike anywhere in any country, you can not stop all terrorism no matter what you do.

Then the biased right-wing Global Warming denier John Stossel was on to talk about, Global Warming. With nobody on for balance, just the idiot Stossel.

Stossel said this: The USA is spending billions to mitigate "climate change," which Stossel considers a colossal waste. "Assuming man is doing this, there's nothing we can do about it. Climate changes, it always has and it always will, and the long term trend is that the globe is gradually warming. Some good climatologists worry that man will make the warming worse with greenhouse gases, but that's not certain. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to pretend that we're doing something."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about accusations that cops in Los Angeles ignored illegal drugs when they raided the home of pop star Justin Bieber last week. While totally ignoring the Republican Governor getting indicted for 14 felony counts of taking bribes story.

Wiehl said this: "TMZ reported that there were two cookie jars filled with pot, and that there were bongs everywhere. But I spoke with the cop who was in charge and he said the most bizarre thing was a basketball hoop in Bieber's living room. He says he did not see any drugs at all."

And it was all in the privacy of his own home by legal adults, so nobody cares and this is not news, it's tabloid garbage.

Guilfoyle talked about a federal court that ruled taxpayers must pay for a male inmate's sex change operation, saying this: "This is a huge decision and it could cost taxpayers up to $700,000 just in legal fees. The court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to deny 'Michelle' a sex change, even though he is in jail for murdering his wife."

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley debated the proposition that left-leaning Americans tend to be more accepting of drug use and legalization. Yeah because we actually believe in freedom in America, unlike the Republicans who want to tell you what you can smoke and what you can not smoke, or tell a woman if she should have a baby or not. Liberals believe in real freedom.

Crowley said this: "There are some people on the libertarian right who believe in legalization, but as a general proposition it is true. Democrats and President Obama are really losing the youth over ObamaCare and the NSA, so they're using pot as a way to get to them."

Colmes downplayed the political aspect of legalization, saying this: "More independents want legalization, as do more libertarians. This is not a left-right issue as much as it's a libertarian vs. non-libertarian issue."

Crazy O'Reilly again warned that legalization of marijuana could have dire consequences, saying this: "Every drug rehab counselor I've ever spoken with tells me that almost all of the youth cases of drug addiction began with marijuana."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Site to Behold. Billy said this: "The website TripAdvisor.com is a great place to get information and reviews about places you are thinking of visiting."

Lie Alert: O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again
By: Steve - January 22, 2014 - 11:00am

Tuesday night Bill O'Reilly said this to Tom Brokaw, because Brokaw said if O'Reilly were a network news anchor he would be dead last in the ratings. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Mr. Brokaw is correct that the nightly news has a larger audience than cable news, how could it not? The three networks are on all television sets in America, but you have to pay for Fox News Channel. Nevertheless, we average between 4 and 5 million viewers a night.
LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, and more LIES.

And now the facts, last week O'Reilly had 3 million total viewers on Monday, 2.8 million total viewers on Tuesday, 2.8 million total viewers on Wednesday, 2.7 million total viewers on Thursday, and 1.8 million total viewers on Friday, when Greg Gutfeld hosted.

The average for the week was 2.6 million total viewers a night, the week before that the weekly average was 2.8 million, the week before that was 2.2 million, and 2.8, and 2.7, and on and on. Not one week does he even average over 3 million viewers a night, with the average rating a 2.8 per night.

That is not 4 million, or 5 million, and it's not even close. Most nights he does not even get 3 million, usually it's between 2.6 to 2.8, which means Bill O'Reilly is a lying fool.

Brokaw is correct that O'Reilly would be dead last, just as the Sunday Fox News show with Chris Wallace is dead last (by far) every week in the Sunday news shows ratings war. Because when you take Wallace or O'Reilly off of the Fox News Network they lose most of their viewers.

Network news shows crush O'Reilly in the ratings, last week NBC News got 9.5 million total viewers a night, ABC News got 8.5 million total viewers a night, and CBS got 7.5 million total viewers a night. O'Reilly and his lame cable news show does not even come close to the dead last CBS news, who got 7.5 million, let alone the first place NBC news.

Even if you add the midnight re-run of the Factor, that gets 1 million viewers a night, you still only get to 3.8 million viewers, and they do not count re-runs in the ratings. So O'Reilly is nowhere close to NBC, he is not even close to the last place CBS, it's a joke, and O'Reilly is a lying fraud.

If O'Reilly was a network news show he would be lucky to get 2 million viewers a night, because most the viewers are not far-right stooges that watch Fox shows to hear what they want to hear, mainly opinions that agree with them. And as far as journalists go, O'Reilly could not even carry Tom Brokaws luggage. Brokaw was a real journalist, O'Reilly is just a right-wing stooge on a bogus propaganda cable news network.

Top Republican Funder Says Christie A Horrific Person
By: Steve - January 22, 2014 - 10:00am

One top Republican fundraiser described governor Christie as disloyal and self-promoting.

"The guy, as a person, is horrific," said Brian Ballard. Ballard is a Florida-based Republican fundraiser who said he will not be attending this weekend's events featuring Christie, who traveled to Florida to assist in the push to re-elect Tea Party Gov. Rick Scott (R).

In 2012, Ballard was one of the top fundraisers for Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).

"Charlie Crist got a lot of grief for what was called a hug of Obama. But what Christie did to Obama isn't suitable to say in a family newspaper. I firmly believe he helped swing that election in Obama’s favor just to help himself. I busted my ass for two years raising money and supporting Romney and this guy Christie just wiped his hands of us when we were no longer useful to him," he said.

"Ninety percent" of Republican donors, he said, "wouldn't touch Christie with a 10-foot pole right now."

And of course you will never see this reported by O'Reilly or Fox News, because they do not want you to know this information, it makes Christie look bad and confirms the bully rumors, so O'Reilly and Fox ignored it.

The Monday 1-20-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 21, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and Race. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama gave an interview to the New Yorker magazine, a liberal publication generally supportive of his administration. In that interview, Mr. Obama said this about race: 'There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black president. Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I'm a black president.'

That assessment is 100% correct. To his credit, Barack Obama has not used race in his quest for power. In the public arena, Mr. Obama has been cautious and responsible on the race issue. That has angered some on the far left and some race hustlers who want Mr. Obama to be more proactive in promoting African American policies. Although President Obama's standing among white Americans has declined, that's primarily because of the economy and ObamaCare. It has little to do with race.

Talking Points believes that minority Americans do have a far tougher time succeeding in the marketplace, but it comes down to something that is accessible in America - education and personal responsibility. Black Americans should understand that if they study and work hard, they will succeed in this country. That's the message about race that all good and honest people should be promoting.
And for once O'Reilly is half right, but also half wrong. He is right that Obama has not used race as an issue, but O'Reilly implies that if minority Americans just get an education, have personal responsibility, study and work hard, they will do great despite the racism against them. No amount of study and hard work will get you hired (or not fired) by someone who is racist, and that is a fact, O'Reilly ignores that because he is basically a right-wing idiot.

Then Rev. Jacques Degraff and former Congressman Allen West were on to talk about race and the President's declining approval ratings.

West said this: "The President has had some problems with the truth when it comes to ObamaCare and Benghazi. Race has nothing to this whatsoever and I can't understand why it's suddenly being interjected. There comes a time when we have to move beyond the issue of trying to divide us on race."

That's a lie, and race has a part in it, because some of the racists in America will never give the President a positive job approval rating in the polls no matter what he does, and that is a fact, so West is flat out wrong. If we did not have any racists in this country the President would most likely have a 7 to 10 point higher job approval rating.

Degraff said this: "I am satisfied with his answer and it moves the country forward. He attempted to put race in perspective - there are things that are universal to any president, no matter the color of their skin."

Then Brit Hume was on to cry about the coverage Chris Christie has been getting from MSNBC, which I will not report on because this is not news. It's O'Reilly and Hume crying about what some other media outlet is report on and how they are reporting on it. I do not care, and unless you actually report on the Christie bridgegate story I will not cover it here, you two crying about what the rest of the media is doing is not news.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the upcoming Winter Olympics in Russia in light of that country's harsh stance against homosexuality.

Williams said this: "Last week Putin said gays should leave children alone, as if gay athletes are coming to Russia to pursue kids. We don't need to pull our athletes out, we just need to say we are standing up for human rights. We shouldn't overreact and get our athletes in trouble."

Ham, as usual made it about Obama when he has nothing to do with it, saying this: "There are a couple of concrete things Barack Obama could do. He could cut off visa access for Russians who violate human rights. President Obama has this tool at his disposal, but he is choosing not to use it."

Then O'Reilly had the insane right-wing nut Pastor Robert Jeffress on, who claims that President Obama is laying the groundwork for the anti-christ to return, which is 100% funny farm insanity. And yet, O'Reilly put this lunatic on the air anyway.

Jeffress said this: "There is going to be a future world dictator before Christ returns, and my thesis is that people will become conditioned long before the anti-Christ comes to accept governmental overreach. That' what you're seeing with President Obama. I want to be clear that I am not saying that President Obama is the anti-Christ, but I believe he is conditioning people to accept governmental overreach. He is the first president to go after people of faith and he is the most pro-abortion president in history. The good news is that Christ is coming back. The short term forecast for the world is turbulent, but the long term forecast is good."

And the real good news is that you are so crazy nobody believes the nonsense you put out, and hopefully after doing the Factor nobody else will put your crazy ass on the air ever again.

Then the right-wing stooge Karl Rove was on to talk about the Obama team, who has heralded the multi-lateral agreement to curtail Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Rove said this: "I think we got diddly-squat from this. The agreement is to seek a further agreement, and in the meantime we give Iran the ability to sell oil and refurbish their economy. They've agreed to take all this fissile material and 'dilute' it, but they could begin to revise that in one day, so they are within weeks or months of having a bomb. Iran's attitude is, the longer we can play for time, the weaker the sanctions will be."

O'Reilly disagreed and argued that the agreement is a worthwhile effort, saying this: "Maybe we can engage these people to the extent that they'll stop the madness, maybe they'll want to be part of the world community. Give them one last try."

Then Jesse Watters was on, which I no longer report on because his segment is nonsense and not news. Nobody cares to see Watters interview some drunk naked people at a nude resort, or whatever he does, it's not news. Unless he reports on some real news, I will never report this Watters garbage again. I do not report what Dennis Miller says and now I will not report what Jesse Watters says.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Winning Big. Billy said this: "When you win or if you prosper in life, accept your success gracefully and avoid boasting."

Pastor Tells O'Reilly Obama Laying Groundwork for Anti-Christ
By: Steve - January 21, 2014 - 10:00am

And think about this folks, this nut had a pre-show interview with a Factor producer, this is done with every guest, to tell them what the topic will be and to find out what they are going to say about it. Then O'Reilly has the final say whether they get on the show or not.

So O'Reilly knew what this lunatic was going to say and he had him on anyway, proving what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is, because a real journalist would have never had this idiot Pastor on to say Obama was laying the groundwork for the anti-christ. Hell, I bet O'Reilly believed it.

Pastor Robert Jeffress was on with Bill O'Reilly Monday night to argue that President Obama is laying the groundwork for the rise of the Anti-Christ because he is conditioning people to rely on government support.

He said there will be a "future world dictator before Christ returns who's going to usurp people's personal rights, and "change God's laws... without any opposition so people will have been conditioned long before the Antichrist comes to accept government overreach, and that's what you're seeing with President Obama."

And if you believe that religious right-wing insanity you need to check into a mental ward because you are off your fricking rocker.

Jeffress also said this: "I'm not saying President Obama is the Anti-Christ. In fact, I'm sure he's not, because the Anti-Christ is going to have higher poll numbers."

Hahahaha, that was funny, not!

Jeffress argued that in addition to Obamacare creating a culture of dependency, Obama is "sowing the seeds for the Anti-Christ with the contraception mandate and abortion-inducing drugs, as well as the redefinition of marriage."

He argued that "gay marriage is simply a counterfeit of real marriage, and whenever you say marriage is whatever you want it to be... people say why bother getting married at all."

And O'Reilly put this insane, biased, right-wing bigot on the air to say this offensive garbage, wow! Which makes O'Reilly just as bad as he is, for giving this loon a platform to spew out his crazy hate-speech.

Pennsylvania Judge Strikes Down New Voter ID Law
By: Steve - January 20, 2014 - 11:00am

In a major victory for proponents of voting rights, a Pennsylvania judge overturned the state’s new voter identification law on Friday.

The voter ID measure was enacted in the Commonwealth in March 2012, eight months before the presidential election. It contained a strict ID requirement, meaning that if a voter showed up at the polls and did not have a certain form of photo identification, she would be denied their right to cast a ballot.

Officials estimated that as many as 750,000 Pennsylvanians lacked an acceptable identification, leaving nearly 1 in 10 voters at risk of being disenfranchised.

And of course O'Reilly supported and defended the law, because he is a Republican who wants these laws to stop Democrats from voting.

Many Republicans hoped the measure would help them carry Pennsylvania in the 2012 presidential election for the first time in a generation. These sentiments were captured by State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who in a moment of candor declared that the new voter ID law was "gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

The law wound up in court and was ultimately prevented from taking effect in the 2012 election by a temporary order while the two sides continued to litigate the matter.

More than a year later, Judge Bernard L. McGinley ruled on Friday against proponents of the law, issuing a permanent injunction against the voter ID requirement. In his opinion, McGinley noted that "In Pennsylvania, the right of qualified electors to vote is a fundamental one." Therefore, "Pennsylvania precedent does not permit regulation of the right to vote when such regulation denies the franchise, or 'makes it so difficult as to amount to a denial.'"

McGinley also found no compelling state interest was present that could override this right, noting that in-person voter fraud is "exceedingly rare" and that "a vague concern about voter fraud does not rise to a level that justifies the burdens constructed here."

Basically, he ruled that the law will restrict voting and that the Republicans passed a law to solve a problem they do not have.

The case will now likely move to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Lawmakers Question Illinois Corporate Tax Breaks
By: Steve - January 20, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and the Republicans claim all we need to do is give the wealthy and the corporations more tax breaks and they will create more jobs, but the facts show that is not true and just more right-wing propaganda.

Read this:

CHICAGO (AP) - Illinois lawmakers are questioning the effectiveness of the state's system for giving tax breaks to corporations.

Legislators held the first of several hearings on the issue Friday in Chicago. Dan Long is executive director of the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. He tells legislators Illinois businesses benefited from about $1.5 billion in tax breaks in 2012.

But Illinois still has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

Republican state Rep. David McSweeney says "What is clear is what we're doing isn't working."

So even the Republicans are finally admitting it does not work.

The hearings could lead to legislation to change the state's incentive programs during the General Assembly's spring session.

O'Reilly Scared Female Staffer Into Crying After His Attack
By: Steve - January 19, 2014 - 11:00am

Women might want to think twice before working for Bill O'Reilly. According to Gabriel Sherman's new book, The Loudest Voice in the Room, O'Reilly got so mad at a female producer after a botched segment in 2003 that, in order to defuse the situation, "a senior Fox executive" intervened and escorted the crying producer out of News Corp's Midtown headquarters.

"After one taping, he stormed toward his staff's cubicles and tore into a young female producer, whom he blamed for botching a segment," Sherman writes in Loudest Voice.

"Staffers watched in shock as O'Reilly started yelling and slamming his fist down on a shelf."

"He got really close and in her face," an onlooker told Sherman; "She was scared he was going to hit her," said another. (The name of the producer is not revealed.)

Eventually O'Reilly walked away, after which "a senior Fox executive was called in and escorted the woman, in tears, out of the building to calm her down." The famously vindictive anchor never apologized.

Sherman says the incident came on the heels of O'Reilly's surging ratings during the build-up to the Iraq War. His rising stature within the right-wing network apparently created an environment where the anchor acted out against his own staffers with relative impunity.

The most famous byproduct of O'Reilly's toxic studio became public in 2004 when another female O'Reilly producer, Andrea Mackris, revealed that her boss had sexually harassed her -- in one instance, by offering to pleasure her with a falafel -- and threatened to destroy her if she ever told anyone about it.

And it was reported he paid her $10 million dollars to keep quiet and get the tapes of the phone calls. Even after he said he would never pay her a dime, and fight it in court until the bitter end. Then he found out she had taped his dirty phone calls, and he suddenly paid her off to get the tapes and to keep her from telling us all the details or writing a book.

The Friday 1-17-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 18, 2014 - 11:00am

The biased right-wing stooge Greg Gutfeld filled in for O'Reilly and his TPM was called: NSA Shakeup. Gutfeld said this:
GUTFELD: President Obama has announced changes to the NSA and I hope they're all for show. Call me a fan of 'better safe than sorry,' but as long as there is evidence that the NSA could have prevented 9/11, why trash it because some media screamers find common cause against modern security?

The fact is, data mining is a must in this new world. The NSA should not be a political plaything; it works for no party, it works for you and me. The leftists behind the NSA attacks are against every anti-terror measure since 9/11, which is why after every single terror plot they cast our fear as 'Islamophobia.'

This parallels the 20th century smear of anti-communism being worse than communism. Back then the Reds had 'useful idiots' too, but Ronald Reagan ignored such children. Let's do the same here.
Then Cliff May and Fox Business anchor Kennedy were on to discuss it.

Kennedy said this: "Should we apply everything we need to do to foreign agents to innocent U.S. citizens. That's always been a false argument that you have to decide between national security or civil liberties. We always need to protect civil liberties and the NSA continually crosses that line."

May argued that NSA data collection has enhanced national security, saying this: "Everything done by the NSA has been overseen by Congress and the judiciary, and there have been no violations of anyone's constitutional rights. You don't connect the dots unless you first collect the dots, and the NSA is looking for patterns in communication. We want to let the NSA do its job and protect us as best as it can."

Then Mike Gallagher and Gavin McGinnis were on to talk about marijuana.

McGinnis said this: "The problem with the anti-legalization crowd, is that they say pot is bad, ergo it should be illegal. Pot is bad, it does kill your ambition, and it's way too strong these days, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. Legalizing would be cheaper and there would be far fewer people incarcerated."

Gallagher said this: "Here's the bottom line for me - is our society bettered when we legalize yet another mind-altering substance? I understand that some people can handle it, but I believe with all of my heart that it is a gateway drug."

Then Dana Perino and Andy Levy were on to talk about Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, who says he is making a film that will target the National Rifle Association.

Perino said this: "This is very hypocritical. The NRA is not going away and Hollywood isn't going away, so they can continue to be at war with one another, which helps both of them. If he's really serious about something, why doesn't Harvey Weinstein partner with the NRA on something?"

Levy said this: "So when a Holocaust situation arises, guns magically appear? The people being oppressed can look in their mailbox and there's a gun in there to defend yourself, apparently in his mind that's how it works. He is now promising not to make any more movies that glamorize guns, but there's no word yet on whether he'll give back all the money he's made from the movies he's already done."

Gutfeld said this: "Rich jerks like him don't need a gun because other people handle his security. It's the regular shopkeeper who can't afford a bodyguard."

Then Howard Kurtz was on, who examined the wide disparity in media coverage between the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the Chris Christie bridge scandal.

Kurtz said this: "I think the 'Bridgegate' story is a legitimate story, but the media have pounded this into the pavement. As for Benghazi, it's complicated and it lacks the simple storyline. But it's a very important and serious story that we still haven't gotten to the bottom of. The recent report by the Senate Intelligence Committee pretty much undermined the New York Times report."

