The Wednesday 7-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 31, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Collapse of the Southern Border. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: What do you think about the collapse of the southern border? I use the word collapse because when the most powerful nation on Earth cannot or will not stop people from illegally entering, our border protection has collapsed.

A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute asked Americans about the kids coming illegally to the U.S.A. 70% said we should offer shelter and support while beginning a process to determine whether they should be deported, while 26% said we should deport them immediately.

Americans are a compassionate people, we want poor children to be treated humanely and fairly. But most of us understand that not controlling our southern border is a magnet for illegal aliens. The hidden headline is that not one president has even tried to seal the southern border. The reason is purely political. The Hispanic lobby is powerful, and so is big business, which has used illegal aliens as cheap labor.

So the dereliction of duty on the part of all presidents and Congress is appalling, and we the people are suffering, along with defenseless children.

Talking Points will remind everyone that most illegal immigrants are good people, most of them help the nation because they work hard. But 50% of all families headed by an immigrant receive some kind of welfare, so immigration certainly should be controlled. Bottom line, we need to stop illegal immigration into the U.S.A. ... cold.
Take note that 70% of the people disagree with O'Reilly, who wants the National Guard on the border and a wall built. Then O'Reilly had two Republicans on to discuss it, with no Democratic guests for balance.

Then Republican strategist Jason Roe and Genevieve Wood of the conservative Heritage Foundation were on.

Roe said this: "You're right that there is a combination between the Hispanic lobby and big business, in terms of the work force we're importing to do the jobs that a lot of Americans don't want to do. After 9/11 George Bush could have implemented the most draconian border protection policies in history, but instead he decided to lead with the guest worker program. That undermined the will to do anything serious about border control."

Wood said this: "Every official I talked to told me they had never been overrun like this, and everybody said they are coming here because they understood that if they got in they would be allowed to stay. Americans are told that you're somehow 'anti-immigrant' or 'inhumane' if you want to secure the border, and that's just not true. It's important to remember that we let in over a million legal immigrants every year."

Then Senator Bernie Sanders was on to talk about Congress, who is about to pass a bill intended to repair the severely damaged Department of Veterans Affairs. Senator Bernie Sanders explained what's in the legislation.

Sanders said this: "This will address the problems of long waiting times, by providing money to allow veterans to go out and get private health care. This also rebuilds the VA, making sure there are enough doctors and nurses, and we make sure that people who lie or manipulate data can be fired easily."

When O'Reilly asked Sanders how the VA became so chaotic to begin with, he protested the premise of the question, saying this: "If you talk to most veterans, they will tell you that once they get into the VA the quality of care is good. The problem is one of access in certain parts of the country. We need better management and we need accountability."

And I would disagree with Senator Sanders, because my Father was in the VA system and the wait times to see a doctor were too long, sometimes 2 or 3 weeks, when he could usually get in to see his medicare doctor in 2 to 3 days. And if the VA had to order something for him it would take forever, at least 30 days or more.

My Father had to wait 6 weeks just to get a wheelchair through the VA. When he died in 2013 I went to the VA to get a flag for his memorial and they told me it would take 6 weeks, and the memorial was in 2 days, so I never did get one. So I was not happy with the VA care, they were understaffed and too slow to get you what you need.

Then Mary Ann Mendoza, whose son Brandon was killed by a drunk driver in Arizona was on. That driver, Raul Silva Corona, was in this country despite being an illegal alien with a criminal record. Mendoza revealed that she has written a letter to President Obama.

Mendoza said this: "I asked him for an explanation, as to why illegal alien criminals are allowed to stay in our country and kill our citizens. President Obama seems to be willing to raise the limit of crimes that illegals can commit in this country before they are deported, and I don't think this is something Americans should allow."

O'Reilly said this: "There is no answer, the federal government is derelict in all of these things. As soon as an illegal alien commits a crime, he or she should be on the next plane."

What a joke, how do you enforce that? And who is going to pay for it O'Reilly, you jerk.

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk about Mireille Miller-Young, a professor at the University of California, who was arrested after she physically assaulted some pro-life demonstrators on campus.

MacCallum said this: "This professor essentially pled no contest to battery, vandalism, and grand theft, and she'll be sentenced in August. She's an associate professor of feminist studies who teaches a class in pornography and sexuality. The only comment from the school was that they really shouldn't let outsiders onto the campus."

O'Reilly decried the double standard on liberal college campuses, saying this: "Things would be much different if a professor had grabbed a sign from a pro-choice person."

Which is just laughable, because pro-life people do things that are much worse, like bomb abortion clinics, kill abortion doctors, etc. and O'Reilly says nothing, he ignores it all. But if a liberal college professor takes a sign from a pro-lifer O'Reilly flips out and does a segment on his show, what a joke.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a poll on his website on marijuana. A poll that O'Reilly refused to report because he did not like the results. He claims it was rigged by pro-marijuana forces, but his polls are not scientific and when they are rigged by conservatives to favor his position he reports them. He called them morons, so in other words, if you do not agree with O'Reilly you are a moron. Proving once again that he is a biased hack.

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - July 31, 2014 - 10:00am

Wednesday it was reported that the economy grew by 4% in the 2nd quarter of 2014, and as usual the so-called non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

Because he is a biased partisan hack who does not report any good news on the economy, jobs, stock market, unemployment, etc. because it makes Obama look good, and proves his economic policies are working while O'Reilly was saying they were bad for the country and a disaster.

The Commerce Department reported on Wednesday that the economy grew at an annual rate of 4 percent for the three months from April through June.

In its initial estimate for the second quarter, the government cited gains in personal consumption spending, exports and private inventory investment as the main contributors to growth.

The increase exceeded economists expectations and further cemented their views that the decrease in America's overall output during the first quarter was most likely a fluke tied in large part to unusually stormy winter weather as well as other anomalies.

Proving that O'Reilly was lying when he blamed it on the liberal Obama policies, which once again proves that O'Reilly is a dishonest hack who puts out right-wing talking points and propaganda.

During the first quarter, output shrank by 2.1 percent, less than had been reported, according to the Commerce Department’s newly revised G.D.P. figures, also released on Wednesday. The department had previously said first-quarter output decreased 2.9 percent.

"The really ugly G.D.P. report for the first quarter was likely the result of mostly one-off events," Bob Baur, chief global economist for Principal Global Investors, wrote in a note to clients before Wednesday's release.

Mr. Baur said industrial output was rebounding and jobless claims were near lows, adjusted for work-force size, both of which were propelling second-quarter growth. Inventories, which had been growing slowly in the first quarter, were picking up. Also, the Conference Board said on Tuesday that consumers were more upbeat about the economy than they had been in about seven years.

The Tuesday 7-29-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 30, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Threats to America Grow. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In a provocation the United States has not seen since the Vietnam War, the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is trying to humiliate Barack Obama. Apparently the Russians have now violated a 1987 treaty by testing a new type of cruise missile. Also, Putin continues to attack Ukraine and Russian allies continue to block the investigation of the downed Malaysian airliner.

So today President Obama imposed new sanctions on Russia. Mr. Obama also said Europe will impose more sanctions, but don't hold your breath on that. The Europeans have acted cowardly in the face of Putin's aggression. President Obama had to take the action today because all around him things are going south in a hurry. In Israel, fighting between Hamas and the Israelis continues and the USA is powerless to stop the carnage.

In Iran, negotiations over nuclear weapons continue because the Obama administration has given that country nearly $3 billion to stay at the table. In Iraq, intelligence reports say that the ISIS army, a vicious offshoot of Al Qaeda, is poised to attack Baghdad. These jihadists are murdering Christians in the streets, but President Obama has taken no action at all.

In Afghanistan, a report says the Obama administration can not account for 750,000 weapons given to Afghan forces. In Libya, the USA has now closed its embassy in Tripoli because security is so terrible. Finally, on the southern border, the chaos continues as U.S. authorities can not stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country.

On just about every front there is danger - terrorism is growing, there is a mini-war in the Middle East, Iran will most likely get a nuclear weapon, and Putin is causing an enormous amount of trouble. President Obama still has his supporters who spin the situation his way, but his foreign policy has failed miserably.

It is long past time for all Americans to demand that the federal government admit failure and devise effective strategies to protect us and other people around the world. Talking Points is sounding the alarm and all of us should take this very seriously.
Which is just laughable, because no matter what policy a President has he can not force world leaders in other countries to do what we want them to. And the more we stick our nose in the business of foreign countries the more we invite terrorist attacks on Americans abroad and on American soil. As usual, O'Reilly is a neo-con fool, and remember he was all wrong about Iraq, now he wants you to listen to him on foreign policy, not me.

Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers were on to evaluate the Talking Points Memo and the threats to America.

Powers said this: "I agree with you that there is a lot of chaos around the world, but I tend to feel there is generally chaos in the world. There were plenty of horrible things happening when Reagan was in power, so I think it's a little unfair to lay all of this at Obama's feet."

Crowley said this: "Reagan was about restoring American power and prestige, but what you have now is President Obama presiding over the collapse of American power and prestige. The international world has always been dominated by chaos, and the only time you get any relative order and peace is when there is a dominant power, when the United States is perceived as strong. This president has allowed our enemies to advance, abandoned our allies, and gutted our military."

Then Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn were on to talk about the New York Times editorial calling for legalization of marijuana.

Kurtz said this: "I agree that the editorial page underplayed the potential impact. But with two states having legalized pot, with medicinal marijuana being widely used, and with 54% of Americans saying they favor legalization, this isn't some wacky hallucination."

Ashburn said this: "This is an Upper West Side mentality, people thinking their opinion is right and cherry-picking studies that buttress their argument."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who has won his defamation lawsuit against the widow of famed Navy sniper Chris Kyle. The war of words began when Kyle claimed that Ventura had slandered the American military and Navy SEALS.

A case that O'Reilly, Wiehl, and Guilfoyle all predicted Ventura would lose, so once again they were all wrong, but they do not mention that.

Wiehl said this: "This is unbelievable. The jury believed Jesse Ventura to the point of $1.8 million, which is the judgment. Eight out of ten jurors found that Kyle lied."

Guilfoyle said this: "You didn't have the live testimony from Kyle, and Ventura is a larger-than-life personality, very brazen and bold. Ventura should be ashamed to take money out of this widow's pocket, he should refuse the award."

O'Reilly said this: "I thought that anyone would sympathize with the widow of Chris Kyle, and I wanted to believe that what Chris Kyle told me on this program was true."

Then the far-right neo-con Charles Krauthammer (who was also dead wrong on Iraq) was on to analyze the the O'Reilly TPM and the many threats facing the world. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "Iran going nuclear could be the greatest threat of all. We have an administration that has just paid Iran $11.8 billion to engage in six months of negotiations that ended with nothing, and now we're paying $2.8 billion to give us another four months of useless negotiations. Even if we end up with an agreement, I guarantee it will leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state. I think that is the biggest of all threats because terror at the nuclear level could give us unbelievable destruction."

Krauthammer also said this: "The thing that has held the world together, the thing that has maintained the freedom of the free world, has been the United States. But now the world is looking around and asking, where is America?"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dangers of Fanaticism. Billy said this: "If you're a political zealot or fanatic, you're likely to avoid entire arenas of discussion and may miss out on opportunities to learn and grow."

O'Reilly Claims Ghetto Culture Causes Black Kids To Smoke Weed
By: Steve - July 30, 2014 - 10:00am

During Monday's O'Reilly Factor, crazy O'Reilly used his biased Talking Points Memo and a panel discussion to race-bait and spew out misleading information on the issue of marijuana use. O'Reilly first attacked the New York Times, who published an op-ed from its editorial board over the weekend expressing its support for the federal legalization of marijuana.