Gutfeld said this: "If you're on one side you think Benghazi is being ignored, if you're on the other side you believe 'Bridgegate' hasn't been covered enough."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about U.S. Olympic hockey player Jessie Vetter who has been banned from displaying a quote from the Constitution on her helmet, a decision that Geraldo endorsed.

Geraldo said this: "I don't like people promoting any cause at the Olympics. This is not a NASCAR race, you don't put messages on your helmet. The IOC has a rule that says you can not have these printed words on your uniform, and the Olympics is the last place where they have real amateurs."

Geraldo also reported the latest on "Duck Dynasty," which is back on the air after the controversy involving family patriarch Phil Robertson, saying this: "It still has huge numbers, it's the number two show on television. A&E made a terrible mistake mixing politics with reality TV."

Gutfeld said this: "Duck Dynasty, for religious conservatives, is what the HBO show 'Girls' is for left-wingers. They're mirror images."

And the show still had a ratings drop, so what Phil Robertson said hurt them. It's not really religious, except at the end when they say a prayer before eating dinner. I know a lot of non-religious liberals who used to watch it, including me, who no longer watch it, including me. So they lost about 4 million viewers like me who liekd the show, until the moron Phil made the gay comments, now I do not watch it any more. It was one of my favorite shows, and I am not religious at all.

Duck Dynasty 5th Season Premiere Ratings Down
By: Steve - January 18, 2014 - 10:00am

During the last few weeks of the year, when it seemed all anyone in the media was talking about was Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson's controversial comments about homosexual sex, the general consensus was that if the show remained on A&E as scheduled its ratings would skyrocket thanks to the massive exposure.

Republicans predicted their ratings would go up, the only question was how big the bump would be. But when the show returned with its fifth season premiere Wednesday night, the show actually saw its ratings go down.

As Entertainment Weekly reports, Wednesday night’s premiere only got 8.5 million viewers, which is a 28% drop compared to the show's fourth season premiere in August of last year, which drew 11.8 million viewers.

For anyone who chose to avoid the news entirely last month, A&E "suspended" Robertson for his remarks to a reporter from GQ before ultimately reversing their decision and moving forward with the show as scheduled when it became clear that the rest of the Robertson family would not participate in the reality show without Phil.

Advertisers threatened to abandon the show, but it was generally assumed that its loyal viewers would stick around and perhaps others curious about what all the fuss was about would come on board. So far, it looks like those assumptions were false.

And of course O'Reilly ignored this story, because he was one of the Republicans that said the ratings would go up and the show would do just fine, as usual he was wrong.




The Thursday 1-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 17, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Fair Coverage From the Media? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: An amazing thing happened Tuesday night - none of the three network news broadcasts even covered the House report that says then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told President Obama on the very day Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated that terrorists did it. No one covered it at night, and no network covered it Wednesday morning. Nothing!

Yesterday, when the Senate report came out saying Hillary Clinton's State Department could have prevented the attack had it heeded the CIA warning, the networks did cover that story. But on the three network news broadcasts, President Obama's name was not mentioned once. MSNBC primetime has had no coverage of the Benghazi situation at all this week, while CNN did a little last night.

There is almost a news blackout of how the President dealt with the fiasco. Even though he was told it was a terrorist attack the day it happened, some of his acolytes like Susan Rice told a false story to the public. Talking Points understands that the USA is not currently served by a fair media.

Most outlets are sympathetic to the Democratic Party and will only reluctantly cover stories that make the Dems look bad. Benghazi is very important because it goes to the efficiency and honesty of the government. Maybe someday we'll find out what really happened.
This is so funny, to begin with no-body covered the house report because it was a partisan piece of trash. President Obama's name was not mentioned because he had nothing to do with it, jerk. MSNBC reported on it all day and all night, every show reported it, so you are a liar. And finally, tell me something I dont know. MSNBC has a liberal bias and Fox has a conservative bias, and you are also biased, so stop crying about bias in the media and report the news, idiot.

Then the right-wing stooge and Factor fill-in host Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it.

Ingraham said this: "This defies credulity, four Americans lost their lives and it was the first time an ambassador was killed on duty since 1979. The media has been swarming all over Chris Christie and looking into every nook and cranny of the Christie administration about 'bridgegate,' but a simple question about Benghazi will not be answered? How does that ultimately serve the cause of justice or the American people? This narrative was allowed to be sold in an election year when the last thing the Obama administration wanted was the news to drop that another terrorist attack took place."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, please stop boring me with this nonsense.

Then Democratic strategist James Carville was on to discuss it.

Carville said this: "There's no doubt that there was a lapse in security, but Secretary Clinton was not told personally. She has accepted responsibility and it's fair to say that people who worked for her did not act aggressively enough."

O'Reilly asked Carville why Ambassador Susan Rice falsely blamed an Internet video for the attack, and Carville said this: "This was addressed in the bipartisan committee report. There was intelligence reflective of the fact that the video played a part, that was consistent with what the intelligence community was saying."

Enough, this story has been over-reported. Mistakes were made and people died, they had an investigation and they corrected the mistakes and it should never happen again. And I will no longer report on this story, it's over, only partisan hacks are keeping it alive to use it to hurt Hillary politically, when she did nothing wrong.

Then O'Reilly had the biased and dishonest Republican Megyn Kelly on to cry about Democrats in Colorado, who have approved a measure that would allow welfare recipients to use cash machines situated in marijuana shops. Even though nobody cares but O'Reilly and a few other right-wing idiots.

Kelly said this: "I'm not particularly surprised, and they didn't seem to have any problem with this at all. There are cash machines in the pot shops and they didn't want to shut them down to welfare recipients."

Earth to O'Reilly and Kelly, it's a free country so that is why it's ok, and those people are getting the money for their medical marijuana, idiots!

Then Kelly expressed outrage over a story involving terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, saying this: "This is maybe the most evil person we have living on the face of the earth. He has released a manifesto from his Gitmo prison cell and the judge at Gitmo has allowed it. My question is, why does one of the worst terrorists in the world get to have a voice when he is in an American-controlled prison?"

Then Heather Nauert was on to respond to some idiotic Factor viewers who are angry as hell. One of them, Texan James Stewart, complained about drivers who follow way too closely. Even though nobody cares and this is not news.

Nauert said this: "That's the fourth most common complaint about drivers, Number one is weaving, second is speeding, and hostility is third." Mark Zinn of Illinois is ticked off because Australian authorities are intentionally killing sharks. "The government of Western Australia, has a shark problem, six people have been killed in the past few years. So the government is planning a 'shark culling' program. A lot of people are outraged."

Are you serious, really? Who gives a damn, it is happening in Australia, so who fricking cares in America. This is not news that any American cares about, in fact, it's not news at all, it's crap, and this segment is a total waste of tv time on a so-called hard news show, it's worthless garbage.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: W-YOU Radio. Billy said this: "The website Pandora.com has the ability to figure out your taste in music and then plays the songs you'll likely enjoy."

The O'Reilly Double Standard & Hypocrisy On Benghazi Is Stunning
By: Steve - January 17, 2014 - 10:30am

To begin with, Hillary Clinton made no decisions on the security at the Benghazi embassy. The embassy security is handled by the under secretary or the deputy secretary, not by the actual secretary of state, and that is how it has been done for 50 years. And yet, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends want to blame it all on Hillary, simply because she was the secretary of state.

Second, the Senate report does not say a word about Hillary, she is not mentioned in it. And yet, O'Reilly and the Republicans want to make it all about Hillary. It's bias, and ridiculous.

Now think about this, with Christie O'Reilly says he was the top guy but he did not know what his top level staffers were doing when they closed the bridge, so you can not blame him. But he does blame Hillary for the death of the 4 Americans in Benghazi, simply becuse she was the top lady at the state department.

This is massive bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard by O'Reilly. With Christie O'Reilly says the top person can not be blamed because he did not know about the bridge closing, but with Hillary O'Reilly says the top person is to blame because they are the top person.

It's insane, and proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack. Especially when Hillary made no decisions on the security, and on top of that Ambassador Stevens rejected extra security two times, so he is mostly to blame for his own death. He trusted the security he had in Benghazi, and he made a deadly mistake. And yet, O'Reilly never mentions any of that.

Benghazi Senate Report Information O'Reilly Ignored
By: Steve - January 17, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual O'Reilly put a right-wing propaganda spin on the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Benghazi attacks that killed 4 Americans. Here is what O'Reilly said Wednesday night:
O'REILLY: The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a report that says individuals tied to Al Qaeda groups were involved in the Benghazi attack, directly contradicting a New York Times report. That comes on the heels of a House report that said the same thing and went a bit further.

The House says then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and head of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey both labeled the attack a terrorist action, and Panetta told President Obama that on the day the attack happened. So we have a major situation, but the President still has not commented on the latest reports.

The Senate report also says the terror attack on Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans could have been prevented. The CIA told the State Department under Hillary Clinton that the security situation in Benghazi and Libya was getting much worse, yet the State Department did not beef up security.

All of this should trouble every loyal American and politics should not be a part of it. We need the federal government to be proactive in protecting Americans from terrorists and we need to know why the world was misled about Benghazi.
And now, here is all the information from the report O'Reilly did not tell you, and it's a lot.

A new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Wednesday concluded that the attack 16 months ago that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism for its failure to bolster security in response to intelligence warnings about a growing security crisis around the city.

The report is broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries into the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, but it is the first public examination of a breakdown in communications between the State Department and the C.I.A. during the weeks leading up to the deadly episode at the diplomatic compound where J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, died.

It is also the first report to implicitly criticize Mr. Stevens himself, raising questions about his judgment and actions in the weeks before his death. Like previous inquiries, the Senate investigation does not cite any specific intelligence warnings about an impending attack.

The events in Benghazi and their aftermath became the subject of a fiercely partisan debate, with O'Reilly and the Republicans accusing Obama administration officials of making misleading statements about connections between the attackers and Al Qaeda. In an addendum to the bipartisan report, Republican committee members singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, as bearing ultimate responsibility for lax security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Which O'Reilly did not mention, because he does not want you to know that only the Republicans added that to the report.

The report does not break significant new ground on the issue of administration statements about the episode, or on the infamous "talking points" drawn up after the attack for a television appearance by Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser. But it is unsparing in its criticism of the State Department for failing to provide adequate security to the mission even as violence spiked in Benghazi in June 2012. In contrast, the report said, the C.I.A. quickly bolstered security at its annex about a mile away.

"The committee found the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya -- to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets -- and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission," the Senate committee said in a statement in releasing the 58-page declassified report.

On the contentious issue of the role of Al Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations in the attack on the diplomatic mission, the Senate committee's report found that individuals "affiliated with" many such groups had participated in the attack but that none of them appeared to have planned or led the assault.

The report found that among the many terrorist groups with which individual attackers had some affiliation were Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda's North African affiliate, Al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, and the Egyptian network led by Muhammad Jamal. But the report said "intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

Which O'Reilly never reported, instead he implied Al Qaeda planned it and led the attack, which the report did not find.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate," the report said. "Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."

The American-made video, which denigrated Islam and was posted on YouTube, set off a number of protests across the Middle East. An investigation published by The New York Times last month found that anger over the video had played a significant role in precipitating the Benghazi attack.

The report notes that Mr. Stevens was aware of all of the intelligence reporting on Libya, including updates on the increased risks of anti-Western terrorist attacks that had prompted the C.I.A. to substantially upgrade the security at its own Benghazi facility in June 2012.

At times Mr. Stevens requested additional security personnel from the State Department in Washington. But the inquiry also found that in June 2012, around the time the threats were mounting, Mr. Stevens recommended hiring and training local Libyan guards to form security teams in Tripoli and Benghazi. The plan showed a faith in local Libyan support that proved misplaced on the night of the attack.

During an Aug. 15, 2012, meeting on the deteriorating security around Benghazi that Mr. Stevens attended, a diplomat stationed there described the situation as "trending negatively," according to a cable sent the next day and quoted in the report. A diplomatic security officer "expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound."

A C.I.A. officer at the meeting pointed out "the location of approximately 10 Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi," according to the same cable.

After reading the cable, Gen. Carter F. Ham, then the commander of the United States Africa Command, called Mr. Stevens to ask if the embassy in Tripoli needed additional military personnel, potentially for use in Benghazi, "but Stevens told Ham it did not," the report said. A short time later, General Ham reiterated the offer at a meeting in Germany, and "Stevens again declined," the report said.

But O'Reilly never told you any of this, not a word, because he does not want you to know that Stevens declined extra security two times.

The same Aug. 16 cable had also promised that requests "for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs" for the Benghazi mission would be submitted through the Tripoli embassy, but "the Committee has not seen any evidence that those requests were passed on by the Embassy, including by the Ambassador, to State Department headquarters before the September 11 attacks in Benghazi."

In the months before the attack, the committee found, American intelligence agencies gave ample warning about deteriorating security in Benghazi and the risks to Americans in the city.

The first intelligence report cited by the committee came in June 2012, when the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report about threats to American and Western interests. The next month, a C.I.A. report said "Al Qaeda affiliated groups and associates are exploiting the permissive security environment in Libya to enhance their capabilities."

On Sept. 5, 2012, a week before the attack, the Africa Command issued a warning about a growing threat to Americans "particularly in northeast Libya." As these warnings mounted, the C.I.A. bolstered its security at the agency's Benghazi facility, known as the Annex, but the State Department did not make similar moves to protect the diplomatic compound.

The report concluded, "the Mission facility had a much weaker security posture than the Annex, with a significant disparity in the quality and quantity of equipment and security upgrade."

Communication between various security agencies was so poor, the report said, that the Africa Command did not know about the C.I.A.'s annex. The White House largely lined up behind the report's findings. "This reinforces what other investigations have found," White House spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters on Wednesday.

In response to the Senate inquiry, the State Department issued a status report of the changes recommended by the oversight panel, called the Accountability Review Board. A department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said the report added little new information. "We should have been better then, and we need to get better going forward," Ms. Harf said.

In one of her final appearances as secretary of state last year, Mrs. Clinton took an approach before a Senate committee that essentially was to accept the responsibility for security lapses in Benghazi but not the blame. Because the actual secretary of state does not handle embassy security, that is done by lower level people at the state department, and has always been done that way.

O'Reilly and the Republicans are trying to blame it on Clinton, because they want to hurt her politically for the 2016 election, even though she had nothing to do with embassy security decisions. And they ignore the fact that Ambassador Stevens declined two different requests for extra security, O'Reilly never ever reports that to you. Because he does not want you to have all the facts in the story.

Unemployed Say They Will Never Vote Republican Again
By: Steve - January 17, 2014 - 9:00am

On Tuesday, a potential agreement to extend benefits for those who have been out of work for six months or more fell apart over squabbling about procedural disagreements in the Senate. That fight came two and a half weeks after those checks stopped going out to millions of Americans, and it doesn't look like it will be resolved in the next two weeks.

The Republican majority Congress let the program lapse at the end of the year, which offered support to the jobless after their state benefits ran out, drying up a lifeline for those who are struggling to find a new job.

The people who have been left without that support are incensed, and the anger reaches across party lines. Peter LeClair, an out of work investment manager from New York, said he has been a lifelong Republican. But he "will never vote for a Republican, as long as I live" after watching them say that relying on unemployment benefits makes people dependent.

"I am incensed with Rand Paul," he said, who has said extending the benefits would "do a disservice" to those who were relying on them. "He says I am lazy... I am not lazy, how dare he. He doesn't even know me."

LeClair says he has sent out over 2,000 resumes and been "rejected on a daily basis." The benefits, which he pointed out he paid into while he worked for more than 20 years, were the only thing keeping him "glued together financially."

He said he is absolutely shocked and dismayed with Republicans, reiterating, "I will never, so help me god, vote for a Republican again, period."

Another person who is losing his benefits echoed LeClair's outrage. "I read these politicians opinions of the unemployed and am furious at the implication as it correlates to my situation," Dan Strollo wrote in an email. The 42-year-old father of two from Canton, Ohio will lose his benefits next week.

But that's not for a lack of trying to find a new job. He says he has applied for more than 200 jobs, some that are in his field and some that "are substantially lower in pay and responsibility." He’s also traveled to try to find work, going as far as Michigan, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. "The cost of these trips is more than draining financially," he pointed out.

Yet the work he's put in to find a new job often backfires. He said he's been told, "You live too far away and the commute would be an issue," as well as being told he is too qualified, too old, and too expensive.

"The hurdles to find work these days are significantly more difficult than 10-20 years ago," he said. The long-term unemployed in particular face daunting odds in finding employment, as they are less likely to be viewed as qualified or to get called for interviews than those who have had shorter stints of joblessness.

Keeping children fed and safe is on the mind of L. Moore, who said that she's been searching for two years to find a job. She "was barely making ends meet with what little bit of benefits I was receiving," she said. "Now that they have expired, my children and I are literally homeless."

Lillian Humphrey, age 62, said she would likely have to tap into Social Security earlier than she would like and still find a part-time job to get by. "I would prefer to work," she said, and she is not alone: those who receive benefits work harder to look for a job. In North Carolina, where the state's long-term unemployment program abruptly came to an end before the federal program ran out, the state is seeing a historic number of people leave the labor force altogether.

Alan, who preferred not to use his last name, said that without benefits, he would have to give up on trying to get training for a new career in teaching English and instead move to a different state to live with a friend. John DeMarchi forecasted that he would have to scrap the nine years he's spent to enter the 3-D video game design business and take any low-paid job he can get.

The loss of the benefits also means a big reduction in money going into the economy, which has already cost states $400 million in the span of one week and will likely end up costing everyone nearly a quarter of a million jobs.

The Wednesday 1-15-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 16, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Benghazi Revelations. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a report that says individuals tied to Al Qaeda groups were involved in the Benghazi attack, directly contradicting a New York Times report. That comes on the heels of a House report that said the same thing and went a bit further.

The House says then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and head of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey both labeled the attack a terrorist action, and Panetta told President Obama that on the day the attack happened. So we have a major situation, but the President still has not commented on the latest reports.

The Senate report also says the terror attack on Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans could have been prevented. The CIA told the State Department under Hillary Clinton that the security situation in Benghazi and Libya was getting much worse, yet the State Department did not beef up security.

All of this should trouble every loyal American and politics should not be a part of it. We need the federal government to be proactive in protecting Americans from terrorists and we need to know why the world was misled about Benghazi.
Then Ed Henry was on to discuss the impact of the new reports. Who is biased, as is O'Reilly, and no Democratic guest was on for balance, making this a one sided segment.

Henry said this: "This Senate report is explosive, because it cuts to the heart of the matter. They say the administration could have done more to prevent these attacks and maybe save these four American lives. Secretary Clinton may regret, as some people here at the White House may regret, the dismissive manner in which they handled this."

Then Navy Captain Chuck Nash was on, who said this: "After looking at the timelines in this report and the testimony, it was known within 15 minutes that this was a terrorist attack. Half the people in Washington knew what Susan Rice said was false, but no one said anything. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta should absolutely have said something."

This is all old news, and it's a story that will never die at Fox News until after the 2016 election. They are trying to make Hillary Clinton look bad for the future Presidential election. Even though it is lower level people at the State Department that decide on security at the foreign embassies. Not to mention, they still ignore the fact that Republicans voted to cut security funding for our embassies, O'Reilly and his stooges never mention that.

Could they have done more to prevent the attack on the embassy, of course they could have, but when you have a limited amount of money to spend on security you spread it out the best you can. The facts show that the attack happened so quick the 4 deaths in Benghazi could not have been prevented, because the responding military units could not get there fast enough, case closed. O'Reilly is using the story to hurt Hillary politically, because he does not want her to win in 2016.

Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about Maria Shriver, California's former First Lady, who met with President Obama this week to press for economic equality for women.

Powers said this: "I think this is a big deal for women. Women still only make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Maria Shriver made a lot of recommendations that could support women, such as government-provided child care. There are women who are still discriminated against and that should be against the law."

Obenshain said this: "This report relies on government solutions, but it doesn't talk about education and it doesn't talk about the importance of marriage. The 77 cents statistic doesn't take into account that women work ten hours a week less than men."

O'Reilly basically agreed with the Republican stooge Obenshain, saying he does not care woman make less than men, he just wants the Government to stay out of it. Even though it is illegal to discriminate against someone for race or gender in what they pay them, O'Reilly could care less. As usual, O'Reilly agrees with the Republican because he is one.

Then Hermene Hartman was on to talk about a Chicago teachers union. To commemorate Martin Luther King Day, the union hired Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who slammed President Obama for his use of drones.

Hartman said this: "You've said Reverend Wright is anti-American, but that's not true. He has pointed out 'bad America' - dropping bombs on people and slavery is 'bad America.' He's not saying anything wrong. America is a great country, but has been a bad country in some instances."

But O'Reilly insisted that Wright is a serial America-basher, saying this: "If you listen to his sermons, you come away with him saying America is a bad nation. Every country has done some bad things, but according to Reverend Wright it's all bad and nothing good."

Which is a lie, Reverend Wright has said America is a good country, he also points out the bad things we do. O'Reilly turns that into he hates America and never says anything good about the country, which is a 100% flat out lie, Bill O'Reilly is lying. O'Reilly does not like him so he lies about him to make him look bad.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she analyzed the police raid on the home of pop star Justin Bieber, who was suspected of pelting his neighbor's home with eggs. Bieber wasn't arrested, but a rapper in the home was charged with drug possession.

MacCallum said this: "This guy was charged with a felony, when drugs were found in his room. He lives in Bieber's house and there was apparently an entourage there. They're up all night and they've driven the neighbors in this area crazy. Justin Bieber has a new movie that's an effort to turn around his reputation, but it's not doing well at the box office."

They found a small amount of a drug sitting on a table in clear view in a private home, which is no big deal to me as long as they were not driving a car while taking the drugs, especially if they are adults who are over 18 years old, and clearly not a story Bill O'Reilly should be reporting on, it's tabloid garbage that nobody who wants real news cares about.

MacCallum also reported on a viral video that fooled some news organizations, saying this: "The video shows a little drone flying around a classroom in Belgium, and it claims the students are being watched by the drone so no one can cheat. Four different outlets picked this up, but it turned out to be a hoax."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Flying Right. Billy said this: "If you want to know your rights as an airline passenger, pay a visit to the dot.gov/airconsumer website, which tells you what you're entitled to and how to file a complaint."

Bill O'Reilly Makes Millions Of Marijuana Arrests Disappear
By: Steve - January 16, 2014 - 10:00am

This article was written by Jacob Sullum at Forbes.com on 1-7-14, and it shows how O'Reilly just makes stuff up to fit his arguments, even though he claims to only deal in the facts and have a no spin zone. And when he is called on his BS by a guest, he tells the person who called him on it he will just discount what they said. Here is the article:

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

Last month, during a tirade about The Denver Post's decision to hire a marijuana editor, Bill O'Reilly was puzzled by the idea that wine intoxicates people and treated the notion that a newspaper would print bar reviews or cocktail recipes as self-evidently absurd.

In another exchange with Fox News commentators Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham, O'Reilly revealed that he does not know people get arrested for marijuana possession:
O'Reilly: Primarily, the left embraces the drug culture to some extent...What is it about the drug culture...that's so compelling for some of them?

Williams: Well, I don't think it's compelling, but I think that if you start to arrest their children and give them records and put barriers in front of their futures and their careers, I think people say, "Wait a second." As you said in the previous segment, this is soft drug use. Why are you arresting and giving this kid a record, especially minority kids. Disproportionately, they're the ones who get arrested.

O'Reilly: Only dealers, Juan. There's no mass arrests of users.

Williams: No, no, no, Bill.

Ham: No, users are arrested.

O'Reilly: No, they get a ticket, Juan.

Williams: I don't think that's right, Bill.

O'Reilly: No, it is right.

Williams: And I think lots of people fear for their children. By the way, you should know, it's not just liberals....

O'Reilly: So by your thinking, then, people fear for their children so they want to make drugs more available. Let's legalize them so they don't get a rap sheet.

Williams: No, no, no, I didn't say that. I didn't say more available. I said, listen, the kid gets out there, the kid's involved in soft drugs, by your own definition, gets arrested. Suddenly he's got a record, all sorts of things that would inhibit his or her progress in life.

O'Reilly: Its almost impossible. The records are expunged if they are juveniles. You know what the game is here. This is not a crime that is actively pursued by district attorneys. All right. I'm just going to discount that argument, Juan.
'
And now the facts: According to the the FBI, police in the United States made about 750,000 marijuana arrests in 2012, the vast majority (87 percent) for simple possession. That is down from a peak of more than 858,000 pot busts in 2009.

From 1996 through 2012, there were more than 12 million marijuana arrests, accounting for 44 percent of all drug arrests during that period. More than 11 million of the pot busts involved simple possession. O'Reilly, those are arrests, not tickets.

Even when police are supposed to issue a citation for possession of small amounts, they may find an excuse for an arrest. In New York City, where O'Reilly works, police managed to make more than 600,000 such arrests from 1996 through 2012, a period when pot busts skyrocketed even though the state legislature decriminalized marijuana possession in 1977.

Often marijuana is revealed during a stop-and-frisk encounter, whereupon the cop charges the target with "public display," which is a misdemeanor, as opposed to mere possession, which is a violation.

As Williams pointed out, the people busted for marijuana possession are disproportionately black and Hispanic, even though survey data show whites are just as likely to smoke pot. In New York City, blacks and Hispanics together account for 87 percent of marijuana arrests, and there are similar disparities in other jurisdictions.

On average, according to a 2013 ACLU report, blacks are about four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana possession.

In Bill O'Reilly's world, none of this is happening, which I suppose helps explain how he can so blithely continue to support marijuana prohibition.

Mary K. Ham Blogs About Bill O'Reilly & Their Pot Debate
By: Steve - January 16, 2014 - 9:00am

Mary K. Ham wrote this in her blog about the pot debate her and O'Reilly are having, she wrote this:

The funny thing about these exchanges is marijuana legalization isn't even a top issue for me, but I will do battle to defend the right of more than half the country to reasonably hold that position without being accused of being potheads and infant pot-smoking advocates.

I just feel the real and social costs of prohibition are huge (hundreds of billions in taxpayer money), the Drug War has been a failure (80 percent of Americans agree), we should think about other strategies for non violent drug offenders than jail (80 percent of those polled in Texas agree) and the states are meant to be laboratories of democracy, and will function as such on this issue.

I do not deny downsides and dangers exist and am in full agreement about wanting to keep it away from children. The Drug War hasn’t been great at doing that. I’m not personally a big fan of weed, but I do think, though they can be abused, adults can enjoy both marijuana and alcohol in moderation and still be perfectly healthy, productive people.

I wish I had mentioned this too, which I've mentioned in other O'Reilly segments on this subject. The social cost of marijuana arrests -- 1.5 million drug arrests, almost half for marijuana, and the vast majority of those for possession only -- do fall disproportionately on minority populations even though white people use the drug at the same rate. Incarceration does happen, and the cost can be devastating, and the punishments are desperately unfair.

In good news, I have been upgraded from "babbling" to "pettifogging" by Bill. As The Right Scoop notes, no matter which side you're on, you'll probably enjoy the fireworks. I'm totally comfortable with disagreement and with reassessing as we watch Colorado and Washington, though my Twitter stream again suggests there are a lot of conservatives who lean libertarian on this issue.

Please don't mistake my position for that of people who are indifferent to drugs. I'm not indifferent to drugs. I think I've been quoted as saying if I could turn a single latch which would make all the drugs disappear from the face of the earth, with the exception of here and there, a vineyard in Bordeaux, I would turn that latch.

That which works is quantifiable; that which simply does not work, isn't. If you were to pass a law requiring people to go to church on Sunday, it wouldn't work. Under the circumstances, you would eventually simply withdraw such a law. My position on drugs is that they are, the drug laws aren't working, and that more damage is being done by their continuation on the books than would be done by withdrawing them from the books.

The Tuesday 1-14-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 15, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Budget Comparison. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The new stats on ObamaCare are in and younger Americans are not buying into the program. That means there will be a huge deficit. Why should you care? The main danger facing all Americans is not Al Qaeda, it's the Treasury Department. Right now the federal debt is $17.3 trillion, and since President Obama took office five year ago the debt has increased by 63%.

That's a massive problem and it's not really being addressed in Congress. It's very possible that the U.S. dollar could collapse if the people lending to our government begin to pull out of the bond market. Also, the feds can not keep printing dollars or the dollar will lose buying power. Right now the USA is playing a very dangerous game with the currency, but many Americans don't want to pay attention.

Unless voters start to demand that the feds pull back on spending, all of us are going to get hurt. The Democratic Party surely knows the dangers on the horizon, but are they trying to do anything about it? No. Same with President Obama, who doesn't seem all that concerned about the titanic national debt. And 'titanic' is the right word.
And Bill O'Reilly is a liar. Because 24% of the new Obamacare members are 18 to 35, which is not the 40% the Obama administration predicted, but it's still early and they have until March to the deadline. Most experts predict more younger people will sign up and by the deadline it will be close to 40%.

O'Reilly said younger Americans are not buying in, and that's a lie. And even if it stays at 24% and does not go up to 40%, the premiums will only go up 2.5%, which is no bid deal. O'Reilly is lying to you because he hates President Obam and he hates Obamacare, even though it is working now and it is on pace to get close to the numbers they predicted.

Then Juan Williams was on to discuss it.

Williams said this: "I think you're sincere in trying to wake up America, but it's too much gloom and doom. Let's look at some facts. Federal spending as a percentage of the economy is at a 30-year low and the deficit has been cut in half in the past five years. We have about the lowest number of federal employees in the last 47 years! And we're still the number one place for global investment."

So O'Reilly ignored all that information and maintained that the federal government needs to go on a fiscal diet, saying this: "Both parties have to stop the nonsense; this is not the time for social engineering. It's irresponsible to carry this debt."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to analyze the press coverage of Pope Francis, who has strongly condemned abortion. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, because O'Reilly does not have a Democratic media analyst, just Goldberg.

Goldberg said this: "Too many journalists play up stories that reflect their own values. So when the Pope talks about the excesses of capitalism and income inequality, they jump all over that story because it reflects their values. But when the Pope talks about abortion being horrific and part of the 'throw-away' society, they ignored the story. Nobody in the newsroom cares much about religion, they don't understand that in Catholic theology and a lot of other theology life is sacred."

So then O'Reilly slammed the mainstream media for covering the Pope in a biased way, saying this: "We heard the drumbeat for months that this was a liberal Pope, but then he comes out with very strong language about abortion and the story doesn't exist. This is corrupt, it's not what journalism is supposed to be about."

Now that is funny, O'Reilly and Goldberg talking about bias and corruption by the media, when they are two of the most biased and corrupt people in the media. People in glass houses should not throw stones. And so what, they like the Pope on his income equality message, but disagree on abortion, if that is what they want to say who cares, that is their right, it's called freedom of the press, idiots.

Then John Stossel was on to report on his effort to buy a gun in New York City.

Stossel said this: "I thought the Supreme Court said we have a right to keep and bear arms, but I didn't demonstrate a 'special need.' I showed the police that there are threats against me, but they said I didn't report the threats to the police. I can afford the $430 application fee, but there are poor people who can't afford that and can't afford to take the time off from work to apply. There are states where anyone can carry a concealed handgun and there is no more crime in those states. There should be fewer and simpler rules that don't abuse poor people."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on, they talked about the ongoing case of New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez, who has been suspended for an entire season for ingesting steroids and obstructing baseball's investigation.

Wiehl said this: "He's losing $20 million with this suspension, and now he's making a desperate attempt to sue everybody. He's suing the union, the commissioner, and the league trying to get the suspension relieved. But it' not going to happen because this was binding arbitration."

Guilfoyle said this: "He feels he's been wronged - he says he has admitted to using performance enhancing drugs but the penalty is onerous and unprecedented. There is some question as to whether he was denied some of the evidentiary information. You should be able to cross-examine the witnesses against you."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about Governor Chris Christie, who apologized again Tuesday for his staff shutting down lanes to the George Washington Bridge.

Colmes said this: "I certainly think he can make a comeback, depending on what else comes out about this. If you really want to go after Christie with this in 2016, this could easily be forgotten."

Crowley said this: "He built a reputation for being a straight talker and that's what he did over this past week. 60% of Americans say they have not changed their mind about Christie, and this could toughen him up - it should occur to him that Democrats are not his friends and the media are not his friends. They will never be his friends!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Why Buy The Cow? Billy said this: "New Jerseyan Sam Grove suggested that everyone go to the library and read the "Killing" series for free; the author of that series was not particularly amused."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that is not a tip. It's just you crying about a book author losing a little money because people are reading his books for free at the library.

How Conservatives Get Their Books On Bestseller Lists
By: Steve - January 15, 2014 - 10:00am

Two words: Bulk Buys

Conservative radio host Mark Levin claimed in a C-SPAN interview that "no groups buy my books" while at the time he said that, the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC had been doing so for months.

Levin was on C-SPAN's Book TV on January 5, Levin responded to a caller's accusation that outside organizations purchase his books and give them away in order to push them higher on bestseller lists by claiming that "no groups buy my books," and described the accusation as a "lie."

But in the last quarter of 2013, the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC spent $427,000 to buy copies of Levin's 2009 book, Liberty and Tyranny, which they distributed to donors who gave them $25 or more to elect conservative candidates.

Four days after the C-SPAN appearance, in response to a Politico story that detailed the purchases, Levin explained on Facebook that, "The Senate Conservative Fund (SCF) has been using the paperback version of the book in recent months to encourage donations in support of conservative candidates."

So he lied, and admitted later that they were buying his book.

The conservative movement has often engaged in bulk-buying books by conservative authors and elected officials, which has contributed to the success of those books on bestseller lists.

The disclosure of the Senate Conservative Fund's generous purchase brought some simmering feuds within the conservative movement into the public eye. Levin blamed the stories on the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), with whom he and other conservatives have feuded recently.

Specifically, Levin accused NRSC communications director Brad Dayspring of purportedly releasing the information about the book purchases to Politico.

So in other words he got mad that they sold him out and told the people his books were being bought in bulk by conservative groups.

Levin and the Senate Conservatives Fund oppose the re-election of Sen. Mitch McConnell (the GOP minority leader in the Senate), whom they blame for being too accommodating to Democrats.

Dayspring characterized the book purchases as "fishy" and accused Levin of possibly being involved in "a quid pro quo when the purchase is in exchange for a favor - such as on air promotion."

From the politico article about the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC:
Such expenditures include purchasing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of conservative commentator Mark Levin's books to hand out to donors as a freebie for their contributions.
And it works the very same way for Bill O'Reilly too, even though he never tells you about it. Conservative groups and think tanks buy his books and give them away to people who make donations or join and get a membership.

For example, the website (www.conservativebookclub.com) has a promotion where if you buy a membership at the rate of $25.00 a year they will give you a free O'Reilly book, and you can pick whatever book you want, so they have a specific amount of every book O'Reilly has ever put out. They bought them in bulk so they get a discount, and those sales are counted in their bestseller listings.

That is one of the main reasons all those right-wing books get on the bestseller listings, but they do not tell you that, and most of them deny they have bulk sales, so they basically lie to you.

In fact, O'Reilly even tells people that his books getting to the top of the bestseller lists show that most people in America are conservative. While at the same time he does not disclose the bulk sales from conservative groups. He also does not tell you how many of his own books he buys to give away with memberships on his website, which are also counted on the bestseller listings.

This is all non-disclosure and dishonest, those bulk buys should not be counted on the bestseller listings, and O'Reilly should disclose the bulk buys, how many and who bought them, and he should also disclose how many of his own books he buys. Instead he does not do any of that, and he lets people think that every book sold was bought by one person who walked in and bought the book, one book at a time.

O'Reilly was also a columnist at the far-right conservative website called Human Events, from September of 2012 until February of 2013. You can see all his archived articles on this page: http://www.humanevents.com/author/bill-oreilly/

And btw, he quit writing articles for them in February of 2013 after it was reported by me and other media outlets that he was writing for them while claiming to not be a conservative.

For people that do not know, about 12 years ago it was reported that O'Reilly was a registered Republican, which he was, so he changed it to Independent, but only after it was made public that he was a registered Republican while saying he was not a Republican.

On his show he would tell people he is not a Republican (while he was registered as a Republican) then he only changed it to Independent after he was caught lying about it. I even have a copy of his old voter registration form on the website, showing he checked the box next to Republican.

Not to mention this, O'Reilly still claims he is not a conservative, well if that is true why is the conservativebookclub.com buying his books in bulk? And how come only conservative groups buy his books in bulk?

Answer that O'Reilly, you lying bum!

The Monday 1-13-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 14, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Democrats vs. Christie. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Some Democrats are trying to destroy New Jersey Governor Christie because they see him as a threat to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Christie's traffic scandal is pretty bad and lots of people were adversely affected. He says he didn't know about it and fair-minded people should believe him until there is evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Christie's style, which propelled him to political success, is now hurting him. One reason Mitt Romney lost to President Obama was that Governor Romney is too much of a gentleman, he apparently did not have the 'fire in the belly' to deliver a knockout blow. But Christie does and is therefore a threat to the Democratic Party.

Therefore, Christie must be marginalized and a good way to do that is to use his bluster against him. If you are passionate and state your position firmly and flamboyantly, as Governor Christie does, you become a huge target, especially if you make a mistake.

Talking Points believes the Democratic Party does not fear hard-right conservatives like Senator Cruz and Senator Paul. At this point Governor Christie is the biggest threat to the Democratic Party, so we are seeing a personal campaign lodged against him. It will not calm down any time soon.
Which is ridiculous, because this is a real scandal about Government corruption, and it's not only Democrats going after Christie, Republicans are slamming him too, O'Reilly just does not report that. Christie might be a threat to Clinton, but only if he gets past this scandal, if not, he is done. So it's not just Democrats vs. Christie, Republicans are going after him too. And if Christie were a Democrat the biased O'Reilly would be slamming him too.

So what does O'Reilly do, have a fair and balanced segment on it with a Republican and a Democrat, haha, of course not, he had Karl Rove on to discuss it.

Rove said this: "Any time there's somebody at parity with Hillary Clinton in the polls, as Christie has been, Democrats are going to seek an opportunity to knock him down a notch or two. With this bridge closing, they had the opportunity to knock Christie down and they jumped on it."

Rove even praised Christie for his handling of the bridge affair, saying this: "People are seeing a leader say, 'My people screwed up, they lied to me, and I took definitive action and fired them.' Most people outside of the New York area like seeing a leader who owns up to mistakes and apologizes. Democrats are going to try to make hay out of this, but most people will see that Christie owned up to it."