O'Reilly dishonestly targeted one small section of the op-ed that pointed out the great disparity of arrests for marijuana possession compared to hard drugs (such as cocaine and heroin), and claimed that blacks are disproportionately targeted. Below is the one paragraph from the NYT piece:
The social costs of the marijuana laws are vast. There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to F.B.I. figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives. Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals.
This made O’Reilly mad, and he decided to push back against the Times and the so-called "far-left" regarding their support for the legalization of marijuana. O'Reilly insisted that liberals only support the issue because of some misguided nonsense that blacks are suffering disparate repercussions than whites for marijuana use and possession.

During his propaganda TPM, O'Reilly spun out a bunch of cherry-picked and unrelated statistics to back up his argument that marijuana should remain illegal and that there should be heavy fines for possession and stiff jail time for selling it.

When it came to federal arrests for marijuana, O'Reilly stated that the vast majority of arrests were for drug trafficking, and that Hispanics not blacks, made up a disproportionately high amount of arrests. Of course, O'Reilly is dishonest by tossing out that statistic. Because the feds are only going to concentrate on major drug cases, not street-level crimes. That is left to local law enforcement.

Considering that most large shipments of marijuana come in from Mexico and Central America, it only makes sense that the majority of those arrested for trafficking the product are Hispanic. Regardless, the NYT board, and others, aren't talking about drug trafficking when it comes to possession and use of marijuana and the racist nature of law enforcement and prosecution.

The fact is, blacks are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for possession than whites, even though whites and blacks use at roughly the same rate.

O'Reilly also went after marijuana as a gateway drug that leads to harder drug use. To bolster his case, he pointed to a Yale study done in 2012. However, what O'Reilly failed to mention is that the same study revealed that young adults who used alcohol and tobacco were twice as likely as those who used marijuana to abuse harder drugs.

Also, the Institute of Medicine found that there was "no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." In other words, there is no proof that smoking marijuana leads to using harder drugs. And yet, that is what O'Reilly claimed anyway, even though he says he only deals in the facts and never speculates or puts out any spin.

O'Reilly also tried to link marijuana use and possession to the drop in New York City's murder rate, saying that Rudy Giuliani's crackdown on violent crime and gangs was directly related to marijuana and that if it is made legal, murder rates will soar. Which is not only a lie, it's beyond ridiculous.

After O'Reilly did his best to scare his old, right-wing white viewers with a report seemingly lifted directly from Reefer Madness, he then turned it over to a panel discussion with two guests. One guest, Kevin Sabet, is a co-founder of an anti-marijuana group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The other guest, Stephen Gutwillig, is the Deputy Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that looks to reform the current drug laws in this country.

O'Reilly then went into full-on race-bating mode. While talking with Sabet and Gutwillig, O'Reilly claimed that "in certain ghetto neighborhoods it's part of the culture. 9-year-old boys and girls are smoking it."

O'Reilly also claimed that liberals "don't like that. They don't want to see them targeted by the cops."

In O'Reillyworld, inner-city blacks are all irresponsible criminals who allow their children to smoke weed and go to the liquor store. Because, as Sabet pointed out, poor black communities have eight times as many liquor stores as other neighborhoods. Therefore, we should continue to have draconian drug laws in this country and have the police target poor black people far more than whites because we need to teach them responsibility and that their actions have repercussions.

The only way to make this country like it once was, which is some idealized version of the 1950s that never really existed, is to harshly punish poor minorities for having the audacity of not being white people living in the suburbs.

Thankfully, biased culture warriors like O'Reilly are losing this battle. Just like same-sex marriage, legalization of marijuana is coming. The majority of Americans favor it and our prison system has become needlessly overrun with non-criminals. Like just almost everything else, O'Reilly is on the wrong side of history.

The Monday 7-28-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 29, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Great Marijuana Ruse. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The New York Times has called for the USA to legalize marijuana all over the place. That's no surprise, that paper is far left on its editorial page. But the real reason many liberals want to legalize pot is contained in the Times editorial, which says the social costs of marijuana 'fall disproportionately on young black men.' There you have it.

The left believes American law enforcement targets African Americans for drug prosecutions; therefore, they want drug sales to categorized as non-violent offenses and marijuana to be legalized. It's about race, not drugs. Now, some facts: About 5,000 criminals were sentenced federally for marijuana offenses in 2013, almost 98% of them for selling. 63% of those convicted on the federal level were Hispanic, just 11% black.

The legalization of marijuana is full of unintended consequences. It sends a signal to children that drug use is an acceptable part of life. As for the poor precincts in America, does it make any sense to make intoxicants more available? Drug use and sales have devastated poor neighborhoods in this country. Same thing with alcoholism and tobacco use, but you don't add to those problems by legalizing pot. That's stupid!

What authorities should do is decriminalize pot use. If you want to use it in your home and not bother anyone, fine. But if you go outside with a joint or a pipe, you pay a fine. And if you sell marijuana, you go to jail. America used to have standards of behavior in public, but they are collapsing all around us.
Speaking of stupid, Bill O'Reilly is just stupid. The the real reason liberals want to legalize pot is because the drug war has been a total failure, a waste of money, and a waste of time for the court system. Not to mention the cost of all the people in prison for simple possession. It has nothing to do with the cost falling on black men, it's about enforcement and the cost, for a failure. You can not enforce the law, it does not work.

Then Stephen Gutwillig & Kevin Sabet were on to discuss it.

Gutwillig said this: "I'm thrilled to hear that you support decriminalizing marijuana. We should not be chasing after the nearly 750,000 Americans that we arrest every year for possessing tiny amounts of pot for their personal use. We should have this gigantic marijuana economy in the hands of regulators instead of criminals."

Sabet (the Republican) said this: "If we thought the tobacco industry was bad with the lies about the science, just wait for the marijuana industry. I want to ask the New York Times if they considered the stances of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and other groups that oppose legalization."

Then Juan Williams & Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the conservative columnist and Fox News analyst George Will, who surprised many people by urging America to open its arms to Central American children who are flooding across the Rio Grande.

Ham said this: "I will respectfully disagree on a few points, but I do agree that we should not discount our ability to assimilate new immigrants, it's something that America is quite good at. But if the policy is that everybody who comes can stay, then you're not dealing with the many thousands who will come after that."

Williams argued that America is well-equipped to welcome and assimilate tens of thousands of children, saying this: "We support the elderly, we support our veterans, and, as it says on the Statute of Liberty, we can handle your teeming masses yearning to be free."

But of course the far-right O'Reilly disagreed with Willians and Will, saying this: "You are dodging the unintended consequences of an open border. You have never called for the National Guard on the border, you are an open border guy, that's who you are!"

Then Brit Hume was on to evaluate the often-heard suspicion (by Republicans) that President Obama harbors an anti-Israel bias.

Hume said this: "Some Israeli politicians clearly think that is the case, and there are some on the American right who think that as well. And there is some truth to it. Remember when Netanyahu was snubbed at the White House? And then there was this effort by John Kerry over the weekend to get Israel to go along with a one-sided cease-fire proposal. I think President Obama instinctively shares the sentiment on the academic left that favors Israel's Palestinian neighbors over Israel. But Israel is very popular in Congress and in the country as a whole."

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about the elections, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, so it was all one sided right-wing spin.

Rove said this: "This is going to be a wild year. The Washington Post's model recently said there is an 86% chance that Republicans will take control of the Senate. I'm not that optimistic, I think it's about a 60% chance. But many Democrats have the advantage of incumbency."

O'Reilly said this about Harry Reid: "Reid has blocked most meaningful legislation from coming up for a vote. Whenever the House passes a bill, Reid blocks it in the Senate. One guy is sabotaging the whole process."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a recent BillOReilly.com poll that shows more than half of respondents view Islamic jihadists as the biggest threat to the USA.

Kellysaid this: "I'm also very concerned about the jihadists, but I also believe in the saying that America can only destroy herself. And the older I get, the more I start to understand the segments you do on social values and these culture wars. I'm starting to get it more now that I'm a mother of three young children, I worry about the erosion of our culture and our family values. You can go through an entire day without having any human interaction. It makes us feel disconnected and disenchanted and I think it can ultimately be dangerous."

Then Jesse Watters was on, he went to the town of Newport, Rhode Island, where he asked some locals and vacationers to grade President Obama's job performance. Here are a few of their replies: "He doesn't seem to be honest" ... "I think he's done a pretty good job" ... "I think he made some promises that he didn't live up to well."

Watters also asked the people what they think of Bill O'Reilly. "You want a straight interview and honest talk," one man declared, "that's where you go." But another gentleman was far less gentle when he pronounced, "You're with Fox, I don't do Fox!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: How to Handle Bad Things. Billy said this: "When bad things happen to you, try your hardest to turn them around, just as many of our wounded warriors have done in their lives."

Mark Cuban To Sell Stock In Companies Who Dodge Taxes
By: Steve - July 29, 2014 - 10:00am

As more and more American corporations have used mergers and shell companies to shift profits and shrink their U.S. tax liabilities over the past few years, there has generally been a sharp divide between populists who decry the maneuvers and investors who celebrate them. Friday morning saw a high-profile defection from the economic elites camp, however, as outspoken billionaire investor Mark Cuban pledged to sell off his holdings in companies that move offshore for tax reasons. "If I own stock in your company and you move offshore for tax reasons I'm selling your stock," Cuban tweeted.

And if all the wealthy people in America did the same thing, these sellout corporations would stop doing it. Not to mention, if Congress was not in the back pocket of these very same corporations they would pass a law making it illegal.

Rather than seeking a synthetic boost in their stock price by shifting tax burdens onto others, Cuban said, American companies should persuade investors to accept slower growth in their market returns in exchange for job growth and expansion here at home.

His primary rationale is a self-interested rather than a philanthropic or political one, as you might expect from a wealthy investor with a healthy competitive streak. "When companies move off shore to save on taxes, you and I make up the tax shortfall elsewhere sell those stocks and they won't move," he tweeted later.

Cuban's high-profile opposition to corporate offshoring could provide a signal boost of sorts for the Obama administration's own efforts to encourage a renewed "sense of economic patriotism" among business elites. While President Obama himself has begun speaking against the sorts of moves Cuban decried Friday, the corporate executives who make these decisions may be more receptive to hearing it from one of their own.

As media chatter about offshoring and corporate taxes gets louder, odds of getting actual legislation passed may be improving slightly. The Senate will debate the Bring Jobs Home Act more than two years after it was first introduced. While an actual vote on the measure is still not guaranteed, the last time the bill came up Republicans filibustered it before it could even be discussed fully on the floor.

A vote to allow debate on Wednesday represents progress, however marginal and fragile.

The momentum behind such legislation comes in large part from a wave of mergers designed to allow American companies to move their official headquarters to tax haven countries like Ireland.

Those mergers, known as "inversions," have become far more popular in the years since the Great Recession began than they were over the previous two decades. They have also garnered negative attention for companies like Pfizer, Medtronic, and Walgreen's that are reportedly considering inversion mergers this year.

Profit offshoring costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars per year, and the total profit held overseas by American companies now hovers around $2 trillion.

And of course O'Reilly does not report any of this, because it makes his corporate and Republican friends look bad, and he does not want you to know why you are paying so much in taxes, not because of social security, or medicare, etc. It's because all these corporations are dodging their taxes by setting up shell offices in foreign countries to avoid paying there share of taxes.

Maher Slams GOP For Bogus Criticism Of President Obama
By: Steve - July 28, 2014 - 10:00am

Here is proof the Republican party slams President Obama 24/7 for one reason, politics. They were asked by Bill Maher to give him one specific thing he is doing wrong and what he should do different. The two Republicans guests had no answer and could not answer the question, they both just said what O'Reilly says every night, he has a failure of leadership, and Obama refuses to act like a strong leader.

Proving it is nothing but right-wing talking points, the very same talking points O'Reilly puts out, even after he said a 100 times that he never uses Republican talking points on his show.

On Friday night's Real Time, Bill Maher took on two of his Republican guests, who were criticizing President Obama over his foreign policy. Maher challenged them to say exactly what Obama should be doing differently, and repeatedly emphasized that they should be specific in their criticisms.

FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe first admitted it's not all Obama’s fault, saying Bush is partly to blame for the chaos in the world, but at the same time, he said, "this president has zero respect in the world."

When Maher asked what Obama should do, Kibbe said, "It's called leadership." Maher said, "Remember when I said be specific?" and added, "What the hell does that mean?"

Kibbe had no answer, he just kept saying he is failing to be a leader and could not give a specific answer, he just repeated the right-wing talking points that Obama is failing to be a leader.

Republican Hogan Gidley jumped in to say Obama refuses to act like a strong leader would, such as naming Putin "as a bad actor in the planes coming down."

Which is not only ridiculous, it's a lie, because Obama has said Putin is a bad actor and the Republicans just refuse to admit it, just as they still deny he called 9-11 a terrorist act for a week, when he said it the very next day in a speech from the Rose Garden, which is documented btw.

Maher repeatedly pressed Gidley on what Obama should do, and when Gidley didn't directly answer, he said, "You keep veering off the point of what we should be doing!"

Republican Takes Credit For Emergency Funds He Voted Against
By: Steve - July 27, 2014 - 11:00am

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has repeatedly voted against emergency funding for disaster relief, but attempted to take credit for it on Wednesday for the Obama administration's approval of aid for 23 counties in Arkansas.

Cotton, who is the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Mark Pryor (D) for his Senate seat this November, joined with the state's Congressional delegation in a press release to announce that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack approved a disaster declaration request by Gov. Mike Beebe (D) to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers whose crops and pastures were devastated by June flash floods.

"I appreciate Secretary Vilsack's quick approval of Governor Beebe's disaster declaration request for the 23 impacted counties," Cotton said in the release, adding, "I have heard from many farmers about the impact of the recent flooding, and I look forward to working with our friends in Arkansas to make sure farmers are able to access the emergency funds they need."

But the emergency funds come from the federal Farm Bill (legislation Cotton voted against in 2013 and 2014).

But despite his stated view that the Farm Bill was a "bad bill for farmers, it was a bad bill for taxpayers, it was a bad bill for Arkansas," Cotton joined with the delegation earlier this month to request "swift consideration and approval" of those funds, including loans the request called "vital to farmers and ranchers who may have no other source of revenue over the next year."

A Pryor campaign spokesman told the Arkansas Times, "It takes a special kind of arrogance for Congressman Cotton to take credit for disaster relief funds that he consistently and recklessly opposed."

While Cotton's opposition to these emergency funds were part of a larger farm bill, he has also voted against stand-alone emergency funding when other states were in need. Last year, he was one of just a few dozen members of Congress to oppose both the $50.7 billion emergency aid package for Superstorm Sandy victims and the smaller $9 billion emergency Sandy relief bill.

Cotton's hypocrisy is not unique to him. Dozens of other Congressional Republicans voted against the Sandy aid measures despite their own history of supporting aid for their own districts. Last September, Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner (R) and three other Colorado Republican Congressmen pushed a bill to lift the cap on flood aid for their state, despite their unanimous opposition to the Sandy funding.

O'Reilly Friend Ted Nugent Getting Hurt For His Extreme Views
By: Steve - July 27, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly likes Ted Nugent, has him on his show as a frequent guest, and even recently said his kind of straight talk is what the Republican party needs. During the interview, O'Reilly did not even mention Nugent's birtherism, his race-baiting, suggestions he'd like to kill Barack Obama, the racist subhuman mongrel comment, or how he would also like to kill Hillary Clinton.

O'Reilly also said this: "Sometimes Nugent's politics can make things a bit dicey. But the only thing close to a controversy we learned about Nugent was that he's a big gun guy and a conservative."

Which is a total lie, because all this is in the public for anyone to find out about.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Nugent called candidate Barack Obama "a piece of shit" who should "suck on my machine gun" and Hillary Clinton, a "worthless bitch" who should ride into the sunset on his machine gun.

In 2012, Nugent said, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

In May, 2013, he said during a concert, "One way or another I'm going to the White House and I'm going to get those c...suckers in a stranglehold."

For which he got a visit from the Secret Service.

In August, 2013, he said: "You got to earn it. Unlike these well-fed motherf...er food stamp c...suckers, we got to earn what we get. You won't get no f...ing venison with food stamps, you pussies. But you can get crack. How fed up is that?"

In July, 2013, Nugent wrote about Obama’s "phony birth certificate" and described the Fort Hood shooter as Obama's "Allah Ahkbar buddy."

And that's only about 10% of the racist and hate-filled stuff Nugent has said. But O’Reilly -- who previously said Nugent's "straight talk is what the Republican Party needs" -- mentioned none of that.

O'Reilly closed the interview by saying this: "Ted Nugent everybody. One of a kind."

And now Music Industry Experts Are saying Ted Nugent's Ongoing Political Diatribes Are Damaging His Concert Promotions.

In a week when two casinos operated by different Native American tribes canceled three separate Nugent shows set for next month and dozens protested a concert in New Jersey, concert touring experts say the NRA board member and conservative commentator is doing real damage to his money-earning potential.

"If you're going to say something political, you're going to have some backlash, it doesn't matter who you are or what you say," said Larry Magid, a Philadelphia-based promoter who has handled Stevie Wonder, Fleetwood Mac, and Bette Midler. "Nugent seems to have taken it to extremes. I don't know that you can blame anyone for not wanting to play him for all of the baggage that he brings."

Magid, who also organized the famed 1985 Live Aid benefit show in Philadelphia, said Nugent was never a huge concert draw, but his declaration earlier this year that President Barack Obama is a "subhuman mongrel" may mark a turning point.

"I don't know if that is frustration at not being a viable act, but it is stupid," Magid said of Nugent. "If you are a musician, you are trying to bring your music, your art to a broad group of people. It is one thing to take a stance, it is another thing when you are talking about the president of the United States.

"For all of the people enamored with him, there are 20 or 30 or 40 times that who are not enamored with him. To me, it's not bright. If I'm a promoter I have to think two or three or four times before I take a shot with this performer."

"No one should be surprised by any of this," said Gary Bongiovanni, editor-in-chief of Pollstar USA, which tracks concert touring receipts. "It's a free country and Nugent has always had a big mouth. But if he keeps making incendiary statements his future tours may be limited to NRA conventions and Fox News events."

Bongiovanni said the public reaction is not unusual: "Why be surprised if you can't sell tickets to them after you insult people who are gay, animal rights, or gun control advocates, or just in the majority of people who voted for Obama?"

Although Nugent has long been a hardline conservative and pro-gun advocate, his "subhuman mongrel" comments triggered a massive media firestorm and led prominent Republicans to disassociate themselves from the rocker earlier this year. Nugent's offensive and racist comments have more recently caused a backlash against his concerts.

Among the results: Three Nugent concerts scheduled in early August at Native American tribe-owned casinos in Washington and Idaho were canceled this week due to the performer's commentary. Puyallup Tribe Tribal Chairman Bill Sterud has said Nugent is a "jackass" and will never be booked again.

Earlier this summer controversy surrounded a concert scheduled for an Oshkosh, WI, music festival after a letter to the editor decrying Nugent's concert received heightened attention. Nugent subsequently described his critics as "unclean vermin."

"Picket signs lined the street" outside a July 22 concert in New Jersey as Nugent was greeted by "at least 75 protestors."

While Nugent will perform at The Toledo Blade's Northwest Ohio Rib-Off festival next month, the paper's sales director told Media Matters he had received numerous complaints and strongly suggested Nugent would never be booked again.

The City of Longview, TX in March canceled Nugent's concert at a Fourth of July festival and paid him $16,000 (reportedly half his fee) not to show up.

John Scher of Metropolitan Entertainment Consultants, a longtime New Jersey promoter who has booked Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Billy Joel, said he's never seen such a public backlash in his 40 years promoting concerts.

"I can't really, really recall this kind of reaction because of political beliefs," Scher said, later adding, "All in all, I don't think it can be a plus. Where's the tipping point? I think he'll find it will probably shrink to the places where his views are not so contrary to the views of the general population. You might see him doing most of his touring in the south or certain states in the west that are gun-toting conservatives.

In the Northeast and in California he is probably not getting booked as much ... I don't see from an overall point of view how he is helping himself."

Steve Knopper, a Rolling Stone contributing editor who covers the rock concert business, said this is clearly a trend.

"It does seem like, whether it is a movement or people deciding to be offended by this en masse, it seems like it's having an impact and that can't be good," Knopper said. "I don't know if Ted Nugent's main source of income is from concerts, but the way right now to make money in the music business is to tour."

Knopper added, "I'm guessing that he needs to tour to make money and if his comments are preventing him from doing that he may well have to rethink how he handles his public image. He has said some incredibly offensive stuff in the past few years, now maybe it is hitting home."

Highest Paid CEOs Deliver Worst Returns For Investors
By: Steve - July 26, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and his CEO friends like to justify their sky-high pay by saying it rewards their work in steering companies toward better performance. But a new analysis doesn't give much evidence to back that up.

Equilar, an executive compensation consultancy, compared the salaries of 200 highly paid CEOs to their companies performance based on things like profitability, revenue, and stock return. Rather than showing a clear trend line linking pay and performance, the data is scattered.

In fact, chief executive pay is only 1 percent based on stock performance, with 99 percent based on other things entirely.

As Bloomberg Businessweek notes, "The comparison makes it look as if there is zero relationship between pay and performance."

Indeed, even when companies boast that they tie executive compensation to company performance, the country's largest companies routinely game those systems to ensure they get their bonuses and payouts, such as setting targets so low as to be meaningless or fluffing up their reported profits.

In one example, Walmart US CEO William Simon was only supposed to get a $1.5 million bonus last year if net sales grew by 2 percent, but he got it anyway when sales only grew by 1.8 percent because the company calculated "adjusted" sales at the necessary rate.

Worse, out of the highest-paid CEOs over the past 20 years, nearly four in ten were fired, caught committing fraud, or oversaw a company bailout.

In other words, Incompetence does not stand in the way of a big payday.

There's even evidence that paying chief executives lavishly can backfire. Shareholders at the companies that pay their CEOs the most get the worst results, with an average shareholder loss of $1.4 billion.

That's because exorbitant pay breeds overconfidence, leading to bad decisions about weak performance.

None of these findings have kept CEO pay in check. The median chief executive pay jumped above eight figures for the first time last year, hitting $10.5 million. The average pay package was $15.2 million, a 21.7 percent increase since 2010.

Workers compensation, on the other hand, actually fell during that period, and the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay was 295.9-to-1 last year. Over the last 30 years, chief executive pay has risen 127 times faster than worker pay despite the fact that workers productivity has kept increasing.

The Thursday 7-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 25, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and the Folks. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Some are calling for the president to be impeached, so I asked the Fox News polling people to form a question about impeachment. The results of the scientific survey are in - 36% favor impeachment, 61% do not. Most Americans reject an impeachment spectacle because they know it would hurt the country and there is no compelling evidence to support that drastic action.

But there is no question that the president is under pressure, and on every major issue most Americans disapprove of his performance. Barack Obama has lost the folks, at least those Americans who evaluate things in a fair way. Talking Points believes President Obama's current problems are being exacerbated by his demeanor.