Wrong, most people think Christie is lying and that he knew about it, Rove is just a right-wing idiot spinning out right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly lets him get away with it because he is a Republican too. And he has no Democrats on to discuss it because they will disagree with him, so he only has the biased Rove on to spin out one side of the story.

Then Brit Hume, who said that Chris Christie is paying a price for being too "masculine" in a feminized culture, was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance, which is nothing but more one sided right-wing propaganda.

Hume said this: "It's a fact of our contemporary life, that if you have that tough guy image, if you speak bluntly and sometimes even rudely, you run the risk of being a 'bully.' In the eyes of some people unsympathetic to your agenda, that will stick and it will be used against you."

Hume also talked about a new book that claims Hillary Clinton's staff kept a "hit list" of Democrats who failed to support her candidacy in 2008. A hit list that all political people have btw, they all do it, not just Hillary as Hume and O'Reilly imply.

Hume said this: "Some of these were people for whom Hillary or Bill Clinton had done things. When they didn't get endorsements from these people, they considered it a betrayal. This was being done by Hillary Clinton's staff - the staff of politicians are often far more vindictive than the politicians themselves."

Then Mary K. Ham, who has argued tenaciously with O'Reilly about marijuana legalization, returned for another waste of tv time segment about it.

Ham said this: "I'm glad you pointed out that some 56% to 58% of Americans are pro-marijuana legalization, and I stand with that majority of Americans. But that does not mean I am indifferent to drug use and I stand with you on kids. When it comes to the drug war, it's a failure - we spend huge amounts of money and we incarcerate many people. I do not want my daughter to smoke marijuana when she's a teenager, but I also don't want her to drink a bunch of alcohol or get a tattoo, and those are legal."

O'Reilly then took issue with Ham's conclusion, saying this: "If adults want to use marijuana, I have no problem with that. Alcohol is a plague and children are drinking all over the place, and you want to add to the problem by making another intoxicant socially acceptable."

This is so ridiculous I am not going to report it anymore. Here are the facts, marijuana is on the way to being legal in all 50 states, which it should be, and there is nothing the lame cable news host Bill O'Reilly can do about it. Making a plant illegal that you can grow in a closet (or anywhere) is stupid and a waste of taxpayer money. And if kids want to smoke it they will, legal or not, so O'Reilly's argument is insane, and I will not report on this nonsense ever again.

Make it legal and take the money we save putting simple users in jail and use it to pay out unemployment benefits, or pay it to the poor who need it.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to evaluate the situation in Iraq, where Al Qaeda has re-established a powerful foothold. With no Democratic guest for balance, so it was once again one sided right-wing propaganda.

Krauthammer said this: "It's very clear what happened to Iraq after we left. Obama says he ended the Iraq war? No, it was General David Petraeus who ended the Iraq war and we won. Al Qaeda was defeated and humiliated and we were in a position to conclude a strategic agreement where Iraq would have been our ally. Obama had one job to do and three years to do it, and he failed! The bottom line is that Obama wanted to get out, that was the promise he made."

Wrong, Krauthammer is a liar. Because Obama just went by the agreement Bush signed with Iraq. George W. Bush signed an agreement to get the troops out by a specific date, unless the President of Iraq agreed to sign a new deal to keep the troops there, he refused, so Obama had no choice to pull the troops. Somehow O'Reilly and Krauthammer forget to mention that.

It was called The U.S. - Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.

U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer: It was signed by George W. Bush, not President Obama, idiots!

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: No Mas! Billy said this: "When you're full, even if there's plenty of food left on the plate, listen to your stomach and put down the knife and fork."

Are you kidding me O'Reilly, that's your tip, when you are full stop eating, what a fricking joke, stop doing this tip of the day it's worthless and nonsense.

O'Reilly & Fox Dishonest In Complaints About Media Reporting
By: Steve - January 14, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends at Fox are misusing a deceptive study by the Media Research Center to claim that the so-called "liberal media" is giving the recent bridge scandal involving New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's administration more coverage than they gave allegations that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately targeted conservative groups.

In their attempt to use the Christie story for political gain, O'Reilly and his conservative friends point to what they call a media failure: they claim that after heavily covering the initial IRS allegations, the press has largely ignored subsequent revelations undermining the "scandal."

Which is sort of true, but there is a good reason for that, because after the scandal first hit the media other news came out that showed all political groups were targeted, not just conservative groups. So the big scandal was turned into a little to no scandal, and the media stopped reporting on it.

Then on January 10, 2014 the biased conservative Media Research Center (MRC) run by the Republican Brent Bozell, released a report that attacked the media for that coverage by claiming that ABC, CBS, and NBC had given "a staggering 88 minutes to the story" but "over the last six months have allowed a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service scandal."

The MRC report has been widely cited by conservatives, particularly on Fox News. Especially Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg. Who failed to disclose that the MRC is a biased right-wing media watchdog group, or the fact that they only went back 6 months when the IRS story broke 8 months ago, and that first 2 months is when the heavy media coverage happened, and they ignored those 2 months in their biased and dishonest study.

That is very dishonest. As both the MRC study and the Fox segments ignore, the IRS story broke eight months ago, not six months ago. Rather than comparing the network's coverage of the initial revelations in both stories, the MRC study leaves out the initial, heavy coverage of the IRS story in their ridiculous study.

The IRS story was launched on May 10 when Lois Lerner, then the director of the IRS division that determines whether organizations are tax exempt, admitted to and apologized for improper scrutiny of tea party groups and other organizations seeking tax exempt status.

Lerner's statement was intended to pre-empt a highly critical inspector general's report that was released soon after. In the days following Lerner's revelation, President Obama called the targeting "outrageous" and "inexcusable" and fired the acting director of the IRS, while Attorney General Eric Holder announced a federal investigation.

Meanwhile, Republicans began holding hearings suggesting that the White House had been involved in the targeting. All of these events received heavy coverage in the media. But less than two months later, new documents and reporting had largely diffused the scandal.

Two months later, we know that in fact the IRS targeted lots of different kinds of groups, not just conservative ones; that the only organizations whose tax-exempt statuses were actually denied were progressive ones; that many of the targeted conservative groups legitimately crossed the line; that the IG's report was limited to only Tea Party groups at congressional Republicans' request; and that the White House was in no way involved in the targeting and didn't even know about it until shortly before the public did.

We also know that the Republican Congressman Issa lied when he said only conservative groups were targeted, so the scandal was no scandal and it died out in the media. O'Reilly and Goldberg failed to report any of that, not a word.

The media's IRS coverage followed a regular pattern they do with every so-called scandal -- "there's a surge in initial interest as reporters rush to embrace the scandal narrative, but the press quickly loses interest after the most sensational charges are not substantiated."

So the MRC does a dishonest and biased study, then all the dishonest right-wing stooges at Fox report on it as if it's a valid study, when the whole thing is garbage, and O'Reilly was at the top of the pile shoveling out the MRC garbage as fast as he could. with the dishonest Bernie Goldberg on to help him.

So the MRC study ignored the reporting data from the first 2 months of the story, when it was reported by the media heavily. Which is about as dishonest as it gets, and yet O'Reilly used their biased and dishonest study without disclosing any of these facts. As he claims to be a non-partisan journalist who is looking out for you, which is beyond laughable, and O'Reilly is a biased and corrupt right-wing fraud who should be sued for claiming to be a journalist.

Republican Ron Unz Supports Raising Minimum Wage To $12
By: Steve - January 13, 2014 - 10:00am

You may find it odd to see a devout conservative supporting the increase in minimum wages across the country. For the most part the support behind the increase in the minimum wage has come from the Democratic Party and from the lower classes, so what is a Conservative Millionaire from California doing by trying to gain support for it too?

Registered Republican, Ron Unz, is rallying voters across California, and hopefully abroad, to support the increase in the Federal Minimum Wage. He has a few reasons backing his theory that many conservatives may want to take note of too.

It should be no mystery in 2014 that the lower classes in America are suffering an economic plight. The reliance on government assistance to sustain a marginal means of existence is extremely high, and much of that stems from a lack of household earnings.

Unlike households of a few generations ago, today's families consist of a lot more single-parent households, and inflation has more than caught up to those paychecks.

With all of the average bills required to keep a family afloat, making at or near the minimum wage in this country does not cover most of the bills. Ordinary people rely on food stamps to keep kids fed, and government assistance to put a roof over their head.

Many of these same people work hard at their day jobs, laboring just to barely make enough to get by after the government picks up the rest of the tab.Raising the minimum wage across the country would not only boost the livelihood of people at the bottom of the wealth pool, but would also stimulate all areas of the economy and possibly help revive the failing middle-class in this country.

Whether the magic number for the proposed minimum wage falls somewhere in the $11 range, or closer to the $15 range, America's lowest standard of living is quite a bit lower than most other developed countries.

Take for example Australia, where the minimum wage is roughly $16 by comparison, or other countries in Europe where the wages are even slightly higher. We aren't talking about average wages, just minimum wages. Currently America ranks in at about half of he minimum wage of what the US does, and that's for the same quality of work.

Some of the fears that opponents of raising the minimum wage have is that they feel the cost of goods would sky-rocket in the US if the labor costs are dramatically increased.

While it is true that there will be an increased labor cost passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices, the calculation of raising the wages presumes that the cost of goods would not increase anywhere near the percentage rate that the average household wage would.

Sure, those at the top of the ladder who would probably see no wage increase may feel a little pinch in their wallet, but the relief of them as a tax payer should substantially outweigh the burden of shelling out a few more dollars at the register.

This is where Ron Unz hopes to open the eyes of his fellow conservatives, while delicately walking the line into the voting territory of the Democratic thinkers in California.

Unz is not trying to create a hostile environment of an Us VS Them mentality, but rather a common vision of a successful future for not only our country, but for every household within it.

Whether you support a higher minimum wage or not, you probably would support a higher minimum standard of living, and most of us would rather see that financed by the individual rather than the government.

Read This O'Reilly You Big Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - January 13, 2014 - 9:00am

I recently read an article about being poor and unemployed from a Professor of business and economics at California State University, his name is Anthony W. Orlando. In the article he tries to tell the idiot Republicans like O'Reilly what's it is really like to be poor and unemployed.

And he explains to them how nobody who is poor wants to be poor, something O'Reilly and the Republicans do not seem to understand. Here it is:

Do the Math: People Don't Choose to Be Poor or Unemployed

God, I wish I were poor.

And unemployed. That's the good life. Poor and unemployed.

I mean, just look at all the cool stuff you get. Medicaid and welfare. Food stamps and unemployment insurance. And don't forget public housing.

This stuff is so awesome that it's like a "hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives." That's what Paul Ryan says, at least, and as the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he's supposed to know these things, right?

According to Ryan and his fellow Republicans, if I have unemployment insurance, I'll never want to work again. Senator Rand Paul says it will cause me "to become part of this perpetual unemployed group." With an average benefit of $269 per week, I'll be living on Easy Street.

This is a common belief. There's an email making the rounds from a 54-year-old consulting engineer who makes $60,000 a year and has to pay $482 a month for health insurance under Obamacare, but that's not his biggest complaint. He's really upset that his 61-year-old girlfriend who makes $18,000 a year only has to pay $1 a month for health insurance.

He thinks she has it so easy that she can afford to pay more, but he's wrong.

On average, Americans earning $18,000 a year pay more than $3,000 in taxes, so she really only has $15,000 leftover to pay her expenses. She lives in Monterey, CA, where the average rent and utilities add up to $15,000 a year. So, after paying taxes, rent, and utilities, she's completely broke. She doesn't have money for food, let alone health insurance.

The consulting engineer thinks people will choose her lifestyle over his. "Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year?" he asks. (Nice way to talk about your girlfriend, by the way.) To which I'd like to reply: If being a "schlub" is so attractive, why don't you do it? Why don't you quit your engineering job and join the "$20K per year" club?

For that matter, why don't we all quit our jobs right now and start collecting unemployment insurance? How far do you honestly think we can stretch $269 a week?

I'll tell you how far: It would cover less than half of the basic necessities for the average American family.

That's why unemployment makes you more likely to have to borrow money from a friend, withdraw money from your retirement savings, and have trouble paying your medical bills, rent, and mortgage. It makes you more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, lose self-respect, have difficulty sleeping, and seek professional help for anxiety and depression. It makes you more likely to kill yourself, kill others, and drink yourself to death.

And if you've been unemployed for more than a few months, most employers won't even look at your resume. It doesn't matter how qualified you are. It's like you don't exist anymore.


The last time it was this bad, with long-term unemployment close to 3 percent of the workforce, was the peak of the 1980-81 recession. Back then, the federal government kept extended unemployment insurance in place for almost two more years, until the long-term unemployment rate fell close to 1 percent.

In fact, that's been standard operating procedure for every recession in the modern era, including 1990-91 and 2001. But now, with long-term unemployment as high as it's been since World War II, Republicans have killed the emergency unemployment insurance program, and they're fighting Democrats' efforts to restore it.

They don't seem to care that there are 2.9 applicants for every job opening.

They don't seem to care that people on unemployment insurance actually spend more time searching for work than their fellow unemployed who are ineligible for benefits. They're sticking to their story.

On the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, many Americans are still operating under the assumption that people choose to be poor and unemployed, that they'd rather be lazy than rich, that they can afford the basic necessities of life. But the numbers tell a different story.

I don't wish I were poor. Or unemployed. And I sure don't wish it on anyone else. If you did the math, neither would you.

NJ State Senator Ray Lesniak Calls Christie A Liar
By: Steve - January 12, 2014 - 11:00am

As the Bridgegate scandal continues to unfold, questions have come up about Governor Chris Christie's statements at his marathon press conference Thursday. State Senator Ray Lesniak (D-NJ) was on Saturday morning's Up with Steve Kornacki, and called Christie the "Liar-in-Chief."

Discussing an email from the latest raft of subpoenaed documents, host Steve Kornacki said "When I see that an e-mail marked 'priority high' from Pat Foye, saying the New Jersey guys may be breaking state and federal law, is forwarded to Regina Egea, someone that close to the Governor, back on september 13, this had to have come up with these specific concerns at a very early level."

Which is more detailed reporting O'Reilly has totally ignored. Including O'Reilly telling Geraldo that he believes Christie, as he ignores all the details in the e-mails.

"For sure," Lesniak agreed, adding "and the Liar in Chief is Chris Christie, and the obstruction of justice is what is going to be his biggest problem. I don't believe he was involved in the lane closures itself, but those lane closures violate federal law."

Lesniak went on to say that Christie "circled the wagons, had a phony story about a traffic study no one could believe. Lo and behold, the morning we found out it was a phony story, he found out. What he found out was that we found out."

And btw, Regina Egea was Director of the Authorities Unit of the Governor's Office at the time, and is now Governor Christie's Chief of Staff.

But if you ask Bill O'Reilly, Christie knew nothing and he believes him, they did it all on their own, he said he was sorry and fired people, so we should move on because the story is over. Even though the details in the story and the e-mails, not to mention Wildstein taking the 5th, show Christie most likely knew about it and there is a lot more to the story we have yet to find out about.

Important Details In The Christie Scandal O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - January 12, 2014 - 10:30am

Here are some details of the Christie bridge scandal and Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of it, not a word.

Christie's Port Authority chairman knew about the closings:

Christie insisted that David Samson, his chairman of the Port Authority, was not involved in the closings, but the documents show that he was aware of the new traffic pattern before testing ended on Sep. 13.

In fact, Samson even wrote an angry email to New York Port Authority Official Patrick Foye, a Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) appointee, accusing him of leaking information to the press. "He's playing in traffic, made a big mistake."

Christie officials knew that the new traffic patterns were causing massive congestion and raising safety concerns. Still, they continued the study:

Christie appointees Bill Baroni -- the Deputy Director of the Port Authority -- and David Wildstein -- director of interstate capital projects -- were told on the very first day of the study (Monday) that the new traffic patterns were causing massive delays in Fort Lee and impeding public safety.

Fort Lee Police Department Chief called the new traffic pattern a miserable failure. Still, the officials kept the bridge lanes closed for three additional days.

Port Authority officials blamed the traffic on the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee:

On Sep. 12, Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich wrote a personal letter to Baroni, "in hopes that a recent decision by the Port Authority will be reversed quietly, uneventfully and without political fanfare."

Sokolich remarks that the lane closures have "wreaked havoc upon our community, emergency vehicles are experiencing tremendous response time delays," and complains that he had "received absolutely no notice of this decision" or "obtained any response to our multiple inquiries."

"Try as we may to understand its rationale without the benefit of a response from the Port Authority, we are reaching the conclusion that there are punitive overtones associated with his initiative."

He then reveals that Port Authority Police Officers had been advising local residents that the traffic was "the result of a decision that I, as the Mayor, recently made."

Christie appointees tried to squash press stories about the study:

After reporters from the Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, the Star Ledger, and other outlets began sending press inquires about the lane closures in September and then again as the controversy heated up in November, Christie appointees repeatedly instructed the press team to keep quiet and avoid comment.

Baroni specifically told Foye to avoid any public discussion about the matter. Christie appointees repeatedly instructed press aides not to respond to reporters' questions.

David Wildstein resigned from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey amid a controversy involving lane closures on the George Washington Bridge on Sept. 9, 2013. Wildstein, who was hired in 2010 as the authority's director of interstate capital projects by an appointee of Gov. Chris Christie, and a Livingston High School classmate. So ask yourself this about Christie, the guy you appointed (who you went to high school with) suddenly resigns from a $140,000 a year job and you dont ask why?

Would you not want to know why your high school classmate (and a guy you appointed) suddenly resigned from a high paying Government job? I sure as hell would.

Then the 2,300 pages of e-mails were released, and Christie says nothing. Would you not wonder why all those e-mails (from your top level staffers) were being released to an investigation panel, especially after Wildstein resigned? I sure as hell would.

It's hard to believe Christie just sat back during all this and knew nothing, in fact, it's pretty much impossible to believe. But O'Reilly believe him, and Shaq, and they are about the only two people that believe him. There may not be proof Christie knew, but he sure knew something was going on, they just did a good job of covering for him so he could not be linked to it, yet.

And Bill O'Reilly showed his true colors once again by saying he believes Christie, when it's just laughable. There was no investigative reporting by O'Reilly, all he did was two segments with two Republicans, Laura Ingraham and Bernie Goldberg. And they spent most of their time complaining about how the rest of the media was covering the story, instead of actually reporting the details and the facts of the story.

That is not journalism, and O'Reilly is just pathetic, because he is clearly covering for Christie, because he is a Republican and he wants to see Christie beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. If Christie were a Democrat O'Reilly would do a detailed investigation, spend a week reporting it, and do follow up segments at least once a week after that, if not more.

O'Reilly did not even report on the hearing where Wildstein took the 5th, he totally ignored it. But when Democrats took the 5th in hearings under Clinton O'Reilly reported it and called it an outrage, and he said they are Government employees of the people so they should be made to testify. But when Republicans do it, he just ignores it and acts like it never even happened.

Jeff Zucker Tells The Truth About The Fox News Network
By: Steve - January 11, 2014 - 11:30am

In an interview with Capital New York at the Television Critics Association winter meeting Friday in California, Jeff Zucker from CNN said this about Fox News.