He seems disengaged, apathetic, even arrogant at times. He meanders and doesn't seem authoritative. So the perception, even in some Democratic precincts, is that Mr. Obama has lost his ability to deal with problems effectively.

From the president's point of view, he believes he's being treated unfairly by the Republican House and that the media, which once adored him, is not giving him enough support. The president is not the kind of guy who rallies the troops, he's an academic and consensus-seeker. Well, there is consensus now. Most Americans feel President Obama is failing in his job.
Notice that O'Reilly says some people want the President impeached, but he does not tell you those "some" people are 1/100th of 1% and far-right loons. They are extreme right fools, but O'Reilly does not point that out or call them loons as he does with people on the far-left when they say dumb things.

And before I continue with the review, notice the guest list, O'Reilly said he personally makes sure he has an equal number of Democratic and Republican guests, even though that is a total lie, because he is a Republican and he wants his show to be biased to the right, so that it makes him look like he is right about everything.

Dear Bill O'Reilly, 8 Republican guests to 1 Democratic guest is not being equal or fair, and when you add O'Reilly it's 9 to 1. That is not balance, it's unfair biased journalism, which O'Reilly does almost every night, and the worst part is he does it while crying that the rest of the media is biased, when he is more biased than any of them. And the 1 Democrat is on with a Republican, so even that segment is not balanced, because it's a 2 on 1 with O'Reilly and Tantaros against Carville.

Then Democrat James Carville (the only Democrat on the entire show) and conservative Andrea Tantaros were on to discuss it.

Carville said this: "These numbers are stable, and I don't think he cares much about poll numbers. People's incomes have not gone up the way they'd like, but I think will be the best year for private job creation in this century. It takes a while for these things to get into the bloodstream."

Tantaros said this: "That's the reason his poll numbers are so low - people don't believe he cares and he's not even pretending. He makes no effort, and the more that Republicans ramp up the criticism, the more passive-aggressive he gets. He doesn't care!"

Then James Rosen & Carl Cameron were on to talk about the ISIS army, who is moving through parts of Syria and Iraq, taking over large parts of those lands. Rosen said this: "The question is why the administration is not firing shots at ISIS, and there are a number of reasons. The overriding one is that the President harbors a real revulsion toward the projection of American military force. He came to office pledging to end the Iraq war and is loath to take any action that would appear to be reneging on that."

Which is total speculation from Rosen, the same speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow. So in other words, if you are a Republican you can speculate on the show, if you are a Democrat you can not.

Cameron analyzed the widening chasm between the two parties in Washington, saying this: "It's just as poisonous as everybody says and maybe more so. House Republicans are suing the president and other Republicans think he should be impeached. There has been acrimony since the first term and it's gotten to the point where both sides are utterly wedded to servicing their political bases."

So what is Obama supposed to do, like the people who say he is not an American and call him racist names, and who also want to impeach him for no reason. I would do the very same thing, if I had people calling me un-American and calling for my impeachment I would not talk to them or deal with them in any way.

Then Laura Ingraham was on with her take on isolationist Rand Paul, who may run for the GOP presidential nomination. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Ingraham said this: "He's capturing what a lot of people are feeling out there, after the Bush years and a sense that we didn't really win in Iraq. He's closer than other Republicans to the way Americans feel about getting involved militarily in Syria and Ukraine and Iraq. People worry that we're going to have more wars and more intervention."

Ingraham also advised Republicans to be wary of overseas actions, saying this: "If we start sounding like we are more concerned with the borders of Iraq then we are with our own borders, that will be a hard sell to the middle class that carries the burdens of the wars." O'Reilly said this: "Rand Paul will be hurt by his foreign policy."

Earth to O'Reilly and Ingraham, Rand Paul will be hurt because he is a far-right loon, and he will never be the President, ever. To even discuss it is laughable, he is so far right of the mainstream he has no chance, none.

Then Heather Nauert was on to answer emails from angry viewers. And of course there was no Democratic guest for balance, One of them, Pennsylvanian Kim Young, is peeved because the University of Texas and other schools give preferences to certain minorities. "The policy at Texas, is that 25% of the students who apply there are admitted on a 'holistic review.' That includes things like single-parent upbringing and if you've had adversity."

Another viewer, Gary Coffin of North Carolina, complained that President Obama is acting like a dictator. "One of his biggest executive orders, is the one dealing with young children coming across the border. The order says that those children can stay here if they meet certain requirements. A lot of people have argued that the president abuses executive orders, but Congress can de-fund these."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about why the White House banned the media from an event celebrating the 45th anniversary of the first moon landing. So he speculated, as in guessed.

Goldberg said this: "What if one of the astronauts says, 'Mr. President, I think you made a big mistake by gutting the manned space program?' What if another says, 'Mr. President, it's humiliating for Americans to have to hitch a ride to the space station on a Russian rocket?' Do you think the president wants the press around to hear any of that? This is the same Barack Obama who promised us that he would have the most open administration in American history. Sure!"

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk, were on to talk about this week's near-brawl in the Ukraine parliament.

Gutfeld said this: "This is like the family across the street that's always quarreling. You want to do something but you're afraid that if you get in between them you'll get hit. This was a fight between the separatists and the nationalists, and this is what happens if you don't take your borders seriously. Every major conflict around the world is about a border."

McGuirk said this: "There was a question about whether to allow The O'Reilly Factor to be shown in Ukraine, that's what set them off. I'd like to see this kind of passion in our own Congress - I'd like to see Mitch McConnell and John Boehner duking it out with Al Franken and Harry Reid."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a soccer team that is going around the world to honor some wounded warriors. Which is great and I support it, but it's not a tip of the day.

O'Reilly Says Giving 40 Million Health Insurance Income Redistribution
By: Steve - July 25, 2014 - 10:00am

Wow, Bill O'Reilly is just a total right-wing tool. Now he claims that extending affordable health insurance to 40 million Americans is "harmful" income redistribution.

O'Reilly said this Wednesday night:



Which is just ridiculous, because none of what he says has come true. All during the time of Obamcare the economy has got better, unemployment went down, jobs are over 200,000 for 6 straight months, and the stock market is setting record highs.

Those facts prove O'Reilly wrong, and yet he still keeps lying that Obamacare will hurt the economy and cost jobs. It's insanity, and right-wing propaganda. Even though reality proves him wrong he still keeps spinning out the right-wing taking points that Obamacare is a disaster, a failure, and harmful to the country.

When the facts show the exact opposite. Good job O'Reilly, you have proven to be a fool and a partisan hack once again.

The Wednesday 7-23-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 24, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: ObamaCare and Socialism. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A federal court ruled Tuesday that the feds cannot provide health care insurance subsidies because the ObamaCare law prohibits it. That ruling was almost immediately countered by another court, but there is no question that ObamaCare is headed back to the Supreme Court because it's so chaotic.

The pinheads in Congress passed ObamaCare and didn't know what was in it; even President Obama didn't know what was in the bill. The overriding issue here is the use of taxpayer dollars. ObamaCare is a pure income redistribution play - President Obama and the Democratic Party want to put as much money into the hands of the poor and less affluent as they can, and the health care subsidies are a great way to do that.

Income redistribution is a hallmark of socialism and we in America are now moving in that direction, which has angered the Republican Party and many conservatives. But Republicans have not been able to convince the majority of Americans that income redistribution is harmful. If the entitlement culture expands, businesses contract so there are fewer jobs, and the massive federal debt rises, diminishing the value of the dollar.

But many Americans have no clue about what I just said, and enough of them want free stuff so they continue to elect pro-entitlement politicians. So ObamaCare is much more than providing medical assets to the poor, it's about capitalism vs. socialism. But now, because the law is so nebulous, the Supreme Court will once again get the chance to weigh in, perhaps this time dooming the law forever.
Which is just ridiculous, it's not socialism or income redistribution, it's simply helping people to afford health care, which actually saves the country money because then they are not only going to emergency rooms they get the care they need.

Then the former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was on to discuss it.

Goolsbee said this: "This is not socialism versus capitalism. Everyone has to buy insurance, and all this does is try to keep it so that the most people have to pay is 10% of their income. That's the same sense of redistribution which exists in Medicare."

Goolsbee admitted that the law is poorly written, but predicted it will be upheld by the Supreme Court, saying this: "Conservatives are always talking about 'original intent,' and it's obvious that the original intent of this law was not to prevent subsidies in the states."

Then Ed Henry was on with O'Reilly to cry about President Obama flying around the country to attend fundraisers. Which they never did one time when Bush was doing it.

Henry said this: "He is basically a lame duck, so he is caring less and less about this criticism. This week there are five workdays and on three of them he's raising money. All presidents raise money, but with all these crises, the optics are horrible for him."

Henry added this: "If he loses control of the Senate, he's going to be done if he no longer has Harry Reid pushing his agenda."

O'Reilly objected to the fact that taxpayers are picking up the tab for the these trips, saying this: "All fundraising trips should be paid for by the party, it's unfair for a president to spend the majority of his time fundraising for his party while all Americans pay."

But when Bush did it O'Reilly never said a word, nothing.

Then Bob Beckel was on to say what the USA should do about the crash site in Russia and the ongoing investigation.

Beckel said this: "You need to secure this site, but the United States should not do it unilaterally. It's not worth us going in there and take the chance of losing American troops."

Beckel also urged stronger economic sanctions against Russia, saying this: "Putin is a rat but he's vastly overestimated. The United States has done some limited sanctions, but the Europeans are aiding and abetting Putin. If the Europeans had the guts to cut off oil and gas from Russia, that would choke this guy economically."

Then Martha MacCallum was on to assess the continuing violence in Chicago.

MacCallum said this: "Four people were killed last weekend, and one of them was an 11-year-old child who was inside a house at a sleepover party. This problem is out of control and I think the president has missed an opportunity to act when it comes to African Americans. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has cut back the police force and they've done nothing to lift the gun ban that has been in place since 1980."

O'Reilly slammed the mayor and the police, saying this: "If the city of Chicago can't control the violence on the South Side, the governor of Illinois should send in the National Guard to patrol these neighborhoods."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Dangers of a Zoned-Out Life. Billy said this: "Anyone who chooses to live their life in a drug or alcohol induced haze is wasting their abilities and mistreating their fellow citizens."

Rick Perry National Guard Order Illegal & Maybe Unconstitutional
By: Steve - July 24, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly supports it, because he is also a Republican who has been calling for Obama to send the National Guard to the border, O'Reilly said this Monday night:
O'REILLY: "I believe this is the right move and it puts Governor Perry in the spotlight for the presidential campaign. Just those pictures of the National Guard on the border will suppress the smuggling industry in Central America."
And now the facts: Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said Monday he will send 1,000 members of the National Guard to the border.

"I will not stand idly by," Perry said in making the announcement. He told CNN, "the first thing you have to do is stop the flow [of migrants into the United States]."

He also claimed border patrol agents would be distracted by kids crossing the border and would not be able to stop drug traffickers.

But other lawmakers are questioning what role the National Guard could play. The influx of unaccompanied children whose border crossing have been tallied are already being intercepted by border patrol agents, which is how they are later processed and sheltered in the United States during legal proceedings.

The LAW requires that these minors be sheltered while they await legal determinations about whether they have an asylum claim because they are being persecuted in their home countries. And no amount of troops at the border will change the law that requires minors to be at least temporarily housed in the United States.

"The children fleeing violence in Central America are seeking out border patrol agents. They are not trying to evade them. Why send soldiers to confront these kids?" said Congressman Joaquín Castro (D-TX), slamming Perry for militarizing a humanitarian situation. "Militarizing our border is the wrong response to the arrival of children."

State Sen. Juan Hinojosa also accused Perry of politicizing the issue without actually fixing the problem of an influx of kids fleeing violence. Sheriff Omar Luci, who oversees Cameron County near the border, also suggested Perry's move was political. "I don't know that it helps," he told the Dallas Morning News.

Some sheriffs near the border note that National Guard troops would not be authorized to detain people, and that funds would be better spent on more local deputies and equipment.

Even the head of the National Guard under George W. Bush said earlier this week that he has not yet heard a clear rationale for sending troops to the border. "I'm not sure we've clearly defined the question, and until that is done I am reluctant to tell you that the Guard is the answer," H. Steven Blum told the Washington Post.

"Merely sending the Guard to the border is not a panacea for the myriad complex problems of the current situation."

Perry's move could also run into constitutional problems. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause prohibits states from interfering with areas of regulation that have been preempted by the federal government, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already invalidated provisions of state law that seek to legislate on immigration reform.

Washington and Lee University law professor Margaret Hu said this provision could suffer similar constitutional problems, particularly because it interferes with national security and Department of Homeland Security policies also.

Perry's announcement comes several days after several Republican House of Representatives members introduced a resolution calling on Perry and several other governors in border states to send National Guard troops to the border.

The resolution "recognizes, supports, and defends the Constitutional authority" of these governors to send troops to the border, and urges them to immediately deploy troops. But this, too, raises constitutional flags.

The resolution also commits to covering the cost of the troops -- estimated to be $5 million per week just in Texas. The state is already spending $1.3 million on a state-funded border surge.

The Tuesday 7-22-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 23, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: How Some Americans Are Giving President Obama Cover. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most Americans believe the USA is in trouble on many fronts and they are holding President Obama accountable for some of the distress, but not all. The president understands that many Americans are not paying attention to what is happening overseas; a majority don't even want to fight terrorists who are surging in Iraq.

Apparently many of us do not see the danger of the ISIS army establishing a base inside Iraq, a base that could threaten the USA. Most Americans do not know what the ISIS army is, they don't know that Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon, and they don't know that Israel is pretty much saying it won't tolerate a nuclear Iran, so war may be looming.

In this age of social media, Americans are becoming more apathetic, more concerned with their wallets and personal lives. Talking Points believes many Americans simply don't understand how weakness is putting us in danger. President Kennedy knew that peace through strength is the only way security happens. I wish President Obama knew that.
And as usual, O'Reilly is wrong. Most Americans still think America is a great country and things are getting better after Bush and the Republicans crashed the economy in 2008. The economy is doing good, jobs are back, unemployment is down, the stock market is setting record highs, and overall the country is doing good, not great, but good.

O'Reilly ignores all that to focus on foreign affairs, that nobody cares about, and slamming Obama every chance he can. To this day he still has not reported the unemployment drop, the June jobs report, or the stock market breaking 17,000. It's total one sided right-wing bias from O'Reilly, and it's a joke, especially from a man who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

Then Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it.

Powers said this: "I don't think you're wrong if you're saying Obama is not as engaged as he should be. Before the election he actually had high ratings on foreign policy and they've come down a lot because Americans feel there is a lot of chaos in the world. I would defend him in some areas, such as leaving Iraq, but in other areas I would say he has not been engaged."

Crowley said this: "Sometimes you have to do what is unpopular with your own people in order to advance your nation's interest and we don't see that happening. The public is world-weary and the economy has been so bad for so long that they're worried about their own jobs, but there are also a lot of low-information voters out there who either don't know or don't care to know about what's going on in the world."

Then Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was on to talk about his swim across the Rio Grande to demonstrate the method used by some illegals to enter the USA.

Ramos said this: "I learned that it is really dangerous. There are strong undercurrents, it is full of debris and contaminated, and in the last 9 months 33 people have drowned in the Laredo area. But in spite of the danger, Central American children prefer to cross the river than stay home. I don't think any government should be in the business of deporting endangered children - that's not the Christian way, it's not the American way. These are refugees."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed and reminded Ramos that children are in danger all over the world and America can not welcome them all, saying this: "We have to stop them from coming, and we should have quick hearings for the ones who are already here. If their lives are in danger back home, certainly that should be taken into consideration."

Then get Congress to change the damn law, or shut up about it, not to mention Bush signed the law and O'Reilly never mentions that, while blaming Obama for it, which is just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had the conservative author Jason Riley on to talk about his new book that argues liberalism and big government actually harm black Americans. Which is not just wrong, it's insane. But O'Reilly agrees with him so he had him on to promote his ridiculous book.

Riley said this: "The media continues to run to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to talk on behalf of black people, but all they want to talk about is what whites should be doing, not what blacks should be doing on behalf of themselves. They want a narrative out there that all the problems in the black community are a result of white racism, not a result of black behavior."

Riley even tried to explain why black men in particular have struggled over the past decades, saying this: "It's because of the approach taken by the Great Society programs. Blacks ultimately must help themselves, they have to develop the same habits and attitudes that other groups had. Open-ended welfare policies don't help a group develop a work ethic, they don't help encourage responsible parenting or child-bearing. The government needs to stop helping!"

O'Reilly then lauded Riley, but also questioned what to do to help children in truly chaotic situations, saying this: "If you're a born into a poor home and your father is gone, the message of self-reliance never even gets to the kid."

So let me get this straight, these two wealthy right-wing idiots say that helping poor black Americans actually hurts them, it's not only a lie, it's proven right-wing propaganda.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the federal court ruling Tuesday that the federal government can not give Americans subsidies to buy health insurance, which is a foundation of ObamaCare. But another court simultaneously came to the exact opposite conclusion. Without telling you the first federal court was a majority of Republicans, and most legal experts say their ruling will not stand.

Wiehl said this: "Both courts are looking at the same statute, which says that only the states can pay subsidies. One court said that is open to interpretation, but they are not reading the plain meaning of the law."

Kimberly Guilfoyle turned to the 36-year-old Texas woman who tried to mail ricin-laced letters to President Obama, saying this: "She was having problems with her husband and she tried to frame him by mailing these letters. She pleaded guilty, the judge sentenced her to 18 years and a fine of $367,000. She's a mother of six who gave birth in custody."

Then the Republican Tom Shillue was on to talk about a new poll, that says tens of millions of Americans believe in various conspiracy theories. With no Democratic guest on for balance. Comedian Tom Shillue reacted to the fact that 23% of Americans don't believe President Obama is an American citizen.

Shillue said this: "This doesn't surprise me. I think we all know he was born in Hawaii, but a lot of Americans don't know Hawaii is in the United States. And I'm inclined to believe them - what is Hawaii other than a volcano in the ocean floor. So the president was born on a big lump of magma, he may not be a citizen and I think he should be impeached!"

Shillue was more serious about the 24% of Americans who believe the government knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, saying this: "This gets me angry. If you think that we knew about 9/11 before it happened, why would you stay here? I would go to the Galapagos Islands."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting two more right-wing books.

Gene Simmons Clueless About The 1% And Taxes People Pay
By: Steve - July 23, 2014 - 10:00am

Gene Simmons, bassist and frontman of KISS, said something in an interview last week that caught the attention of Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler.

Simmons said this: "The 1 percent pays 80 percent of all taxes. Fifty percent of the population of the U.S. pays no taxes. The 1 percent provides all the jobs for everybody else. If the 1 percent didn't exist, there would be chaos and the American economy would drop dead."

That statement got him four Pinocchios, the blog's highest rating for "whoppers."

Kessler notes that Simmons ridiculous claims echo the infamous 47% comments by Mitt Romney, who the rocker supported for president in 2012. But while Romney said the 47% "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them," pay no income tax, Simmons claimed they don't pay any taxes at all.

Which is a lie, just because someone is not paying INCOME tax does not mean they are not paying payroll taxes, state taxes, city taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, etc. which contributes to programs like Social Security and Medicare.

But even worse than the "no taxes" claim is the idea that the 1% pays 80% of all taxes. Kessler wrote this:
KESSLER: The top 1 percent actually pays about 26 percent of all federal taxes. (A report from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy pegs the figure at nearly 24 percent if state and local taxes are included.)

Even if you count only income taxes, it works out to 34 percent. Note that the top 1 percent pays just 4 percent of payroll taxes, as the burden of those taxes falls more heavily on the lower and middle classes.
Simmons may enjoy the 1% lifestyle, but he needs to get his facts straight, The top 1 percent does pay a large share of taxes (and has a large share of income) but his claims are just wrong, especially when talking about all taxes.

And the working men and women who pay most of those payroll taxes earn that money working real jobs, not being CEO's and Rock Stars, who mostly pay taxes by making money with money, not sweating at backbreaking jobs doing manual labor. Simmons is your typical right-wing clueless rich guy, and most likely a jerk.

The Monday 7-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 22, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is President Obama Misusing his Power? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama is misusing presidential power, but not in the way you might think. Some presidents have misused their powers in aggressive ways, such as Richard Nixon intimidating witnesses in the Watergate case or Lyndon Johnson misleading the people about the war in Vietnam. Today we have a president who is misusing his power by not using that power to solve vital problems.

The Obama administration was told a year ago that organized criminals were beginning to smuggle children into the USA in great numbers. The president could have cracked down, but he did not and now the USA will have to deal with about 100,000 desperate children. Then we have the ISIS terror army, which has taken over a third of Iraq and is now persecuting Christians. What has President Obama done to the ISIS army?

U.S. intelligence warned the president that Islamic militants were gathering power in Syria, but he did nothing to stop that. And finally, there is Putin, who armed the terrorists in Ukraine with rockets that shot down the Malaysian plane. President Obama has slapped a few sanctions on Putin, but nothing like he could have done. It is quite clear that President Obama does not want to lead in the traditional way; he apparently wants to ruminate about things.

The signal he consistently sends is that America will not right wrongs except in emergency circumstances. But he doesn't see the border incursion as an emergency, nor does he see the ISIS army as an emergency. Add it all up and you get a misuse of the power that we, the American people, bestowed upon Barack Obama.
Which is just laughable, and all right-wing spin, with no Democratic guest on for balance, just the biased Charles Krauthammer to join the slam Obama club for everything. While ignoring all the good news in America, jobs are back, the stock market is setting records, and the unemployment rate is dropping, all measures of the health of the economy, and O'Reilly ignores it all.

Krauthammer said this: "The president misuses his power on domestic issues, where he writes laws, cancels laws, and changes laws. But on foreign affairs he's so far over his head that he doesn't know what to do. He tries to use moral suasion on a thug like Putin, then he's surprised when nothing actually happens. On the border issue, I think he's immobilized because he's so politically cynical. He has the rest of the country that is appalled and aghast that we have lost control of the border. So he does nothing."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss the growing criticism of President Obama's tendency to golf and raise money while the world burns. Criticism that is only coming from right-wing loons btw. Something O'Reilly does not mention, or the fact that the same people said nothing when Bush did it.

Ham said this: "Presidents can do things like golf and take vacations, and run the country at the same time. But the sense of the American people is that he is only doing the politicking."

But Williams defended President Obama's leisure activities, saying this: "It doesn't matter to anybody but the president's harshest critics that he would have burger with the American people. This is about people who don't like President Obama trying to shame him, and they're doing it on very weak grounds."

O'Reilly said this: "I don't begrudge him playing golf, the president has to clear his mind. But this president is now setting a frivolous tone."

Which is just laughable, and O'Reilly would never say that about a Republican President who did the very same thing. And btw folks, Juan Williams was the only Democratic guest on the entire show, and he had to be on with the 2 Republicans O'Reilly and Ham, so it was an unfair 2 on 1 segment anyway. Not to mention Williams is barely a Democrat who even admitted he leans right most of the time.