ZUCKER: "We happen to be in the news business as opposed to some other 'fair and balanced' news networks... "The Republican Party is being run out of News Corp. headquarters masquerading as a cable news channel."

And he is exactly right, everyone at Fox News should be getting their paychecks from the Republican Party Headquarters. Fox is an arm of the RNC, they put out right-wing propaganda instead of actual news, and that is a fact.

The Friday 1-10-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 11, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Bridgegate. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie admitted yesterday that members of his staff ordered roads to the George Washington Bridge closed, creating traffic chaos in the town of Fort Lee. This was to punish the mayor of that town, who did not endorse Christie for reelection. The Governor says he did not know his aides were messing with the traffic, and honest folks will accept that statement.

But if it proves not to be true, he is done on the national scene. Reaction to this situation is very interesting. The woman Christie defeated last November, State Senator Barbara Buono, accused Governor Christie of running a 'paramilitary organization.' On the other side, Rush Limbaugh and our pal Glenn Beck have hammered Christie. For hard-line conservatives, the Governor is unacceptable because he's a moderate and actually helped President Obama in the last election.

But there is no question that Christie is a danger to the Democrats - his feisty style would put Hillary Clinton or any Democratic nominee on the defensive. That's why the New York Times and other Democratic organs have labeled Christie a 'bully.' I don't know Governor Christie and he hasn't appeared on The Factor. His image is that of a no-nonsense politician who does not suffer fools, and that's refreshing to many Republicans.

That's why a traffic controversy has erupted across the country - Christie is not liked by some conservatives, and he is feared by some liberals. So both sides are happy with the Governor's conundrum.
Said the Republican Bill O'Reilly who defends and spins for Christie. Notice O'Reilly ignored all the details, the redacted e-mails, the witness taking the 5th, the guy resigned and O'Reilly says nothing, then takes the 5th and O'Reilly never even mentions it. O'Reilly is covering for Christie so much he should just go to work for him.

Then Geraldo Rivera, a New Jersey resident, was on to talk about the news that U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman may head a federal investigation into the traffic controversy.

Geraldo said this: "Fishman is not only a Democrat, he's a politically active person who has given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton and virtually every Democrat running. But he is the U.S. Attorney and he has no connection to Christie's conundrum. This is Christie's worst nightmare - the very U.S. Attorney office that he once held is now going through every email and every person who ever spoke with Chris Christie about this."

Then the biased right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the wall-to-wall media coverage of the Chris Christie bridge story. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, just Goldberg crying about the media.

Goldberg said this: "In the last 24 hours, ABC, NBC, and CBS devoted 17 times more coverage to this than they devoted in the past six months to the IRS scandal. I guess we're supposed to conclude that a massive traffic jam in New Jersey is a greater threat to democracy than the IRS going after political opponents of the President Of the United States. At least Christie fired somebody, but President Obama hasn't fired anybody for the Obamacare rollout or the Benghazi mess or the IRS scandal. The media jumps on Christie for stuff that it has never held the President accountable for. That's the hypocrisy, that's the double standard that offends."

Two things here, Goldberg is an idiot and a liar. To begin with the IRS scandal turned out to not be a scandal, it was proven that the IRS looked at both liberal and conservative groups who were claiming to be non-political 501 c-3 groups, it was a made up scandal by the Republicans and Fox news.

And the Christie scandal is a big deal, it's clear Government corruption by a sitting Governor. So it deserves 17 times more coverage than a made up non IRS scandal. Then Obama did fire someone, he fired the entire company who was doing the Obamacare website, I guess Goldberg just forgot about that, yeah right, and if you believe that I have some land to sell you.

Finally, this complaining from O'Reilly and Goldberg is garbage, all they do is cry about how the rest of the media is covering the Christie scandal. Here is some advice, just report on the fricking story, stop crying about what the rest of the media is doing, nobody cares and it makes you look like fools. Report the story, do your job for once.

Then the right-wing hack Lou Dobbs was on to talk about Friday's unemployment report that showed only 74,000 new jobs were created in December. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, just O'Reilly and Dobbs spinning out their right-wing opinions on it.

Dobbs said this: "This was about two-thirds lower than expected, and the labor force participation rate declined again, there are a half a million fewer people in the labor force. They are retired or they are discouraged workers who have given up looking for a job."

O'Reilly pointed to another worrying statistic, saying this: "My only indicator on the economy is how much money people are making and the median income is either stagnant or down."

Then criminal justice professor Shawn Bushway was on to talk about a new study that claims nearly half of all black males under the age of 23 have been arrested, and nearly 40% of white men of the same age have been arrested.

Bushway said this: "The majority of people arrested for the first time, is for minor crimes like property destruction, drug possession, or disorderly conduct, but we specifically excluded driving offenses. This level of prevalence is not a new thing, and people should be aware that being arrested is a relatively common experience. There has been an increase in the past 40 years and that's partly due to changes in policing practices."

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to discuss a new Gallup Poll showing that 38% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, 34% as moderate, and 23% as liberal. And you guessed it, no Democratic guests were on for balance. Just 3 Republicans giving their right-wing opinions on it.

Gutfeld said this: "It's easy to say you're a liberal, it's kind of a cozy little costume you can put on. And there's no incentive to say you're a conservative because it's 'mean.' If you say you're a conservative, essentially you're saying you eat babies. So you may say you're liberal without being one."

O'Reilly then asked McGuirk why so many liberal Democrats are elected to national office when so few people call themselves liberals.

McGuirk said this: "A lot of these moderates identify with the liberals and vote for them. It's liberalism rooted in emotional feel-good mentality, while conservatism is more logical and rational. Conservatives say you can't spend more money than you have, but liberals say let's spend the money now because we have to, and let's not do stop-and-frisk because it hurts people's feelings."

Which is the biggest load of right-wing propaganda I have even heard. When Clinton left office he gave the Republican George W. Bush a $236 billion dollar surplus, and when Bush left office 8 years later he gave Obama a $4.9 trillion dollar debt. That is not logical or rational. And sometimes a Government has to run a debt to do whats best for the country and the people, especially after a big recession, that was caused by Bush btw.

O'Reilly and the right keep saying liberals are the only people who add to the debt, when it's a flat out lie, to say that they ignore the fact that Bill Clinton was the President for 8 years and he left the country in a surplus. It's dishonest, and O'Reilly lets his right-wing guests get away with it all the time, hell he even does it himself.

Then they named their weeks biggest pinheads. And of course no Democratic guests were on to name their pinheads of the week.

Gutfeld named writer Jesse Myerson, who extolled the virtues of communism in Rolling Stone magazine, saying this: "That kind of heinous stupidity deserves the spotlight. This is a dweeb advocating brutality and this is always the case, it's always the academic who advocates the death of millions. He laughs like a high school girl at the Galleria."

McGuirk picked President Obama, who claimed every American would rather have a job than an unemployment check, saying this: "The naivety is stunning - that he never met a person who would rather have a check than a job! I'm exhibit A. Before I went to college I had some crappy jobs, I got terminated, and I collected unemployment."

Which proves nothing, except McGuirk is a right-wing jerk who disrespected the President, which O'Reilly would never allow if he were a Republican. And it is true, nobody would rather be getting unemployment, which pays about 70% of what you make at a good job, so Obama was right.

O'Reilly went with the Nebraska teen who had a baby at age 14, saying this: "The baby is now two years old and last night we ran video of the baby saying bad words that were being prompted in the home. The girl is a pinhead for having a baby she can't support, and there are people in her house taping her 2-year-old saying obscenities. But she says she's a 'good mother!' Thank God social services has taken the baby out of the house."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Factor-Related Windfall. Billy said this: "Considering that a contestant on Jeopardy recently hauled in big bucks after correctly answering a question about Killing Lincoln, it can certainly pay off to be a Factor follower."

O'Reilly Tells Geraldo He Believes Chris Christie
By: Steve - January 11, 2014 - 10:00am

Which is just laughable, here is what happened. Geraldo joined O'Reilly Friday night to take on the scandal-plagued Chris Christie and whether BridgeGate will haunt his political career up into 2016. Geraldo argued it definitely would, saying "this is a cancer on his political aspirations."

After talking about the potential political conflict in the Democrat-supporting U.S. attorney conducting the investigation, Rivera professed to be a Christie fan, calling him "the Tony Soprano of politics in a good way" and saying it's "like having a mafia guy on your side."

Then Geraldo said he was amazed O'Reilly is still giving Christie the benefit of the doubt. O'Reilly said, "I don't think he's a liar" and said it was obviously just "bad staffers," while Geraldo said he doubted Christie had no knowledge of a serious traffic incident on the country's busiest bridge, which is why this investigation "is really dangerous to Chris Christie."

And only a few total right-wing stooges believe Christie. Because it's almost impossible to believe Christie did not know about any of it. First the bridge is closed for a traffic study, when there was no study, are you telling me Christie never asked who is doing it or why? Then we find out there was no study, it was never even done, not to mention, you do not need to close a bridge to do the traffic study.

Then the friend of Christie and his very own appointee at the port authority suddenly resigns, are you telling me Christie would not ask why his friend resigned?

Then thousands of e-mails start getting turned over because of a subpeona, are you telling me Christie would not want to know why all those e-mails from his top level staffers were being turned over to a subpeona?

To believe Christie is telling the truth you have to believe none of that happened, which is beyond impossible, and Christie had to know about it. Now they have covered it up pretty well, and they may never prove Christie knew, but anyone with a working brain knows Christie knew something was going on, and he probably just ignored it so he could later say he did not know.

As usual O'Reilly is covering for a Republican in a scandal, but if he were a Democrat O'Reilly would call him a liar, and most likely call for him to resign. He would do 20 segments on it in a week, and cover it for another week non-stop. But since it's a Republican all O'Reilly does is defend him and say he believes him. Then downplay the scandal and barely cover it, and the coverage he does is all crying about how the rest of the media is biased in their coverage of it.

The Thursday 1-9-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 10, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The War on Poverty. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Fifty years ago President Johnson announced that America would wage an intense war to lift millions out of poverty. His vision centered on giving folks a fair chance to develop their talents in order to make a good living. It was a noble idea, but analysis by the Heritage Foundation says nearly $21-trillion has been spent and the state of poverty in America has not really improved very much. All the social engineering has failed.

In 2012 the feds spent $916-billion on 80 welfare programs that give cash assistance to about 100-million Americans. Those stats do not include Social Security and Medicare. Of course, welfare beneficiaries comprise a solid core of the Democratic Party, so we see the Dems ramping up for this year's election by promising even more benefits. But true poverty is driven by personal behavior, not an unfair economic system.

In 1963 just 6% of American babies were born out of wedlock; now 41% are, and that includes 72% of African American babies. Single parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty and children raised by single parents are three times more likely to end up in prison. So maybe we should have a war against chaotic and irresponsible parents! But America will never launch that kind of war because it's too 'judgmental' and affects minority precincts.

Therefore, cowardly politicians and race hustlers continue to bear false witness that our economic system is at fault rather than bad personal decision making. If you're dishonest, embrace intoxicants, conceive children you can't support, act in a crude way, and believe you are owed prosperity, then poverty may well come knocking. And all the President's men can't prevent that.
Just remember that O'Reilly based all that propaganda on a study from the biased right-wing Heritage Foundation. The biggest problem we have right now is low wages for workers, and neither O'Reilly or the Heritage Foundation even mentioned that. The main problem is that the greedy corporations are giving too much money to the top and not paying the workers enough money to live on.

If the workers were paid more the poverty level would go down a lot, and less people would need Government aid. They should also raise the minimum wage to at least $10.00 an hour, which would lift 4 to 6 million people out of poverty and off food stamps. And O'Reilly does not say a word about that, proving he is a right-wing idiot who is ignoring the main problem, low wages for the workers.

Then two Democrats Jeanne Zaino & Robert Borosage were on to discuss it.

Zaino said this: "Personal responsibility is important, but if you do not address the structural and economic issues, personal responsibility won't change anything. The cost of college has skyrocketed, and you can be as responsible as you want, but if you can't get a college education you don't have the skills you need."

Borosage said this: "People have gotten much more education and people are making responsible decisions by having fewer children because they can't afford them. It used to be that a rising tide would lift all boats, but starting in the mid 70's the tide kept rising but workers did not share in that. We don't have a problem of workers who are too lazy, we have the problem of jobs that don't offer good pay for hard work."

Bingo, Borosage hit the nail on the head. The corporations give all the profit to the CEO, the COO, etc. and the shareholders, then the workers get the scraps left over. So they have no money, and they can not spend enough to drive the economy. Give the workers more money and they will spend it, then it lifts them out of poverty and makes the economy better. Which will also lower the deficit and the debt.

Then the biased right-wing hack Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has fired two aides who helped create a massive traffic jam to punish a Democratic mayor. With no Democratic guest for balance, making the entire segment a one sided joke. With O'Reilly and Ingraham defending Christie, and crying about the media calling him a bully.

Ingraham said this: "He did about as well as you can in these circumstances, and what you have to look at now is how he handles this going forward. The media has daggers out for Christie and this is obviously good news for Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democrats nominate. Christie has made a lot of enemies and there are a lot of people who would really like Jeb Bush to be the nominee. Christie has to decide whether he's going to be a punching bag or if he's going to go right to the people with a positive message of growth and prosperity."

That took about a minute, in the other 5 minutes O'Reilly and Ingraham complained about the media coverage Christie was getting, and cried about them saying he is a bully, which he is, and they barely even talked about the details of the story, it was a total joke of a segment. I wrote more about it in my other blog.

Then Ellis Henican & Linda Chavez were on to talk about the Department of Justice, who has assigned Barbara Bosserman, a donor to President Obama, to investigate allegations that the IRS singled out conservative Tea Party groups for harsh treatment.

Chavez said this: "You couldn't write this any better if it was a Saturday Night Live skit. First you try to downplay the scandal and then you find somebody who is a big-time donor to the Obama campaign. It's unbelievable."

But Henican found no problem with Bosserman's appointment, saying this: "There is nothing remotely wrong with what this lady did, let's judge her on her behavior. It would be improper to investigate her political background."

O'Reilly said that the appointment gives at least the appearance of impropriety, saying this: "The Attorney General has a wide variety of people to investigate this, shouldn't he choose a neutral and independent person?"

Then Heather Nauert was on for angry e-mails, she talked about letters from some ticked-off viewers, among them Betty Vance of Illinois, who complained about the cost of having Michelle Obama remain in Hawaii for an extended vacation.

"The overall cost of the trip is about $4-million, and most of that is attributed to the air travel. That's just standard among First Families, whether people like it or not. It will also cost about $430,000 in travel time just to fly her back."

Virginian Jeffrey Day was mad about local public schools being closed due to cold weather. "It was about seven degrees in Fairfax, which is the coldest they've had in that area in about 20 years. Kids can get frostbite in about 30 minutes in that kind of temperature."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a video shot in Nebraska that shows a black toddler spewing profanities at the behest of his relatives. Kelly accused the adults in the video of criminal behavior. Which is just ridiculous, but no guest was on with the counterpoint and for balance.

Kelly said this: "This is child abuse. Child abuse can be physical and it can also be emotional, which is described as 'endangering the mental health of a child.' They had this little boy say the most vile things possible. The police union has also come under fire because they put this online as an example of the 'thug culture' they're dealing with."

So much for Kelly not giving an opinion, here is her opinion, she said it's child abuse, and she is not the impartial news reporter she claims to be, she gives her opinion all the time, and it's always a right-wing leaning opinion, she never sides with liberals on anything.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Power of the Pen. Billy said this: "In this age of emailing and texting, a handwritten note expressing gratitude to someone who has helped you will elevate both of you."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, with e-mail, twitter, texting, facebook, etc. nobody writes notes anymore, except notes on their grocery shopping list, moron.

Important Info O'Reilly Ignored In The Chris Christie Scandal
By: Steve - January 10, 2014 - 10:00am

This is information anyone with a computer and internet access can find in 2 minutes, and yet O'Reilly never said a word about any of it in his one 6 minute segment on it Thursday night with only Laura Ingraham as the guest to discuss it.

Christie adamantly insisted during his big press conference that he first learned the scope of Bridgegate Wednesday morning, essentially saying he was unaware of all this until he read about it in the press.

But the editorial board for The Star-Ledger, the largest circulating paper in New Jersey, put out an editorial Thursday calling Christie's account into question and saying it doesn't make sense Christie would only have found out just this week.

The paper calls for more information to be publicly disclosed and for all the e-mails to be released in their non-redacted forms. But more importantly, they say Christie needs to provide a more full accounting of what he knew and when he knew it.

David Wildstein was the Port Authority executive involved in the lane closures at the George Washington Bridge, and he resigned last month in December, so the Star-Ledger editorial board found it odd that Christie didn't look into exactly why that was happening.

From the editorial:
Christie's insistence that he found out about this "for the first time at 8:50 yesterday morning" -- after he had finished his workout and got a call from his communications director -- stretches the bounds of belief.

When his appointee at the Port Authority resigned, did he really not ask why? And was he not curious enough to inquire about the content of the emails being handed over in these subpoenas? Did he really just wait to read about it all in the papers?

And how does a former U.S. attorney give his staff just one hour to come clean, before running out to the media to insist that none of them were involved, and mock reporters for even asking about the lane closures? What sort of investigation is that?
But O'Reilly believes Christie, even though it's impossible to believe after Wildstein resigned Christie would not want to know why, since he was a lifelong friend and he appointed him to the position he resigned from.

And then it's really hard to believe Christie would not want to know what was going on when the emails started being handed over in the subpoenas. If you are telling me Christie would not wonder why his guy resigned and emails were going out for the subpoenas, I have some land to sell you.

So the big bad journalist Bill O'Reilly bought it all, while not reporting any of it, or even a mention of Wildstein taking the 5th at the hearing. Then claim Christie is telling the truth and he knew nothing about the bridge closing until Wednesday.

Nobody is buying that garbage, except for O'Reilly, who has no proof Christie is telling the truth. And the evidence shows that most likely Christie is lying. This is what Bill O'Reilly does, cover for Republicans and even lie for them, while ignoring the facts and not going into any detail of the story.

Bill O'Reilly Is A Massive Right-Wing Joke Of A Pretend Journalist
By: Steve - January 10, 2014 - 9:30am

Thursday the big news story was Chris Christie and bridgegate. It was nothing but Christie, all day on every news show, all the websites, google news, yahoo news, it was everywhere and every news show I watched led with the Christie story.

Except one, the O'Reilly Factor. What did Bill O'Reilly report on, a biased study from the dishonest and biased right-wing Heritage Foundation about the war on poverty. O'Reilly did his Talking Points Memo on the study, and in that TPM he spun out all the right-wing propaganda from the Republican party about what they say about poverty.

And O'Reilly implied it was all facts, when it was simply a biased study from a right-wing think tank. O'Reilly even had two guests on to discuss the study, where he told them everything in the study is the truth. Even though both of them disagreed with him, he still cited the study as if it were a fact, and not just an opinion from a right-wing think tank.

And btw folks, when liberal think tanks do similar studies that come to different conclusions as to the war on poverty, O'Reilly says it is a biased liberal think tank so you can not believe their study. But when a conservative think tank does the very same thing, O'Reilly cites it and claims it's a fact, proving his bias.

Not to mention this, O'Reilly ignored the biggest reason for most of the poverty, low wages. One guest pointed it out and O'Reilly just brushed him off. But it's a real fact, these corporations are greedy and they do not pay the workers enough to live on, fact.