Basically the entire show was an hour long Obama slamfest with 99% right-wing guests, and almost no Democrats for balance, even though O'Reilly claims to personally make sure he has a balanced guest list.

Then Brit Hume was on to assess the performance of Secretary of State John Kerry, saying this: "It's very much a work in progress, and we can't really assess his performance because these things are all still boiling. But I can think of only one thing that has been a success, which is that he negotiated the deal under which there will be a recount in Afghanistan. That showed some skill and finesse and it was a good thing. As for the Israelis and Palestinians, he tried to broker a full-scale deal. It didn't work, but many other secretaries of state and presidents have also tried and failed."

Then Karl Rove was on, he talked about Texas Governor Rick Perry, who announced that he will deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico.

Rove said this: "I think he's more interested in getting this problem solved than in the political consequences. But there is a danger for Perry because there is a qualitative difference in having the National Guard brought forward by the president or by a governor. If the president does it, you can integrate the Guard with the Border Patrol agents, but Governor Perry doesn't have any authority over the Border Patrol. It would be much more effective if the president did it."

And of course the Republican O'Reilly praised Perry's decision, saying this: "I believe this is the right move and it puts Governor Perry in the spotlight for the presidential campaign. Just those pictures of the National Guard on the border will suppress the smuggling industry in Central America."

Except Perry is a total moron who can not even remember his own policies, and will never be elected President by the people who have a brain.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a Texas group called Cop Block, that follows police officers and records their activities, purportedly to discourage police brutality.

Kelly said this: "The bad behavior by some cops gets so much media coverage, that in some communities they get a reputation as bad people. This group says they don't hate the cops, they say they're about accountability, but the problem is that no one has hired them or asked them to provide that service. But this is legal in all 50 states - you're allowed to film the police as long as they're in a public place."

In other words, O'Reilly and Kelly do not want the regular folks filming the police to make sure they do not break laws because it makes them look bad, when it's 100% legal. Even after recent video of cops punching a helpless woman in the face, and choking a guy to death, even though choke holds are illegal. Now imagine what they are doing we do not see on video. So much for O'Reilly supporting the regular folks, what a joke.

And btw, O'Reilly ignores all these cop abuse stories, he does not report them, proving he is biased, and a fool that should be sued for calling himself a journalist who is looking out for the little guy.

Then the moron Jesse Watters was on, even though he has zero journalistic credibility, he took his crew and curiosity to the liberal Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he asked locals what the federal government owes to its poorer citizens.

Some of their replies: "Why can't poor people eat lobster?" ... "People should get $100,000 per year" ... "If people like movies, give them DVD players and TVs" ... "Free Red Sox tickets would be pretty cool."

And what they do not tell you is that a lot of those comments were made as a joke and people being sarcastic. Ask yourself why O'Reilly never sends the worthless Watters to talk to right-wing nuts who are prepping for doomsday or any of those loons.

Back in the studio, Watters concluded that the folks in Cambridge are extraordinarily generous with other people's money, saying this: "One guy said we should give poor people a two-family house in Cape Cod and walking-around money. Five out of the eight people I interviewed were Harvard students and they want free stuff."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Consider Some Consideration. Billy said this: "When you're out in public, whether on the road or in a shop or on the street, try to be considerate of other people. To do otherwise makes you a selfish pinhead."

Crazy Congressional Staffer Arrested For Gun In Capitol Building
By: Steve - July 22, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course he is a Republican gun nut, who somehow thought it was ok to carry a pistol without a license, which is a felony btw.This is how far-right the Republican party is in America now, and what a shocker, not. O'Reilly ignored the entire story.

Rep. Tom Marino's (R-PA) press secretary was arrested Friday for bringing a gun into the U.S. Capitol building. Ryan Shucard, press secretary for the congressman brought a 9mm handgun and magazine into one of the House office buildings, but was stopped by Capitol Police and detained.

He is being charged with carrying a pistol without a license, a felony.

Shucard was placed on unpaid leave that will last until we know more about the situation, Marino's chief of staff, Bill Tighe said. Another official tells the Washington Post that Shucard brought the gun by accident, which is just laughable. And it is not legal anywhere in the District of Columbia (Congress or otherwise) to carry a pistol without a license.

The arrest comes just two days after another member of Congress, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is pushing to change gun laws in the District by denying any appropriations to city government to enforce its own gun laws. Because DC is only a semi-autonomous district and not a state, its laws are in the hands of members of Congress from other districts, like Massie, who sometimes seek to use it as a political playground.

Massie's appropriations amendment doesn't actually change DC law, it simply forbids the District from spending its own money on enforcing any gun law, according to the most recent version of the text:
None of the funds made available by this Act, including amounts made available under titles IV or VIII, may be used by any authority of the government of the District of Columbia to enforce any provision of the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Law 17-372), the Inoperable Pistol Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Law 17-388) the Firearms Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-170), or the Administrative Disposition for Weapons Offenses Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-295).
Massie's fellow Kentuckian, Senator Rand Paul, has made similar proposals in the past, tacking onto a bill for DC autonomy two amendments: one saying DC residents need to be able to carry concealed weapons, and another that more firearms dealers should be allowed in the District.

Of course, Massie's law would not affect Congressional grounds, because Congress, while in DC, sets its own separate rules. And even if it passed, it still would not be allowed for Shucard to bring in a pistol as he did on Friday.

Obama Signing Executive Order Countering Hobby Lobby Ruling
By: Steve - July 21, 2014 - 10:00am

Friday it was announced that President Obama is not intimidated by Hobby Lobby, or powerful Catholic and evangelical religious leaders, and will sign an executive order on Monday barring discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees doing federal government work. The religious right will not get the religious exemption, or the President's deference to the Christian prerogative.

By not allowing the religious leaders to intimidate him, President Obama drew a demarcation line between religious freedom conservative style and the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal rights for all Americans. The President also sent a powerful message to the religious right that regardless the High Court's ruling, religious liberty is not a license to discriminate; even among so-called Christian friends of the White House.

The President had warned last month that because Republicans in Congress obstructed progress on the anti-bias law, Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), he would take action on his own to protect the LGBT community from religious discrimination in hiring.

The President's order is certain to enrage Bill O'Reilly and his Republican friends who are already angry the White House is working while the right-wing Congress sits on its hands pandering to religious and corporate fascists. But the President's new protections are built on longstanding executive orders dealing with discrimination in hiring that apply to federal contractors approved by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Richard Nixon in 1969, and Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1998.

All Presidents took their oath to defend the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights seriously, but they did not face angry and substantial opposition from the religious liberty crowd like President Obama has.

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Chad Griffin, said that "With the stroke of a pen, the president will have a very real and immediate impact on the lives of millions of L.G.B.T. people across the country. These actions from the president have the potential to be a keystone in the arch of his administration's progress, and they send a powerful message to future administrations and to Congress that anti-L.G.B.T. discrimination must not be tolerated."

The President sent an even more powerful message to the religious right that their plans to use the Hobby Lobby decision as a religious weapon to eviscerate anti-discrimination laws and 14th Amendment equal protection guarantees will not go unchallenged.

Which is why the Hobby Lobby ruling was made by the conservatives on the Supreme Court, so corporations could use it to discriminate against gays using religious arguments. And a FACT O'Reilly never tells you about.

There is no doubt the threat of lengthy and expensive lawsuits against the government by the National Alliance of Evangelicals is empty. In fact, the impetus for the Hobby Lobby lawsuit was as much about fulfilling the Manhattan Declaration mission to abolish anti-discrimination laws as it was banning contraceptives and abortion.

The religious leaders letter demanding the President's deference to the Christian prerogative was a trial to determine how committed he was to protecting equal rights for the LGBT community, and the President's message could not be clearer or more decisive; religious freedom is not freedom to discriminate.

O'Reilly, Fox News, and the religious right celebrated the Hobby Lobby decision as the ticket to use religious freedom to run roughshod over the rights of Americans unwilling to comply with their religious edicts. While they were waving the religious liberty flag, Hobby Lobby ruling, and the Christian bible to intimidate the President of the United States into doing their bidding and authorizing legal discrimination, Barack Obama held up the United States Constitution and said this document, not the Christian bible, is the law of the land.

O'Reilly & His GOP Friends Are Calling For A Border Wall
By: Steve - July 20, 2014 - 10:00am

Where the so-called border crisis is concerned (that is, the sudden influx of refugee children) the Republican Party, its Tea Party leaders, conservative pundits, and various ethnic nationalist militias, are collectively acting like they're in a bath tub suddenly filling with cockroaches.

This is not the Republican Party's finest moment and it is difficult to see how they think their reaction, which includes demonizing innocent refugee children, is going to get them votes either from the Latino community or from sympathetic independents.

And on a practical level, are their ideas to remedy the crisis worthy of serious consideration. You remember Herman Cain's infamous alligator-filled moat and his plan to fry Mexicans on his electrified fence as they cross the border. We've been entertained and horrified by plans to invade Mexico.

Back in June Bill O'Reilly advocated militarizing our border with Mexico. Getting together with Brit Hume, he said that elected Democrats 1) don't want to militarize the border, and 2) don't support tough measures to keep illegal aliens out.

Hume responded that Democrats convictions fit nicely with their politics. He agreed with O'Reilly that this is because it is politically advantageous for Democrats. After all, as he pointed out, the Latino vote is growing all the time.

O'Reilly even claimed that "there is a strain of thought in this country that the Democratic Party actively wants chaos on the border, actively wants millions of people to come here." Brit Hume tried to point to the legalities involved, particularly with the immigrant children bigots are making such a fuss about, but O'Reilly insisted on seeing this as just another layer of a Democratic conspiracy.
O'Reilly: You could militarize that border and you could secure that border.
Hume: Bill, suppose you militarize the border and a bunch of kids are coming across. What are you going to do? Shoot them?
O'Reilly: They wouldn't get in because there would be a wall and a barrier there.
Hume: In other words, you'd have a giant wall across our entire southern border to stop the children from coming.
O'Reilly: To stop everybody from coming.
Hume: I understand that. So that's the O'Reilly Plan.
On July 2nd, Charles Krauthammer appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and advocated a fence:
O'Reilly: How do you secure the border, Charles?
Krauthammer: Alright, here's what I've been on for years. You start with a fence. It's very simple. People say, Oh, fences don't work. You make a ladder. Well, then you build two fences, triple strand fences. San Diego did that in the mid 90's and within a decade, the illegal immigration rate at that point was reduced by 90% and people ended up going through other places like Arizona.

Fences work. Yes, there are parts of the border where you can't have a fence, fine. So you don't have it in those areas and you do heavy patrols. But there is no reason why a rich country like us cannot put a fence across -- a double fence, a triple fence and patrol it all the time. That would have a tremendous impact.
Laura Ingraham, appearing on the same episode, agreed with Krauthammer, saying this:
INGRAHAM: I think Krauthammer is right, we need a wall and/or a fence in the places along the border that that is practical. We have to absolutely have that in place.
On the July 16 edition of The O'Reilly Factor , Bill-O entertained Karl Rove with what he styled Charles Krauthammer's concept of the East German border fence, aka the Berlin Wall. O'Reilly said, "nobody could get through that fence. Nobody. It was a formidable obstacle."

Which is not true, of course. People DID get through that fence. They went over it by zip line, tightrope and hot air balloons just for a start. In fact, some 5,000 people escaped over, under and through the Berlin Wall, forcing the communist government to throw ever more money at it.

The Republican idea of a fortified border certainly sounds imposing, but history has shown big walls don't work. Hadrian's Wall didn't keep the Picts out of Roman Britain; the Great Wall of China did not protect China from either the Huns or the Mongols; the Maginot Line did not keep the Germans out of France, and neither the Atlantic Wall nor the Siegfried Line kept the Allies out of Germany.

As General George S. Patton said, "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."

And to the stupidity of the Republican Party, apparently.

Yet O'Reilly insisted, "The Israeli's have done the same thing," making him wrong again, since the Israeli's are not trying to keep people in, but out. O'Reilly seems to have a problem with ingress and egress, which is not surprising given his hostility toward reality in general. O'Reilly concluded that "We haven't done that on the southern border. That's mistake number one."

O'Reilly then advocated deploying the National Guard "to stop the madness just as you stopped the madness in the Rodney King riots and Hurricane Katrina and all those other things." Since the Obama administration hasn't done these things, O'Reilly concluded that there is a dereliction of leadership here.

O'Reilly seems to totally miss the point that walls have to be manned and patrolled, on both sides. Does he imagine the National Guard will remain on duty forever? How does he think this wall will be funded? Or like Bush's wars, will it not be funded at all?

If we are going to build a wall, we should build it around O'Reilly and the GOP. A symbolic wall, of course, because we know it wouldn't keep Republicans out. They'd just start digging tunnels under it.

Where does the money come from to pay for the wall, or the thousands of troops it would take to patrol it, let alone supply them. O'Reilly says we are broke, so where does the trillions it would cost to build the wall come from, is O'Reilly going to pay for it, not hardly, he is even calling for tax cuts, so how does a bankrupt country pay trillions for a 3000 mile long wall?

O'Reilly has no answer to that question, and never will, because it will never happen. Because any political party that votes to build a wall will lose all the latino votes and never win another election, so it will never ever happen, and O'Reilly is a fool to even suggest it, let alone say it's a failure of leadership by Obama, when no Republican Presidents have done it either, and never will.

Boehner's Obama Lawsuit Leads To Massive Democratic Fundraising
By: Steve - July 19, 2014 - 10:00am

Thank you John Boehner. Because of you the Democratic party is taking in massive amounts of money.

John Boehner's lawsuit against the president is seriously wounding Republicans. The DCCC announced that they had outraised Republicans in June, $25.3 million to $10.9 million.

Congressional Democrats have $50.9 million in the bank, and $18.4 million more than they had at this point in 2012. As of June, House Democrats have $8.4 million cash advantage over House Republicans.

DCCC Chairman Steve Israel said this: "Whether it's the Republicans shutdown or the lawsuit against President Obama, their misguided priorities and damaging agenda are energizing our supporters to elect commonsense leaders who will stand up for the middle class. While Republicans cater to the most radical elements of their party, Democrats will continue to fight to end the damaging dysfunction and focus on strengthening the economy for middle-class families."

The cash advantage is already starting to payoff for Democrats. According to the DCCC, "The impact of the DCCC's fundraising dominance is becoming clear, when the DCCC reserved $14 million more than the NRCC in fall ad time in 10 more districts. In addition, the DCCC has massively expanded its investment in field operations and put staff on the ground in dozens of districts starting in January, six months earlier than ever before."

On the other side of the aisle, House Republicans are so broke that they are having to strong arm members to pay their dues. There is serious concern among Republicans that the lack of funds could cost them seats in November. The national Republican Party and outside groups are putting their resources behind capturing the Senate, so many incumbent House Republicans are on their own.

Speaker Boehner's gimmick lawsuit against President Obama has misfired on many levels. Politically, it has energized Democrats instead of Republicans.

Financially, House Democrats have been able to raise millions of dollars off of the Speaker's decision to sue the president. The lawsuit also gave Democrats a ready issue that allowed them to make the Republican refusal to do their jobs for the benefit of the American people a central theme of the campaign.

John Boehner has harmed the Republican Party with his lawsuit. Democrats are invading districts earlier than ever, and they are organizing voters to come out in November. House Republicans may be counting their chickens a bit too soon. If Boehner and the GOP aren't careful, Democrats will be gaining House seats this November.

The Thursday 7-17-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 18, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A plane goes down in Ukraine and Israel launches military operations. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There was a savage display over the skies of Ukraine Thursday, with killers firing a missile at a civilian airliner and killing 298 people. Also, Israel has sent ground troops into Palestinian territory to hunt down Hamas terrorists and their rocket arsenals. Hundreds have been killed there.

So there is bad news all over the place tonight, and we begin with the jetliner. The Malaysian Airlines flight was shot out of the sky over eastern Ukraine, and suspicion immediately fell on separatists who want part of Ukraine to be annexed by Russia. Vladimir Putin is supplying the heavy weapons to these terrorists so he is directly responsible.

Over the next few days you will hear the usual calls for investigations and meetings and discussions, but little will happen to Putin because the West is essentially afraid of him. The families and friends of 298 human beings grieve tonight. Is Putin grieving?
Then James Rosen was on, he said this: "Senior U.S. officials have confirmed that the plane was shot down by a BUK surface-to-air missile, which is the very category of missile that the rebels in eastern Ukraine have boasted about having acquired. Ukraine officials say they have phone intercepts that directly implicate two Russian military intelligence officials in this attack, but the Kremlin has issued a statement attributing responsibility for this incident to Ukraine. This stands to escalate the whole Ukraine crisis and tensions in U.S.-Russian relations to a new level."

Then Wall Street Journal foreign affairs columnist Bret Stephens was on, he said this: "We have to establish a chain of responsibility here. The military commander of the separatist group in Ukraine was believed to have been a member of the successor to the KGB, and the connection between these separatists and Russia is undeniable. The question is whether Obama is going to pursue the same strategy he did after Crimea, which is condemn and forget, or whether there will be a genuine change of American policy towards Russia."

Then Ed Henry was on to cry about Obama doing fundraisers, even though they never said a word about Bush doing fundraisers during his 8 years.

President Obama spent his Thursday night at a New York City fundraiser, and Henry said this about it: "It's hard to argue with the imagery of this. Last week he was fundraising in Texas and said he wouldn't go to the border because he's not interested in photo-ops. But what did he do today as this crisis was unfolding? A photo-op with a single mom in Delaware and then an event to push for more highway funding."

O'Reilly said he was perplexed by the president's priorities: "This fundraising in the face of intense situations makes President Obama look bad, but he doesn't seem to care. He's here at an apartment on the Upper West Side charging $32,000 a head."

Then James Carville and Republican Kate Obenshain talked about the president's fundraisers.

Obenshain said this: "This is stunning and I am lacking words. It's not just the fundraisers, which are bad enough. But in his speech today on transportation he gave 40 seconds to the airline, which he called a potential tragedy, then proceeded to launch into jokes for the rest of the speech."

Carville argued that President Obama remains engaged and on top of events, saying this: "They're getting the information and they've already implemented sanctions against Russia. You can dispute whether the optics are good or bad, but I don't think it's irresponsible for him to be at a fundraiser."

Then David Lee Miller and John Huddy were on to talk about Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Huddy said this: "There has been a lot of heavy artillery fire. There were just two tremendous explosions from air strikes and we've seen a lot of cannon fire. We've also heard machine gun fire which signals the fact that troops are now on the ground."

Miller added that Israel has been planning the invasion for weeks, saying this: "Some 58,000 reservists have already been called up and apparently the decision to do this was made a few days ago. The talk of a cease fire in the past few days was just talk and a diversion."

Then Jennifer Griffin and Michael Rubin were on to talk more about the plane that was shot down.

Griffin said this: "The State Department is not commenting on reports that there were 23 Americans on board. They released a list breaking down other countries, but there were 46 people unaccounted for. If this was an S-300 missile, and they are investigating that, only Russia has the S-300. That would be a real game-changer if it was actually fired from Russian territory."

Rubin blamed President Obama for the crisis, saying this: "Isolationism doesn't work. When you ignore a problem it metastasizes and that's exactly what we saw in Ukraine. What really scares me is that this isn't just about the Ukraine and Russia. Thousands of missiles have gone missing in Libya because we led from behind."

Which is just laughable, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Because if Obama had done something then the right-wing stooges would blame him for doing something, they just blame everything on Obama to make him look bad when he had nothing to do with any of it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly begging Attorney General Eric Holder to come on his biased show.

O'Reilly Delusional: Claims His Book Was Ignored By The Media
By: Steve - July 18, 2014 - 10:00am

It's official, Bill O'Reilly has lost his mind. On the Wednesday night Factor show he claimed the media has ignored his book, which is not only ridiculous, it's a 100% flat out lie.

Here is the video:



And now here are the facts:

On his Fox News show Wednesday, Bill O'Reilly wrapped up the program by asserting that his endlessly promoted book Killing Jesus "has been pretty much ignored in the media."

The statement came as part of his "tip of the day segment," where he encouraged viewers to be skeptical of what they read online.

And after that tip they also might want to be skeptical of what they see on cable TV news shows on Fox.

Has O'Reilly's book, which was released in September, been ignored by the news media? Not hardly.

When the book was released, O'Reilly went on the type of promotional tour Kris Jenner would kill one of her children for, here is a partial listing of the media coverage for his book:

-- Killing Jesus was reviewed Sep. 23 in USA Today.
-- On Sep. 29, O'Reilly hawked his book on CBS's 60 Minutes.
-- On Sep. 30, he did the same on NBC's Today.
-- On Oct. 1, it was ABC's The View. He showed up again on Apr. 16, 2014.
-- On Oct. 30, he was on Katie to promote the book.
-- O'Reilly appeared on CBS's Late Show in Oct. 2013 and again in Mar. 2014.
-- Erik Wemple at the Washington Post critiqued the book on Nov. 11.
-- On Nov. 16, O'Reilly was on Tonight Show to promote the book.
-- On May. 19, O'Reilly pitched his book on ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live.
-- Again at the Washington Post, Sally Quinn published a conversation she had with the author about the book. That was as recent as Mar. 21.

If that's being ignored, I'm Elvis.

The Wednesday 7-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 17, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Americans outraged over the border situation. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Gallup asked more than 1,000 adults this question: 'What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?' 17% say 'immigration/illegal aliens,' which is up from just 3% in January. Second is dissatisfaction with government, and third is the economy. So the porous border and foreign children suffering because of it is the most important issue the nation is facing.

The main culprit for the latest humanitarian disaster is President Obama and it is up to him to fix the problem. The DEA has an intelligence arm which recently interviewed 230 illegal aliens who were detained on the border. 219 of them say the primary reason people from Central America are coming here illegally is that they believe they can stay.

The myth that the far left is putting out, that Central American countries are actively harming their populations, is destroyed by that survey. The border chaos is directly affecting all parts of the USA; some governors are condemning the Obama administration for not informing them before they move illegal aliens into their states. That's atrocious!

Talking Points has pinpointed the problem - there is very little leadership coming out of the White House or Congress on almost every issue. Because of that, America is drifting into very dangerous territory. A war may break out in the Middle East, terrorism is on the rise, and illegal aliens continue to flood into the country without consequence.

Americans have to make their disenchantment loud and clear by directly contacting Senators and Representatives and by voting in November. Let's throw the bums out!
And what O'Reilly did not tell you is that the immigration poll numbers are a temporary spike, the 17% is up from 5% in June. Most of which is Republicans voting in the poll, and the right-wing media crying about it all the time. It has spiked before up to 10% then drops back down to 5% or so. Most people still worry more about the economy and jobs then they do about illegal immigration.

Then Karl Rove was on, he said this: "The failure of the president's leadership on this, is going to gravely hurt him, in part because it is bollixed up with a lot of other things. We're looking at the world melting down, the economy not good, and the president's leadership on the border is appalling. I do not understand why he didn't go to the border and use the prestige of his office."