They make billions in profit and it all goes to the top, to the CEO, the COO, and the shareholders, not to the actual workers. So they can not make a living wage, and that puts a lot of them in poverty, or barely above it. This is the biggest problem we have, because the people see the low wages and they do not want to do that job, because it does not pay enough to live on.

O'Reilly blamed it all on out of wedlock birth rates, based on the biased Heritage Foundation study. Which is just ridiculous, because it's about jobs not paying enough to get people to want to do that job. And that is a fact.

There was no TPM on the Christie story, and it was not even the top story. In the 2nd segment at 7:14pm O'Reilly had a 6 minute segment about the Christie story with one guest, the biased right-wing spin doctor Laura Ingraham, who is his fill-in host when he is not there.

It was a joke, pathetic, and just sad. No Democratic guest, no fairness, and no balance. Just O'Reilly and Ingraham talking about the Christie story for 6 minutes. And during the 6 minutes all they did was cry about the media calling Christie a bully, the two of them sat there and cried about the NY Times and the rest of the media saying Christie was a bully.

They did not even discuss the details of the story, or the fact that the main witness at the N.J. hearing took the 5th, and that all other witnesses will also most likely take the 5th. Ingraham even complained that the media was covering the story too much, and mentioned the Obama scandals, and cried that the media did not cover them enough.

So in the entire 6 minute segment they spent about a minute actually talking about the story, the other 5 minutes was spent crying about the media calling Christie a bully. And they speculated that if Christie runs against Hillary in 2016 the media will label him a bully every time he says something about her.

Even though it has not happened, and neither one of them have even said they will run for President in 2016. So they barely even reported on the details of the Christie scandal, they just rambled on crying about how the media covered the story.

It was the biggest joke I have ever seen, and it's 100% proof that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing stooge. O'Reilly even said he believes Christie did not know anything about it, with no proof, none, no evidence that is true at all. And he said that after saying a million times that he only deals in facts and does not report anything unless he can back it up with facts.

They never discussed the 1,800 pages of e-mails, the redacted parts of them, the people who resigned and were fired, the taking the 5th at the hearing, nothing, they ignored all the actual news in the story. It was laughable, and one of the most biased one sided segments O'Reilly has ever done.

If Christie was a Democrat, I can guarantee you O'Reilly would have done a TPM about it, made it the top story, then spent the entire show discussing it with 5 to 8 guests who would all slam him and go into every little detail of the story. But when it's the Republican Chris Christie O'Reilly simply does one 6 minute segment on it 14 minutes into the show with the Republican Laura Ingraham, and no Democratic guest for balance.

Every other news show I watched all day and all night led with the Christie story and did half or all the the show talking about it. Except for O'Reilly and a few other Fox News shows. If someone wanted proof Fox is a total right-wing propaganda news network all they had to do today was switch back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox during and after the Christie press conference.

Fox covered less than 15 minutes of it, and spent half the day talking about a rocket going into space with ants on it. While the rest of the media in America spent all day and night reporting on the Christie story. Making O'Reilly and Fox News the biggest joke of a news network in the country. And after this they should be sued for even claiming to be a news network.

More Proof Fox News Is A Biased Right-Wing Joke
By: Steve - January 9, 2014 - 11:30am

Today at 10am Chris Christie had a press conference on the bridge closing scandal. Fox, MSNBC, and CNN all showed it live, except Fox News, who showed less than fifteen minutes of it and then dropped it. MSNBC and CNN showed the entire two hour press conference live.

Fox News dropped the Christie press conference for a Fox News Alert about a rocket launch that is sending ants into space, yes you heard me right. Fox News broke away from the Christie press conference to report on ants going to space. And not only did they report it, they showed the rocket launch live, then they had guests on to discuss it. They had two different guests on to talk about sending ants into space.

While this was happening on Fox, CNN and MSNBC were still covering the Christie press conference. And after the press conference was over, CNN and MSNBC had multiple guests on to discuss it, as Fox reported on the month old Obamacare hearing with Republican Congressman Issa.

Nobody reported on the ant launch, except for Fox news. At the time Greg Jarret and Allyson Camarota were the hosts, and they are total right-wing stooges.

Then Fox reported on the Gates book with the Republican John Bolton.

So then CNN and MSNBC showed part of the N.J. Hearing with Wildstein, who resigned over the bridge closing scandal, and of course Fox never showed any of that either. At the hearing Wildstein took the 5th on every question.

Not only did Fox not show any of the N.J. hearing, they never even reported on the hearing, or the fact that Wildstein took the 5th on every question asked of him. This is not journalism, this is biased partisan political garbage by Fox news.

And if Christie were a Democrat you can bet Fox would have covered this story all day and all night, for a week. But since Christie is a Republican they barely covered it at all, just enough to say they reported on it if they are accused of bias by not reporting it.

At Fox, a rocket launch to send ants into space is more important than Government corruption. When it involves a Republican, which is just laughable. Because it is the #1 job of the media to report on Government corruption, that is their mission statement. But not at Fox, their mission statement is to spin and cover for Republicans as much as they can.

What say you O'Reilly? Will you and Bernie Goldberg report on this bias? Hell no you wont, because you are part of it and you do not care whan Fox has bias.

The Wednesday 1-8-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 9, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and War. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has written a book and some people are upset. Gates says President Obama was not convinced that U.S. strategy in Afghanistan would work and wanted above all to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, Gates says the President did not trust military leaders in general. Are you surprised?

President Obama is a committed liberal man who does not like war and believes 'social justice' programs are hurt by military spending. The one thing that does surprise me is his aggressive use of drones to decimate terrorists. The nature of warfare is changing dramatically and there is no way any nation can control chaotic countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have to use high tech weapons to wreak havoc among those who threaten us and selective boots on the ground to impose order. President Obama is not wrong when he is skeptical of Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem is that he did not seem to have the will to win. Talking Points believes Robert Gates accurately portrayed the President's view of war; whether he should have put it in print is another matter.
Then the conservative blogger Erick Erickson and FNC media analyst Howard Kurtz were on to discuss it, with no liberal guest for balance.

Kurtz said this: "Bob Gates is perfectly entitled to rip Barack Obama on policy, but it's a betrayal to reveal private conversations with the President who trusted him to give confidential advice. How can a president rely on his inner circle if they're gathering material for a best-seller?"

Erickson countered that tell-all books are nothing new, saying this: "This is what people in Washington do. Don Regan did it to Reagan, George Stephanopoulos and Robert Reich did it to Clinton. Considering that the Obama administration is spying on all of us with the NSA, there's a bit of irony in this."

Then Ed Henry & James Rosen were on for more reaction to the Robert Gates book, with no liberal guest for balance.

Henry said this: "President Obama took a risk, by keeping President Bush's Defense Secretary because he was a rookie Commander-in-Chief. But in the end, Gates turns on him and suggests that his leadership is wanting. The other problem for the White House is that Vice President Biden comes under such heavy fire."

James Rosen, critiqued a New York Times report on the Benghazi attacks, saying this: "By and large it was a disingenuous effort. The Times stated that the attack was fueled in large part at an American-made video that denigrated Islam. But Ambassador Stevens' top aide in Libya said the video was a non-event. Also, the Times denied that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. Fox News is still working on the Benghazi story and we have what we think are some very big stories coming up."

And let me say this, Gates is a Republican so of course he is going to write a negative book about Obama, that is how he will sell it to the Republican morons who buy those kind of books. And Fox news has no credibility on Benghazi anymore, because of all the lies they have reported, so nobody is going to believe anything they say about it now. And nobody cares anymore, except Republicans who are trying to use it for political gain.

Then two liberals were on, Kirsten Powers and Kate Obenshain, but not to talk about the Gates book, they re-visited the controversy involving the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, which alienated some contributors when it temporarily cut off funding to Planned Parenthood in 2012. Which is pretty much a story nobody cares about, except O'Reilly and the right.

Powers said this: "There was a huge backlash, and some women stopped giving money to Komen and gave more to Planned Parenthood. I wouldn't have stopped giving Komen money over this, but Planned Parenthood is an extremely popular organization for many women."

Obenshain said this: "After three days the Komen Foundation caved to bullying by Planned Parenthood, so a lot of pro-lifers stopped giving. Also, a lot of folks who are concerned about breast cancer prevention and research stopped giving because they didn't realize that the Komen Foundation was giving to Planned Parenthood, which doesn't even give mammorgrams."

Then Tiki Barber & Mike Westhoff were on to discuss the National Football League, who has been sued by former players alleging that the game left them with permanent brain damage. While ignoring the Christie bridge closing scandal, which is real news. Barber said this: "We want to say that there are so many more injuries now, but the reality is that we are just paying attention, we care now. People used to get concussions, but the coach said, 'Shake it off, you'll be okay.'"

Westhoff said this: "There's more attention being paid to how these collisions are happening and the league is trying to eliminate the helmet-to-helmet attacking. The league is doing everything it can to keep this contact as limited as possible."

And I would say this is not a news story, it's a sports story and should not be on the Factor, especially when O'Reilly says it is a hard news show, and this is not hard news, it's a sports news story for sports shows to report on.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, her and O'Reilly cried about Jon Stewart calling out O'Reilly for being wrong about texting in China. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, mocking Bill's warnings about excessive texting, claimed that China's teens actually text more than America's teens do.

MacCallum said this: "In a study of 15-year-olds, three of the top six performing academic areas were in China. They're outperforming us, no doubt. We also have data showing that Chinese students spend more time on the Internet in school, and they do have addictions to web surfing and chatting. Chinese are fascinated with technology and they're spending more time using it. But our kids are clearly obsessed with social media and reality TV in a way that is overwhelming and desensitizing."

O'Reilly insisted that Chinese teens are frequently using that technology for academic pursuits, saying this: "I spent some time in China and the kids are regimented, they don't have any free time to text!"

Which is ridiculous and does not get to the point Jon Stewart made, O'Reilly said that texting is hurting American children in school, and Stewart pointed out that kids in China text more than kids in America and they still do good in school, which destroyed O'Reilly's argument. So then O'Reilly said he is right anyway, and he had MacCallum on to back him up, when they are both wrong, and it's pretty sad, just admit you got it wrong.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: No Rebounding From Foolishness. Billy said this: "As proven by former NBA star Dennis Rodman, who sang Happy Birthday to North Korea's murderous tyrant Kim Jong Un, doing foolish things will always come back to haunt you."

E-Mails Show Christie Sought Lane Closings As Political Revenge
By: Steve - January 9, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly has not said one word about this story, because it's a scandal involving a Republican and he does not want to make Christie look bad.

A series of newly obtained emails and text messages shows that Gov. Chris Christie's office was closely involved with lane closings on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge in September, and that officials closed the lanes as retribution against the Democratic mayor whose town was gridlocked as a result.

The growing scandal around the bridge threatens Christie at the moment he assumes an even larger position on the national stage, as chairman of the Republican Governor's Association and a leading candidate for his party's presidential nomination in 2016.

In the documents, obtained by The New York Times and other news outlets Wednesday, Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy chief of staff in Christie's office, gave a signal to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to close the lanes about two weeks before the closings occurred.

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," she emailed David Wildstein, Christie's close friend from high school, and one of his appointees at the Port Authority, which controls the bridge. Christie and some officials at Port Authority have said the closings were done as part of a traffic study, but they caused havoc for days, backing up traffic for hours.

At the time, Wildstein was on the Port Authority; he has since resigned. The George Washington Bridge, which connects New Jersey and New York City, is one of the most heavily traveled commuter routes in the country, handling nearly 300,000 vehicles a day. The closures in September caused massive gridlock, leaving commuters stuck in traffic for hours.

After the emails were released, Christie canceled his one public event for the day, which had been billed as an announcement of progress in the recovery from Hurricane Sandy. His office had no immediate comment.

Christie's handpicked chairman of the Port Authority, David Samson, was also involved in the closings, according to the emails, which describe his efforts to "retaliate" against New York officials who had not been told of the changes and sought to ease the gridlock.

While the emails do not establish that the governor himself called for the lane closings, they do show his staff was intimately involved, contradicting Christie's repeated denials that no one in his office or campaign knew.

That conflicts with the governor's carefully crafted reputation as the rare politician who will tell it like it is, even when the news is difficult. And the pettiness described in the emails flies against the image Christie's aides have sought to craft for him, of a new kind of leader, above the partisan politics and small-mindedness of Washington.

The emails indicate that Christie's staff and his associates at the Port Authority were closely aware of the political context, Christie, a Republican, was leaning on local Democratic officials to endorse his re-election bid so that he could then seek his party's presidential nomination by arguing that he was the candidate who could attract bipartisan support in a blue state.

Christie won re-election in November by 22 points, and instantly became a leading candidate for his party's presidential nomination by winning across many demographic groups. His campaign boasted that he had been endorsed by more than 50 local Democratic officials.

But the documents released Wednesday underscore what Republicans as well as Democrats in New Jersey have long said about the governor: that he is a bully who wields fear and favor to get what he wants, and lashes out at even the smallest perceived slights.

During the campaign, as Christie and his associates leaned on Democratic local officials for endorsements, many mayors whispered that they feared the governor would withhold money or favor if they did not go along. Even Republican lawmakers who have supported Christie tell stories of being punished when he perceived them as not supporting him enough.

The mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, is a Democrat and did not endorse Christie. In the obtained emails and texts, Christie's staff and appointees appeared gleeful when the abrupt lane closings gridlocked the town for days, beginning with the first day of school and including the anniversary of Sept. 11.

Mr. Sokolich, who had not been informed of the closings, texted Bill Baroni, the governor's top appointee at the Port Authority, asking for help because the lane closings were making children on buses late to school.

"Is it wrong that I am smiling?" Mr. Wildstein texted Ms. Kelly.

"No," she texted back.

"I feel badly about the kids," he texted.

"They are the children of Buono voters," she said, referring to Christie's Democratic opponent, Barbara Buono, who was trailing consistently in the polls and lost by a wide margin.

The Tuesday 1-7-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 8, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Foreign Policy Chaos. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Former pro basketball player Dennis Rodman is in North Korea again, this time with other former players, entertaining the dictator Kim Jong Un and his murderous regime. But what started out as a publicity stunt has turned very serious. 45-year-old American Kenneth Bae has been sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in North Korea for 'committing hostile acts.'

He is a Christian missionary and was arrested while running a tour in 2012. By all accounts this is a frame-up and Bae is being held illegally. When Rodman was asked about the situation, he reacted with profanity and anger. Rodman is a buffoon who is being used by a brutal dictator and there isn't much the USA can do about it.

On another front, there is more chaos in Iraq. While the Obama administration was drawing down U.S. troops, Vice President Biden said Iraq would be 'one of the great achievements of this administration.' Mr. Biden was wrong - Iraq is a mess with Sunni and Shiite Muslims fighting each other and Al Qaeda all over the place.

This is a huge loss for American foreign policy and now we have a similar situation developing in Afghanistan. Foreign policy is not in the forefront, but President Obama needs to deal with overseas situations forcefully.
Then former NATO commander and Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark was on to talk about the Al Qaeda resurgence in Iraq.

Clark said this: "Prime Minister Maliki has not lived up to all the promises he made, and he is in the grip of regional forces. He's made some accommodations with Iran, he has Iraqis fighting in Syria on the side of Hezbollah, and there's really a stewpot of difficulty. Right now I would let Maliki's military handle Fallujah, but if it goes beyond that should we conceive of putting in Special Forces and air power?

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the increase in hatred on both sides of the political divide.

Goldberg said this: "I think this is as bad as it's been since the Civil War, but during the Civil War and Vietnam there was no Internet, no cable TV, no talk radio. There are now battlefields where the left and the right can fight each other 24 hours a day. As a result there is more polarization and more anger - neither side wants to hear what the other side has to say and neither side likes the other side. We wall ourselves off to anything we don't want to hear, which creates even more polarization and anger."

And you can thank the Republicans for it, because after Obama was elected instead of saying they will work with him to get the country out of the recession Bush caused, they said they will do everything in their power to block every policy he tries to pass, and do everything they can to impeach him and get him thrown out of office. But of course the Republicans O'Reilly and Goldberg never mention any of that information.

Then James Carville and Mary Matalin, the left/right husband/wife team, were on to discuss their new book about odd political bedfellows.

Matalin said this: "Sometimes it's hard to get a word in edgewise, and there are things we disagree on. But we love each other and one thing this man has given me is that he is not boring. In general I would not recommend pursuing a subject that you know will result in a war."

Carville added that the debate over the Iraq war was an especially difficult time, saying this: "That was a very intense subject - she felt very strongly for it and I felt very strongly against it. So not every issue is equal and every marriage has difficult times."

Then the right-wing stooge John Stossel was on to talk about "income inequality" and the left's recent obsession with equalizing wealth.

Stossel said this: "The American philosophy has always been that what matters most is income mobility. You're not stuck as a poor person or as a rich person. The people on the top move down, the people on the bottom move up, and some people move all the way from the bottom to the top. But these ever-growing government programs teach people to be dependent, which makes things worse."

O'Reilly agreed that America provides more opportunity than any nation in history, adding this: "Liberals never understand that some people will never do what is necessary, they will not or can not do it."

And Republicans will never understand that some people can not work a job and move up to higher incomes, because they are disabled, and have no education. Not everyone is smart and can work a good job, so in the richest nation in the world we should be able to take care of them, and we can, except O'Reilly, Stossel, and the Republicans refuse to do it, but they sure can waste billions on the military that is not needed and not wanted.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl began their segment with the court ruling that overturned Chicago's ban on selling guns.

Wiehl said this: "The right to keep and bear arms, must also include the right to transfer arms, to buy arms, and to sell them."

Guilfoyle wholeheartedly endorsed the ruling, saying this: "I like the judge's reasoning - he also said the city did not demonstrate a direct correlation to say this would pose a threat to public safety."

Then Alan Colmes was on, O'Reilly said that almost immediately after Colorado's marijuana legalization went into effect, a 2-year-old was hospitalized when she ate a pot-laced cookie. As if that had anything to do with the law going into effect, which it did not.

Colmes said this: "This is a horrible situation, but it's really about parenting, it's not about whether or not marijuana should be legal. There's no guarantee this would be any different if the law was different in Colorado. There's little evidence that the decriminalization of marijuana leads to more use of marijuana."

What happened is the parents were not watching the kid well enough, so that is their fault, and has nothing to do with the law that made pot legal, it would have happened if pot was legal or not, and O'Reilly has no evidence to prove otherwise. And yet, O'Reilly warned that legalization will continue to have adverse and unintended consequences, saying this: "An irresponsible parent can get as much marijuana as he or she would like. All the doctors we've talked to expect more emergency room cases with children, and all the counselors expect more addiction problems with children."

And they could also get all the pot they wanted before it was legal, idiot!

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Keeping Your Cool. Billy said this: "Extreme temperatures, whether cold or hot, serve as valuable reminders that life can be difficult and we all face challenges. Never use the weather as an excuse for your performance or behavior."

What a stupid so-called tip, how does that advice help anyone? These tips are not even tips half the time, and the rest of the time they do not make sense or help anyone.

Hayes Labels O'Reilly Marijuana Truther For Lies About Drug Arrests
By: Steve - January 8, 2014 - 10:00am

Tuesday Chris Hayes Labeled Bill O'Reilly A Marijuana Truther For His Lies About Drug Arrests For Possession. Here is the video:



Now one of two things will happen, O'Reilly will either ignore what Chris Hayes said about it, or he will do a segment about it claiming he never said nobody is arrested for possession. Then he will claim Hayes is dishonest, and tell people not to watch him or believe anything he says.

Even though Hayes is 100% accurate, and O'Reilly did say nobody is arrested for marijuana possession. And not only did O'Reilly say it never happens, when Juan Williams told him it does, he said he would just discount everything Juan said, even though he was also right and O'Reilly was wrong.

The Monday 1-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 7, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Perils of Legalizing Pot. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, I believe the increasing acceptance of marijuana among young people is a bad thing for the country, and now even some liberal media people are agreeing with me. Tina Brown, the former editor of Newsweek, tweeted, 'Legal weed contributes to us being a fatter, dumber, sleepier nation.' That's true and the stats back it up. If you use any intoxicant, your goal is to leave reality.

Some adults can handle that on occasion, but putting intoxicating agents in the hands of children can be devastating. Teens using marijuana before the age of 18 are far more likely to develop psychosis, and one in six children who try pot will become addicted. So why is this all happening? One reason is that pot legalizers have made the drug glamorous and the media has played along.

Celebrities like Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Miley Cyrus flaunt their association with marijuana and very few speak out against it. For more bad news, combine the drug aspect with the Internet. 33% of teenagers send more than 100 text messages a day and 66% say their parents have imposed no rules regarding texting.

Young people in America are combining drugs, alcohol and high tech to build false lives and run away from reality. This is an epidemic that will lead to a weaker nation; anyone who tells you different is lying to you.
Wow, to begin with, you can not get addicted to pot, it's impossible. Alcohol is far worse than pot, and O'Reilly does not seem to care that kids are drinking. Not to mention this, the people who want to smoke pot are already doing it, making it legal may increase use slightly, but it will still be illegal for kids to smoke it, just as it's illegal for kids to drink.

And finally, O'Reilly talking about it will not stop anyone from smoking pot, it's a total waste of tv time.

Then the neuroscientist Carl Hart, who has studied drug addiction and casual marijuana use was on.

Hart said this: "I don't recommend kids using pot or alcohol or smoking tobacco, and anybody that can think would agree with you. But the last three guys who occupied the White House all smoked marijuana in their youth, and I'm not aware that texting is an addiction. I have a son who's in an Ivy League school - he texts quite a bit but he also gets all A's."

But the biased and corrupt psychologist Keith Ablow raised red flags about texting, saying this: "The bottom line is that any time you try to exit the real world in favor of a fantasy land where your emotions aren't troubling to you, there's a price to pay. Those are called addictions - texting, the incessant use of Facebook, and the use of marijuana. And parents are caving, they're telling their kids, 'Oh, it's only marijuana.' We are weakening our young people because we're suggesting to them that it's okay to be high."

And as usual, these right-wing idiots change the issue. We all agree kids should not be drinking or smoking pot, but we are talking about adults that are over the age of 18, not kids under 18. What we are saying is that adults over 18 should be able to smoke pot, just as they are drinking at 21, and if they want it they will get it, legal or not.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it, who both disagreed with O'Reilly, and caught him lying about the marijuana possession arrests.

Williams said this: "If you start to arrest their children. I think people say, 'Wait a second, this is soft drug use, why are you giving this kid a record?' But nobody wants their own young children using pot because it's damaging to their cognitive skills. And I would say that about alcohol and cigarettes."

Ham said this: "Anything that is not done in moderation can be a problem, but does that mean it has to be outlawed? I would rather not have my child smoking weed, but that does not mean it has to be illegal. Freedom is likely to be far less damaging than paternalism and a nanny state."

O'Reilly then denied people get arrested for marijuana possession, and when Juan told him he was wrong, O'Reilly said he would just discount what Juan said, even though the FBI arrest record data back up Juan Williams 100%, and show that O'Reilly was wrong, read my next blog for the truth.

Then the biased hack Brit Hume was on to talk about Obama and the Democratic party.

Hume said this: "One reason the Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits, is that four-plus years into this recovery, unemployment is so bad that it still constitutes an 'emergency.' They want to extend benefits for the fourth or fifth time. Republicans say let's pay for that with offsets, but the Democrats are not interested in that. If you look at the whole picture of 'income inequality,' it has deteriorated during the Obama years. So the President is hoping to resurrect his party's political fortunes by saying he's going to fix problems that have worsened under his administration."

What Hume failed to report is that under Bush and all the other Republican Presidents when unemployment was over 7% the Republicans always voted to extend unemployment benefits, every single time. But now that a Democrat is in the White House they are voting no, for strictly political reasons. And Hume also never mentioned that the unemployment was caused by Bush, and it has got better since Obama took over.

Then Karl Rove was on to claim Hillary Clinton is engaged in a "shadow campaign," he claimed she is getting geared up for the 2016 election.

Rove said this: "Hillary Clinton has been briefed by some Democratic operatives, about deadlines, costs, legal requirements, and pitfalls. She and her people also have worked out an arrangement between two competing political action committees. She can't coordinate with these groups when she becomes a candidate, but now she's able to have her people work out the arrangements of how they'll operate."

Rove added that a presidential run is a mighty expensive undertaking, saying this: "In 2012 there was a $1-billion-plus campaign on behalf of President Obama and slightly less than that on behalf of Mitt Romney. We'll be looking at those kind of numbers again."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Iraq, and violence and chaos throughout the Middle East, O'Reilly asked Krauthammer how President Obama can combat the Al Qaeda resurgence in Iraq.

Krauthammer said this: "His options are all extremely bad, and that is because he made a terrible decision to pull out in 2011. Obama proposed a miserable, small number of residual Americans who would stay behind, about 3,000, and the Iraqis understood we were not serious. Even the New York Times says the United States and Obama created a vacuum by leaving nothing behind and thus invited Al Qaeda and created the resurgence. It is a mess and the reason at root is the evacuation ordered by Obama."

And the real reason it's a mess is because Bush invaded, the liberals were against it because we knew it would just go back to the way it was after we left. So we basically spent billions and lost all those troops for nothing, which is what all the experts predicted would happen. But O'Reilly and the right supported the invasion anyway. We are just as hated there now as before the Iraq invasion, if not more, and all we did was waste money and lives going in there.

And somehow O'Reilly and Krauthammer blame it all on Obama, when he voted against the war, and Bush is the idiot who invaded their country for no reason based on lies. That is another thing O'Reilly ignores, that Bush invaded based on lies about WMD's, O'Reilly never mentions that, or that we should never have started the war to begin with, because they did not have any WMD's.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Doctor is In. Billy said this: "Be more aggressive in protecting your health, especially if a particular malady runs in your family."

O'Reilly Wrongly Denies Mass Arrests Of Marijuana Users
By: Steve - January 7, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual, O'Reilly has to deny the facts to spin out his argument. And when he is confronted with the facts he says he will discount them, proving he is an idiot. Here is the story.

Monday night Bill O'Reilly denied the "mass arrest" of casual marijuana users in the U.S. and claimed that only "stealers" have been arrested in the war on drugs.

O'Reilly featured a segment in which he asked, "is America becoming a weaker nation because of pot "and internet abuse?" When Juan Williams confronted O'Reilly with the facts about arrests of casual marijuana users, O'Reilly claimed that users of marijuana are not being arrested in large numbers and that he's "just going to discount" Williams' argument.

Here is a partial transcript:
O'REILLY: Let's begin with the left. What is it about the drug culture, the internet culture, that's so compelling for some of them?

WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think it's compelling, but I think that if you start to arrest their children and give them records and put barriers in front of their futures and their careers, I think people say wait a second. As you said in the previous segment, this is soft drug use, why are you arresting and giving this kid a record, especially minority kids disproportionately. They're the ones who get arrested.

O'REILLY: Only stealers, Juan, there's no mass arrests of users.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no, Bill.

MARY K. HAM [Fox contributor]: No Bill, users are arrested.

O'REILLY: No, they get a ticket, Juan.

WILLIAMS: I don't think that's right, Bill.

O'REILLY: No, it is right.

WILLIAMS: And I think lots of people fear for their children. By the way, you should know, it's not just liberals --

O'REILLY: So by your thinking then, people fear for their children so they want to make drugs more available. Let's legalize them so they don't get a rap sheet.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no, I didn't say that. I didn't say more available. I said, listen, the kid gets out there --

O'REILLY: So what happens when drugs are legalized?

WILLIAMS: -- the kid's involved in soft drugs, by your own definition, gets arrested, suddenly he's got a record, all sorts of things that would inhibit his or her progress in life.

O'REILLY: It's almost impossible, the records are expunged if they are juveniles.

O'REILLY: You know what the game is here. This is not a crime that is actively pursued by district attorneys. All right. I'm just going to discount that argument, Juan.
And O'Reilly is wrong, data from the FBI on marijuana-related arrests in the U.S. contradicts O'Reilly's assertion. According to the FBI, marijuana possession accounted for 42.4 percent of all drug arrests in 2012. Since 1995, more than one-third, and sometimes nearly half, of all drug arrests were for just possessing marijuana.

In 1995 34% of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession, and that number has went up almost every year since then. In 2010 46% of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession. Which proves Juan Williams was right and O'Reilly was wrong. And what makes it worse is that O'Reilly claims to only deal in the facts, as he argues against the facts.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 7 million people were arrested between 2001 and 2010 for marijuana possession.

As Williams noted, minorities are disproportionately arrested for marijuana possession. As the ACLU noted, even though young white and black Americans use it at similar rates, young black Americans are nearly four times as likely to be arrested for it.

And as the ACLU explained in a June 2013 report titled "The War on Marijuana in Black and White," an arrest for casual marijuana use can have a severe impact on someone's future. They wrote this:

The price paid by those arrested and convicted of marijuana possession can be significant and linger for years, if not a lifetime. Arrests and convictions for possessing marijuana can negatively impact public housing and student financial aid eligibility, employment opportunities, child custody determinations, and immigration status.

In closing, O'Reilly was wrong. He did not have the facts, in fact, he just put out an argument that was not true and hoped someone would believe it. Which is the exact opposite of what he claims he does, deal in the facts. When confronted with the facts, instead of saying you are right Juan, he denied the facts and told Juan he was just going to discount his statements.

And now, if Juan Williams had any balls he would print out the facts and show them to O'Reilly (on air) next time he does the show and demand an apology. But he will not do that, because he is not a man and he is afraid of O'Reilly. Because if he makes O'Reilly look bad on the air O'Reilly will ban him from the show.

Homophobic Liz Cheney Drops Out Of Senate Race
By: Steve - January 6, 2014 - 11:00am

Liz Cheney, a former George W. Bush administration state department official and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, announced Monday that she will end her primary challenge to Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), a third-term Senator who ranked as the eighth most conservative member of the Senate in 2012.

In a statement, Cheney said that "serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign."

But that's not the real reason she dropped out, her less-than-five-month campaign was plagued by poor press and political mistakes, so she quit because she had no chance to win. Here are some of the screw ups she made.

She kicked off her campaign with an attack on incumbent Senator Mike Enzi (R) and his age:

In a July letter to Wyoming voters, she said she was running because she believed it "necessary for a new generation of leaders to step up to the plate."

This was generational swipe at Enzi's age: he is 69, she is 47. Enzi responded to the announcement by claiming Cheney had promised him she would only run if he retired, saying: "I thought we were friends."

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R), Wyoming's sole U.S. Representative, called Cheney's statement "bad form" and suggested she run in Virginia -- a clear dig at Cheney's 2012 move to the Equality State.

She was caught filing a false application for a fishing license:

In August, the Casper Star-Tribune reported that Cheney received a Wyoming fishing license earlier than she should have been able to, not having been a year-long resident. She paid a $220 bond later that month, for the charge of making a false statement to procure a fishing license. She lied on the application and said she was a 10 year resident.

Denied claims that she supported abortion and same-sex marriage:

After a push poll in Wyoming told voters that Cheney "supports abortion and aggressively promotes gay marriage," she put out a statement in August saying, "I am strongly pro-life and I am not pro-gay marriage."

This contradicted her her 2009 statement that "Freedom means freedom for everybody." Cheney's campaign accused the Enzi camp of running the push poll -- a charge Enzi's spokesman denied. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of the Senate GOP, backed Enzi and its press secretary joked that "With all due respect, it looks like Liz Cheney is fishing without a license again."

Cheney slammed the local media's coverage of her campaign in a September speech. Calling out by name the paper that had simply reported her $220 bond story the previous month, she said this: "Newspapers are dying, and that's not a bad thing."

She got into a public disagreement with her lesbian sister and sister-in-law over same-sex marriage:

Cheney told Fox News Sunday in November that while she supports some benefits for same-sex couples, she supports the "traditional definition of marriage."

Her sister Mary's wife, Heather Poe, posted a Facebook message later that day slamming the comments and saying she was "very disappointed." Mary Cheney shared Poe's post and responded, "Couldn't have said it better myself. Liz – this isn't just an issue on which we disagree - you're just wrong - and on the wrong side of history."

Mary Cheney told the New York Times that she would not be seeing Liz at the family's Christmas gathering. Shortly after, Cheney's parents, Lynne and former Vice President Dick Cheney, released a statement siding with Liz in the spat, affirming that she "has always believed in the traditional definition of marriage" and praising her for treating Mary and her family "with love and respect."

They also wrote that Liz's "many kindnesses shouldn't be used to distort her position." Mary Cheney then told Politco Magazine that she is "not supporting Liz's candidacy."

Her husband was caught being registered to vote in two states:

Politico reported that Cheney's husband, Phil Perry, had been registered to vote in both Virginia and Wyoming for the past nine months, "even though he signed a document in Wyoming saying he was not registered elsewhere." After questions arose, Perry notified the Wyoming clerk of the error and requested that his Virginia registration be cancelled. The campaign released a statement claiming, "Phil believed he was no longer registered in Virginia and did not vote there. When he realized he was still on the Virginia rolls, he immediately corrected that."

Polling was the main problem throughout Cheney's short candidacy. A July PPP poll found her badly trailing Enzi in a primary match-up, 54 percent to 26 percent -- and a November internal poll for an anti-Cheney super PAC found her down by 52 points, 69 percent to 17 percent. Cheney's campaign claimed that the race was tightening, but did not release any numbers showing that.

And of course O'Reilly never reported any of this, ever. Because he pretty much agrees with all her positions and does not want to make her look bad, especially when she was polling so badly. What's really funny is that O'Reilly and most of the right feel the same way Liz Cheney does, that they have the right to tell someone if they can get married or not.

I guess they missed the part in the constitution and the bill of rights about equal rights with liberty and justice for all. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends claim it's the left who violate the constitution, with no proof, as they violate it by telling gay people they should not be able to get married. Earth to O'Reilly, if you stop gay people from getting married you have violated their rights, so they do not have equal rights or liberty and justice.

Raising Minimum Wage Could Lift 5 Million Out Of Poverty
By: Steve - January 5, 2014 - 11:00am

Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could lift almost 5 million people out of poverty directly, according to a new study from economist Arindrajit Dube. Longer-term effects could reduce the number of people living below the poverty line by 6.8 million.

That wage level "would reduce the poverty rate among Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 by as much as 1.7 percentage points," Jillian Berman explains. Poverty increased by 3.4 percent during the recession, a rate that has not improved since, but a $10.10 wage would erase more than half of that uptick.

Dube's findings come from an analysis of 23 years of data on minimum wage increases as well as a review of previous findings.

Others have found similar numbers for how many could be brought above the federal poverty line by a higher wage: ROC United, a group focused on better working conditions for restaurant workers, found that a $10.10 wage would lift nearly 6 million people out of poverty.

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, and it has stayed at that level for more than four years. That's not enough to keep a parent who works for that wage full-time, year-round above the poverty line, nor is it enough to make market rent in any state.

But the wage used to be enough to keep a family of two above the poverty line, and in the 1960s it was even enough to keep a family of three out of poverty.

A $10.10 wage makes sense in other ways. It would bring it in line with where it would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past half century. (To keep up with increases in all other workers wages, it would have to be $10.65, and to keep up with increases in worker productivity it would be $18.30.)

Given that low-income workers are likely to spend a large portion of any extra pay, putting the money back into the economy, a $10.10 wage would also boost GDP by $22.1 billion, supporting the creation of 85,000 new jobs.

And the vast majority of Americans support such a wage increase: one poll found 80 percent support for it, including two-thirds of Republicans, and another found that two-thirds support a raise to $10.25 an hour.

Which is real news, but if you only watch the O'Reilly Factor to get your news you will not know any of this, because O'Reilly does not report it. He is a biased right-wing hack who is opposed to any raise in the minimum wage, so he ignores this news while he spins out right-wing propaganda that raising the minimum wage will cost the country jobs.

When in fact, all the studies show that raising the minimum wage to $10.00 an hour will lift 4 to 6 million people out of poverty, it will also create jobs, as much as 85,000 new jobs. Proving that Bill O'Reilly is a liar who is not honest with you.

The Friday 1-3-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 4, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Pope, Capitalism and the Far Left. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Pope Francis ignited controversy recently by speaking out against unfettered capitalism and 'the idolatry of money.' The Pope is correct in portraying greed and exploitation as wicked, but the far left is distorting his words to impose 'economic justice,' which is really socialism. Pope Francis opposes that form of tyranny as much as Pope John Paul II did, but the Democratic Party is ready to launch a huge 'social justice' campaign to try and keep power.

The far-left Nation magazine recently said 'there can be no doubt that equality of opportunity is explicit in the core Christian doctrine.' Equality of opportunity is a noble goal that will never be reality. That's because the human condition dictates that some people will not do what is necessary to succeed in this world - work hard, be honest, stay sober, and get educated. Some people will not do that and their children will suffer deprivation, no matter how much money the government hands out.

Jesus understood that when he said, 'The poor we will always have with us.' The United States provides more opportunity to more people than any other nation that has ever existed, which is why millions of folks want to come here. We have done that by developing a free market system, and even poor people here have material things that most of the world can only dream of.

Yet the left wants to tear down the capitalistic structure that has provided vast opportunity. The left doesn't care about the facts, it's all about hating America. To those of us who are sane, the USA is a noble country that provides massive opportunity to those who will work for it.
And to that I would say that Bill O'Reilly is the insane one, the right wants to let everyone be on their own, the left want to help the poor and the disabled, which is a good thing. O'Reilly thinks people are just lazy and when you give them stuff they stay lazy. Which is just wrong, because most of the poor and disabled need help, and if they do not get it from the Government they will not get it from anyone. Charity can not do it, because even if you get a charity to help you they only do it once a year.

Then O'Reilly had two religious thinkers on to talk about the meaning of the Pope's message, Jim Wallis and Raymond Arroyo.

Wallis said this: "The Pope is not calling us to an ideology, he's calling us to the way of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew says that how we treat the least among us is how we treat Christ himself. The Pope is calling for priests around the world to get out of their comfort zones and serve the poor, and he's saying the wealthy have a particular responsibility."

Arroyo said this: "The Pope warns about the welfare mentality if the government becomes the means of charity. He wants you and me to be the charitable givers, he doesn't want the government to do that."

O'Reilly concluded that free enterprise is the only way to alleviate poverty, saying this: "Capitalism does the most good for the poor because it provides the most opportunity for poor people who will seize it. But the left is saying capitalism is wrong and should be broken down."

And that's a lie, the left is not saying that and free enterprise is not the way to alleviate poverty. The left is not against capitalism, they just want it to be more fair to the workers who make all the money for the companies they work at. Too much of the money goes to the top, more of it needs to get to the workers. So as usual O'Reilly is lying to you.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about his new book.

Dobbs said this: "What I suggest when it comes to immigration, is that we be honest about who is pushing what. 96% of immigrants want to speak English, but that is not what their so-called advocacy groups want and they are the ones with power in Washington. I am simply trying to raise the consciousness of some in Washington and the American public."

Dobbs also said this: "When people start talking about 'diversity,' it's a means to set quotas. The left wants that and the Republicans are hidebound by political correctness, they're afraid to speak straightforwardly. They're even afraid to bring up the idea that the national motto is 'In God We Trust.'"

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on for their first appearance of the new year, and they made a few predictions for 2014.

Gutfeld said this: "There's going to be a shakeup at MSNBC, and the 5 PM hour will now be hosted by a bag of walnuts. Also, CNN's Piers Morgan is going to get really angry about something and it will double his ratings to four people."

McGuirk said this: "The sale of mace will increase tenfold because of these lunatic 'progressives.' Crime is going to rise and the whole mentality is going to change. Also, Pope Francis will be named Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Kim Jong Un will execute Dennis Rodman."

O'Reilly said this: "There will not be honest reporting on Obamacare by either side. You'll get propaganda from the left, which likes Obamacare, and the right will make it look as bad as possible."

Wow, O'Reilly actually got one right, and he will be part of the right who puts out propaganda about Obamacare, he forgot to mention that.

Then McGuirk and Gutfeld returned for "Pinhead of the Year" honors.

McGuirk said this: "I've chosen my good friend Kanye West. Aside from his delusions of grandeur, comparing himself to Jesus, he acts like an angry, thin-skinned spoiled punk."

Gutfeld named former comedian Jim Carrey, saying this: "You can hate guns all you want, but he mocked the late Charlton Heston. The irony is that Jim Carrey's career is as dead as Charlton Heston."

O'Reilly went with Colorado and Washington voters who legalized the recreational use of marijuana, saying this: "Legalization of marijuana will lead to more children sampling the drug, and 20% of American children who try marijuana become addicted to it."

And I pick O'Reilly, Gutfeld, and McGuirk. Because they are all three right-wing idiots who never tell you the un-biased truth, the put a right-wing spin on everything. O'Reilly is the pinhead of the year, because he does nothing but put out right-wing propaganda while pretending to be a real journalist with a no spin zone, that is actually 90% right-wing spin. This segment is even proof, it's 3 Republicans and 0 Democrats, and it's almost all spin, in the so-called no spin zone.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Curing the Blues. Billy said this: "When you feel a little down, as many of us do after the Christmas rush, make a list of some bad things in your life and some good things. You're likely to find that the good things outweigh the bad, which may well help you feel better."

Which may be the dumbest tip O'Reilly has ever put out, it's just stupid. Nobody is going to sit down and make a list like that, and I think O'Reilly is going crazy.

O'Reilly Ignoring New Report On Obamacare Health Plans
By: Steve - January 4, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual you never heard a word about this new report about the number of people who O'Reilly and the right claim will lost their health care plans due to Obamacare. O'Reilly ignores it because he does not want you to know the truth, he wants you to believe the lies he puts out about it, because he hates President Obama and he hates Obamacare.

Stunning New Report Undermines Central GOP Obamacare Claim

A crucial GOP line of attack against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that millions of people will supposedly lose coverage thanks to shifting requirements on the health insurance exchanges -- a flagrant violation of President Obama's infamous "if you like your plan, you can keep it" proclamation.

The truth has always been more complicated, of course. O'Reilly and his Republican friends are constantly blurring the line between people who lose a plan and people who lose coverage. That is, many people might lose a particular insurance plan but immediately be presented with other options, and get new plans.

In other words, O'Reilly and Fox only report on people who lost health care plans, while not telling you that they very quickly got a new plan, that is usually better and cheaper, unless you do not qualify for the subsidies, then you sometimes pay more because you make too much money to get the subsidy. But you still get a new health care plan, O'Reilly and Fox just do not mention that, which is 100% dishonest journalism.

A new report from the the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has destroyed the foundation of that particular GOP claim. It projects that only 10,000 people will lose coverage because of the ACA and be unable to regain it -- or in other words, 0.2 percent of the often-cited 5 million cancellations statistic.

The report starts with an assumption that 4.7 million will receive cancellation notices about their 2013 plan. But of those, who will get a new plan?

-- According to the report, half of the 4.7 million will have the option to renew their 2013 plans, thanks to an administrative fix this year.

-- Of the remaining 2.35 million individuals, 1.4 million should be eligible for tax credits through the marketplaces or Medicaid, according to the report.

-- Of the remaining 950,000 individuals, fewer than 10,000 people will lack access to an affordable catastrophic plan.

"This new report shows that people will get the health insurance coverage they need, contrary to the dire predictions of Republicans," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking committee member.

"Millions of American families are already benefiting from the law."

As noted, Republicans have had an awful hard time finding people who completely lost coverage because of the ACA. (Think of the man who starred in Americans for Prosperity ads last week and whose story still hasn't been fully explained.) Because there just aren't that many of them.

Of course, there's no doubt that for those 10,000 people, the health-care law left them worse off than before. But as is sadly too often the case, the arguments made by Republicans simply lack a factual basis -- and deserve much more scrutiny that they've received in many sectors of the mainstream press.

The Thursday 1-2-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 3, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Controversial Benghazi Report. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Over the Christmas break the New York Times ran an investigative report about how Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Libya on September 11, 2012. The Times concluded that there is no evidence Al Qaeda was involved and that an anti-Muslim video ignited the fuse of violence, as the Obama administration initially stated.

But a Factor analysis casts grave doubts on both those conclusions. An anti-American group called Ansar Al-Sharia was behind the attacks, and before the attack the Pentagon issued a report that said Ansar Al-Sharia 'has increasingly embodied Al Qaeda's presence in Libya.' The Times does not mention the Pentagon's assessment in its article, an amazing lapse of reportage.

The Times also said the attack 'does not appear to have been meticulously planned' Nonsense! For more than two hours, dozens of Islamic thugs used rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons to assault the U.S. compound and militants were seen casing the mission before the attack. But the New York Times says the attack was not planned.

Are you kidding me? Talking Points believes the Times story is deeply flawed and the editors should have known it. A primary goal of the Times is to help progressive groups and politicians, and the lingering Benghazi situation may hurt Hillary Clinton in her presidential run. Talking Points believes that was the motivation for the way this investigation was framed by the New York Times.
Now that is a good one, who are we to believe, and actual journalist who spent 3 months investigating the Benghazi story, or Bill O'Reilly, a liberal hating biased right-wing fool who pretends to be a journalist, I'll give you a hint, not Bill O'Reilly. Face it O'Reilly, you and all your right-wing friends were wrong.

Then two Fox news stooges were on to discuss it, Bernie Goldberg and Howard Kurtz.

Goldberg said this: "Did the New York Times consciously have a pro-Hillary agenda? It could be, but there is never a 'smoking gun' memo that says let's help the liberals and hurt the conservatives. The Times has a credibility problem - it went easy on Barack Obama when he ran for president and there's a strong suspicion that they'll go easy on Hillary Clinton when she runs."

Kurtz, dismissed the notion that the Times is carrying water for Hillary Clinton, saying this: "Some of the reporting may be flawed, but this was a serious attempt at journalism done over many months with many on-the-record interviews. Even though the Times has a very liberal editorial page, you don't have your Cairo bureau chief spend months on a story to help a likely presidential candidate two years from now. That's not the way newsrooms work."

Not to mention, the media hammered Hillary when she ran against Obama for the primary, somehow O'Reilly and Goldberg forgot all that. The media does not like the Clintons, and they did up stuff to report on them all the time, O'Reilly and Goldberg ignore that to spin that the media helps the Clintons, when mostly they report negative stuff on them.

Then James Carville was on to talk about the NY Times Benghazi report.

Carville said this: "I think we should subpoena the reporter, and see what he has to say. I'm sure he can defend his own story in front of a committee. Why not bring him to Washington?"

O'Reilly disagreed and extended a different invitation to Times reporter David Kilpatrick, saying this: "I don't think Congress should be snooping into journalism. Why doesn't he come here to defend the story?"

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, he is not going to do your lame cable news show, if he talks he should do a real news show, and his reporting speaks for itself, you just can not handle it.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to cry about a panel on MSNBC who recently mocked a Romney family photo that included Mitt Romney's adopted black grandchild. Even though O'Reilly and Fox make a living insulting and mocking liberals and their children, and making racist statements.

Ingraham said this: "Why mention the race of the child at all. You just don't do that, but it's the kind of thing the left tends to get away with. We've become kind of numb to it, but it certainly isn't helping the cause of liberalism. MSNBC seems to be more desperate in a quest to make some dent in the ratings and it's almost as if people have to one-up each other."

O'Reilly argued that MSNBC hosts spew vitriol with little fear of reprimand, saying this: "There is a culture that promotes or encourages these personal attacks and they've trafficked in this for years. I continue to be amazed at Comcast, the parent company of NBC, which is allowing this to happen."

To that I would say pot meet kettle, you all do it, and Fox does it more than MSNBC does. O'Reilly has said many racist things over the years, he just forgets it and refuses to admit it was racist. Fox telling MSNBC to stop the racist comments is like a person in a glass house telling someone to stop throwing rocks, it's ridiculous.

Then Heather Nauert was on to field some letters from angry viewers. One of them, Sam Deo of New Jersey, is ticked off because Al Sharpton was totally silent after four black men gunned down a white man at a shopping mall.

Nauert said this: "The four guys are in jail right now. The prosecutor in the case says this does not appear to be racially motivated, it was all about the car. But Al Sharpton should be talking about the crime rate in New Jersey and the rash of carjackings in the area."

This is insanity, because Al Sharpton has no business speaking about it, he is a black rights guy, and their rights were not violated. Sharpton speaks out when blacks rights are violated, or their is racism against them, he does not speak out about blacks killing someone, and should not. Only O'Reilly and Fox could come up with this insane garbage to attack Sharpton.

Michael Kroll of Indiana is peeved because Senator Richard Blumenthal wants to punish UPS for failing to deliver Christmas packages on time. "The Senator wants UPS and FedEx and other companies," Nauert said, "to pay back those who paid for the deliveries. But people are asking, aren't there more important things going on?"

O'Reilly sided with Senator Blumenthal, saying this: "If you pay your money for an on-time delivery and you don't get it, they should be forced to give a refund."

Then Megyn Kelly talked about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing religious groups to provide birth control under Obamacare.

Kelly said this: "She said that piece of Obamacare may not be enforced against a group of nuns. Obamacare says you have to provide contraception coverage, but religious groups have said they want an exemption."

Kelly also scrutinized a ruling that forbids Florida from giving drug tests to welfare recipients, saying this: "The judge issued the right ruling, Florida overstepped its bounds. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure."

But of course the idiot O'Reilly took issue with Kelly and the judge who overturned the drug testing requirement, saying this: "I have been saying that the entitlement society has to regulate people who are addicted to substances, you can not keep pouring in money to drug addicts and alcoholics."

Even though it was ruled unconstitutional, O'Reilly still supports the welfare drug testing, which proves he is an idiot. Not to mention, where they did testing less than 2 percent of the people tested positive, so it cost more to test them than the money they saved. The drug testing was meant to save money, and it cost more than they saved to test them, and on top of that it was ruled unconstitutional, and O'Reilly still supports it, what an idiot.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Walking on Water. Billy said this: "Two easy health-related resolutions to keep in 2014 are to walk more and to drink more water."

Republicans Could Lose Elections In 2014 Over Unemployment Pay
By: Steve - January 3, 2014 - 10:00am

House Republicans Opposed To Extending Unemployment Benefits Could Pay The Price In 2014

An overwhelming majority of voters are opposed to cutting off extended jobless benefits for the unemployed, a poll showed last week.

Public Policy Polling (PPP) surveyed voters in four key congressional districts, as well as House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) district, to gauge support for extending unemployment benefits. The poll, funded by the advocacy group Americans United for Change, showed that voters across party lines were overwhelmingly in favor of extending the benefits, with 63 to 68 percent of voters in each district expressing support for preserving jobless benefits.

Voters in the four districts surveyed said they were less likely to vote for the Republican incumbent in 2014 -- by at least a 9-point margin -- if he voted to cut off extended unemployment benefits.

Jobless benefits expired on Dec. 28 for 1.3 million longterm unemployed Americans, and members of the House and Senate have returned home for the holidays without a solution to preserve those benefits.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said it was an "immorality" that the benefits weren't secured in a recent budget deal, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to bring the extension to a vote no later than Jan. 7, 2014.

Moderate Republicans urged Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to rescue jobless benefits for the longterm unemployed earlier in December, saying the issue was "important to many American families."

But Boehner would only consider the proposal if cuts were made elsewhere and job growth guaranteed, and the measure ultimately did not make it into Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget deal.

"Speaker Boehner and fellow Washington Republicans are hopelessly out-of-touch, and their decision to Scrooge over a million unemployed Americans three days after Christmas is the latest and among the worst examples of it," Jeremy Funk, communications director of Americans United for Change, said.

"All these struggling Americans got from the GOP for Christmas was a 'Get Employed Soon' card."

Funk warned that cuts to jobless benefits for the longterm unemployed would only put more Americans out of work, and bring a chain reaction of economic fallout in 2014.

"But it's not just in America's economic interest to extend [unemployment insurance] benefits, these polls show it's in swing district Republicans own political interest to support the jobless in their districts," Funk said. "Otherwise they just might join their ranks."

Federal Judge Strikes Down Republican Welfare Drug testing Law
By: Steve - January 2, 2014 - 10:00am

Saying it is unconstitutional, a law that O'Reilly not only supported, he promoted and asked Republicans to pass. O'Reilly not only supported and promoted the welfare drug testing law, he defended the right-wing jerks who passed it, because he said he does not want his tax money going to people on drugs.

And btw, the law was a waste of time and cost more to test people than saved money from kicking the drug users off welfare, because it was found that less than 2% of the people tested positive for drugs, so the testing that was done to save money, cost the states more to test people than they saved.

Dec 31 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday struck down a Florida law requiring drug screening for welfare recipients, saying that it violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on a promise to expand drug testing, said he would appeal the ruling.

The law took effect in July 2011 and required parents to undergo and pay for urine tests for illegal drugs when they applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal-state program that helps poor people with children pay for food, shelter and necessities.

The testing fee of $25 to $45 was to be repaid by the state if the test came back negative, but applicants who tested positive would have been barred from receiving benefits for a year.

Enforcement of the law was temporarily halted in October 2011 after the ACLU sued, arguing that mandatory testing of people who were not suspected of using drugs violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven permanently halted enforcement of the law in Tuesday's ruling. She agreed with an earlier court finding that "there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use...."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Orlando on behalf of Luis Lebron, a U.S. Navy veteran, college student and single father with sole custody of his then-5-year-old son. Lebron was denied benefits when he refused to take the test.

"The new law assumes that everyone who needs a little help has a drug problem," Lebron said when the suit was filed in 2011. "It's wrong and unfair. It judges a whole group of people on their temporary economic situation."

Which O'Reilly did not care about, because he never once reported on the Lebron story, even though he claims to care about veterans, and claims to support the constitution. O'Reilly even does a legal segment every week with two Fox news lawyers, but ignored the Lebron story.

Scott and other supporters of the law argued that welfare recipients needed to be drug-free to prepare them for jobs. They said businesses had been requiring such tests for years and that government should do the same to ensure that taxpayer money wasn't used to buy illegal drugs.

"Any illegal drug use in a family is harmful and even abusive to a child," Scott said on Tuesday. "We should have a zero tolerance policy for illegal drug use in families - especially those families who struggle to make ends meet and need welfare assistance to provide for their children."

During the time the law was in effect, about two percent of recipients tested positive for illegal drugs, mostly for marijuana, according to the court documents. But the failure rate was well below that of the general population. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found in a 2009 survey that about 8.7 percent of the population aged 12 or older had used illicit drugs in the previous month.

Generally, the courts have only allowed suspicionless drug testing when public safety is at risk, such as for armed officers or railroad workers who operate heavy equipment.

NY Times Benghazi Report Makes Republicans Look Stupid
By: Steve - January 1, 2014 - 10:00am

Monday night Laura Ingraham and the Republican Congressman Mike Rogers discussed the NY Times Benghazi story with no Democratic guest or anyone from the NY Times for balance.

Rogers said this: "This was shocking to me. To say there was no Al Qaeda planning and to say there was not at least a degree of pre-planning is mystifying to me. Our committee reviewed 4,000 cables leading up to the event and it was clear that a threat of Al Qaeda was involved. I am shocked that a major newspaper would have the same talking points that the administration had the day after the events."

Ingraham said this: "I'm not following the New York Times reporting on this, and it seems out of synch with what even the Times has reported."

So she admits she is not following their reporting on it, but then claims it is out of synch of what they reported, huh? What she said makes no sense, because if she is not following their reporting how can she claim it does not match what they have been reporting.

And her evidence is a biased and dishonest right-wing Congressman who she had on to dispute the Times reporting, actual investigative reporting. A biased Congressman is not evidence of anything, except that he is only on to spin out right-wing lies about it. That's not evidence or reporting, it's simple propaganda, with nobody on to dispute it.

Here are the facts, the facts Ingraham and Rogers ignored:

A six-part series by the New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick destroyed several right-wing myths about the September 11, 2012, attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, myths often propagated by conservative media and their allies in Congress to politicize the attack against the Obama administration.

Since the September 2012 attacks, O'Reilly, Ingraham and the right-wing media have seized upon various inaccurate, misleading, or just plain wrong talking points about Benghazi. Some of those talking points made their way into the mainstream, most notably onto CBS 60 Minutes, earning the network the Media Matters 2013 "Misinformer of the Year" title for its botched report.

Kirkpatrick's series, titled "A Deadly Mix In Benghazi," debunks a number of these right-wing talking points based on "months of investigation" and extensive interviews with those who had "direct knowledge of the attack."

Among other points, Kirkpatrick deflates the claims that an anti-Islamic YouTube video played no role in motivating the attacks and that Al Qaeda was involved in the attack:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some Republican members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, scores of Republican pundits, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), among others, dragged then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice through the mud for citing talking points that mentioned an anti-Islamic YouTube video on Sunday morning news programs following the attacks.

Despite the right-wing media claims to the contrary, however, Kirkpatrick stated that the attack on the Benghazi compound was in large part "fueled" by the anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube. He wrote:
There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.
Another talking point O'Reilly and the right-wing media have used to accuse the Obama administration of a political cover-up was the removal of Al Qaeda from Rice's morning show talking points. Kirkpatrick, however, affirmed in his NY Times report that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack in Benghazi:
But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda's international terrorist network.

The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call.

But when the friend heard the attacker's boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.
Kirkpatrick also dispelled the notion that the attack on the compound was carefully planned, writing that "the attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs."

This NY Times report should lay to rest these long-debunked yet oft-repeated talking points on the part of both right-wing media and their conservative allies. But of course O'Reilly, Ingraham, and their right-wing friends will continue to lie and spin about it to try and make Obama and Hillary Clinton look bad, because they are dishonest right-wing partisan hacks.