O'Reilly reminded Rove that his former boss George W. Bush, as well as many other presidents, also failed to secure the border, saying this: "We have not built a secure fence on the border and we have not put the National Guard at the border. There is a dereliction of leadership and I think it's political."

Duh, of course it's political, neither party want to make the Latinos mad because then they will not vote for them.

Then Ed Henry was on with his take on the administration's demeanor, saying this: "I don't see a sense of panic. They think that a lot of the problems are being exaggerated and they do not see that it's spiraling out of control. They understand that the public is not happy with the crisis, but they simply don't think it's the president's fault. They believe that if Republicans had worked with the president on border security and immigration reform that maybe we'd be in a better place."

Then the Republican Senator Marco Rubio was on to talk about the situation at the Mexican border.

Rubio said this: "I would never have signed an executive action granting deferred action to those who are in this country illegally. That sent a message that invited people to come and you see the disaster that has followed. There needs to be an all-out effort to finally put to rest the illegal immigration problem. This involves the construction of strategic fencing and also the deployment of technologies to secure the border with Mexico."

Rubio also recommended that children here illegally be sent back to their countries, saying this: "The leading reason why this is happening is because word of mouth is spreading, that if you make it to the United States as an unaccompanied minor or as a family with children you will be treated differently than adults who are traveling by themselves. That word gets back, people see that they've made the voyage safely."

Then Gretchen Carlson was on to talk about a Fourth of July parade in Nebraska included a float resembling an outhouse that was labeled "Obama Presidential Library."

The Justice Department, under criticism for avoiding other issues, is actually investigating the float's creator. Carlson said this: "The Justice Department sent a representative to Nebraska, someone who investigates discrimination disputes. There was a meeting with the NAACP and the mayor of this small town. The DOJ certainly has bigger fish to fry - maybe they could put a special prosecutor on the IRS situation or Benghazi or other big things that are happening."

And of course no Democratic guest was on to comment, and O'Reilly downplayed it saying it was nothing. But if it was done to a Republican President they would have a different story. It was racist, and maybe even hate speech. I would say it was even un-American. But when liberals did things (almost the same) to Bush O'Reilly reported it every time and called for them to be investigated by the feds.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Read With Caution. Billy said this: "Always, always be extra-skeptical about what you read on the Internet and elsewhere."

And I would say to always be careful what you believe from O'Reilly and Fox News, because usually 90% of it is right-wing spin on the news. O'Reilly spins the news as much as anyone, if not more than anyone else.

O'Reilly Takes Extreme Far-Right Personhood Position
By: Steve - July 17, 2014 - 10:00am

Here is more proof Bill O'Reilly is a far-right, pro-life lunatic, despite his claims of being a non-partisan Independent. Tuesday night O'Reilly said that because human DNA is present upon conception, if the woman takes any kind of pill or anything to stop the DNA from becoming a child it is an abortion.

Which is ridiculous, and only the far-right extreme Republicans believe that, it is not a scientific fact, and the Supreme Court has ruled that you are not a person until the sperm eggs have been fertilized. In fact, the US Supreme Court ruled it is not a person until the boy or girl could live on it's own outside the womb.

That is the law, the law O'Reilly claims to go by. So even though DNA is present at conception it is still not a person yet. And anyone who says it is are lying to you, they are nothing but far-right fools.

Bill O'Reilly is an old Republican Catholic who hates abortion and those women who access what is their constitutional right. His pro-life zealotry included relentless attacks on the abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller, which contributed to a climate of hate in which the doctor was murdered by a religiously motivated man whose anti-choice views squared nicely with those of O'Reilly.

And now that the US Senate will be taking up legislation that would reverse a number of radical anti-choice state laws, Billy is not happy. Tuesday night, in attacking Democratic senators who support this bill, he claimed the DNA present at conception argument of the radical, pro-life personhood crowd was true.

O'Reilly said this: "As we know, human DNA is present upon conception. That has caused some people to question whether abortion is the destruction of a human being."

He did mention that "the Supreme Court has rule otherwise in Roe V Wade which is the law of the land." But he also noted that some states, like Texas, are passing laws which make abortion "tougher to get."

Then the pro-life Kirsten Powers who, along with Bill, has attacked women who have late term abortions and who, along with Megyn Kelly, attacked TX legislator Wendy Davis, described the legislative effort as "an election year stunt."

She added that this is an attempt to "get women ginned up" about the "so-called war on women." She described the proposed legislation as "destructive" and then told a lie and speculated that the laws were "put in place to make clinics safer."

The TRAP laws, which impose unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers, are opposed by the medical community. Then she continued to spew out pro-life talking points by morphing what happened at the Gosnell clinic with safe, legal abortions and claiming that these laws were created in response to women who have died.

O'Reilly then lied when he said that most of the laws involve waiting periods when, in reality, the newest batch of pro-life laws is aimed at clinics and doctors. O'Reilly attacked the two Democrats (Sen. Blumenthal and Baldwin) whose efforts to spearhead this new law which disturbs him. He reiterated his pro-life talking point about DNA at conception "that's beyond any debate."

He accused the senators and those who are pro-choice of not caring about the DNA and wanting lots of easy abortion "with no moral consideration attached to it." He asked "who are these people to reject human DNA?"

Powers responded that they dispute that the DNA "makes a human life. In condemning not just the Senators but all those who are pro-choice, he shouted that they "dispute this with no data whatsoever and that is disturbing."

In speaking with the conservative pro-life Monica Crowley, O'Reilly continued to attack the Democratic senators by asking if "there is something morally wrong" with their position which he spun as "wanting as many abortions as we can have."

And btw, the debate was with 3 pro-life guests, no pro-choice guests were on the show to be in the debate, ever, so it was 3 pro-lifers all agreeing with each other.

Crowley said that rather than "Women's Health Protection Act," she wants to see the "baby health protection act." She was appalled that Democrats are "heavily invested in protecting women and reproductive rights."

She claimed that while Democrats want lots of tax payer funded abortions, the majority of people are "pro-life" and don't agree with what is being proposed by Senate Democrats. O'Reilly said that the "good news" is that it won't get through congress.

Which is also a lie, because what Democrats want is for a woman to have a choice to do what is legal with her own body. We do not think we have the rights to tell a woman to have or not have an abortion, we feel that decision is between the woman, her doctor, her boyfriend or husband, and her family.

We do not support abortions, and we do not think they should be done, unless the woman or her doctor decides she needs to have one. And just because there is DNA does not mean it's a person, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that and it is the law of the land. They said the eggs are not a person until after the fetus could live outside the womb.

This is the law and we liberals go by it, unlike O'Reilly and his pro-life friends who refuse to go by the law because of religious reasons.

The Tuesday 7-15-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 16, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The unintended consequences of illegal immigration. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Whenever a dangerous situation is ignored it is likely to get worse. In the Middle East, the Obama administration sat back while a terrorist army gained strength in Syria; now ISIS controls a vast amount of territory and is threatening the world. Same thing on American's southern border, which has not been secured by the Obama administration.

This year alone we may have 100,000 foreign children to care for, which has angered many Americans, including some minorities who back President Obama on just about everything. It's easy to understand why poor Americans resent the illegal immigration intrusion, and there are other big problems as well.

The feds are now shipping illegal aliens all over the country without informing the states what's going on. Obviously President Obama is facing a crisis over illegal immigration. On his watch more than 2-million illegal aliens have been apprehended, but many of them have been allowed to stay in the USA.

Nobody really knows how many illegal aliens are here, but we do know that the Border Control can't control the situation. It's inconceivable that the huge influx of foreign children will not hurt Americans. There comes a time when Americans have to realistically assess their federal government. That assessment is grim and getting worse by the week.
Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin, because nobody really cares but O'Reilly and his racist right-wing friends. Illegal immigration is a non-issue to most people, they have jobs to go to and they really do not care.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the legality of the federal government secretly transporting illegal immigrant children to various states.

Wiehl said this: "That is legal as the law is written. The Supreme Court has ruled that immigration is the purview of the federal government only, so if there's a conflict between the feds and a state, the feds win."

Guilfoyle pointed out that states and localities are shelling out big money to house and educate illegal alien children, saying this: "Just the language issues are a strain, not to mention the medical issues. But the federal government has widespread authority and they're saying to the states, 'We're in charge, we're the big boss, you're going to do what we tell you to do."

And they do it in secret because if they told the States every right-wing nut in the country would meet them and protest it. Possibly causing riots.

Then Michael Wildes and Heather MacDonald were on to talk about the American Civil Liberties Union, who has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of children who have crossed the border illegally.

MacDonald said this: "The ACLU is claiming that anyone under the age of 18 who comes into the country illegally should have a taxpayer-funded attorney to fight any immigration proceedings. This is unprecedented, they're asking for something that no American has the right to ask for."

Wildes endorsed the lawsuit, saying this: "We have a broken immigration system and this is a humanitarian initiative for children who face an adversarial system. There are 100,000 children at our border and we care about kids."

Then ABC News Political Director Rick Klein was on to talk about some members of the White House press corps who have become noticeably tougher on President Obama's spokesman Josh Earnest.

Klein said this: "I do think you've seen a little more scrutiny of late. There have certainly been more scandals and mini-scandals in the last couple of months, and definitely more reasons to question the Obama foreign policy. We know there is more skepticism and less trust of this president than there was a year ago."

Klein stopped short of saying the administration is failing, saying this: "I don't think there is an overall assessment of failure, but there are a lot of legitimate questions."

Then John Stossel, who has been investigating the potential use of miniature drones to spy on people, reported on the possible consequences.

Stossel said this: "These things are getting cheaper and soon everybody will have one. We have 'Peeping Tom' laws that vary state-by-state, and now this will be worked out in the courts. Right now you can put up a stepladder and look over the fence into your neighbor's yard, and most states would say that is against the law. You have an expectation of privacy in your back yard, and if somebody spies on you and releases that, you can sue them and you'd probably win."

O'Reilly had a warning, saying this: "The high-tech gear will leave us vulnerable to anyone who wants to harm us and get stuff on us."

Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers were on to talk about some Senate Democrats who are pushing for a new law that would obliterate most state restrictions on abortion. In other words, reverse the partisan ruling on the Hobby Lobby case by the 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court.

Powers said this: "This is an election year stunt, and it probably won't even pass the Senate. This is something to get women ginned up in the Democratic base, it's part of the 'war on women' strategy. I also think this is destructive because most of the laws they would like to roll back were put into place to make abortion clinics safe."

Crowley said this: "They're calling this the 'Women's Health Protection Act,' but I would like to see the 'Babies Health Protection Act.' Kirsten's right, they're trying to keep the 'war on women' energized. Democrats are so heavily invested in the abortion industry that they continue to go down this road."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Iran's nuclear program. With no Democratic guest on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "In the long run, this is the most serious threat to the West. Iran is a serious country with advanced industry and tremendous oil resources. It is also the leading sponsor of terror in the world and it is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power. And we are actually negotiating a deal that will leave them on that threshold. It would take Iran one day to destroy Israel if they have a nuclear weapon."

O'Reilly said that this is one of the most important stories of our time, saying this: "This issue is being underreported, what's at stake here is war. There's no way Israel will accept Iran continuing to build a nuclear weapon."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly telling people they should take a tour of the White House once in their life.

O'Reilly Is Lying About Troops On The Border
By: Steve - July 16, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly and the Republican Rick Perry are both being dishonest to the American people. They claim Obama could send the National Guard to the border and it would stop all the children from coming across, even though that is a lie and they know it.

Here are the facts: National Guardsmen cannot apprehend people at the border or turn them away.

The law needs to be changed before that could ever happen, and the Republicans refuse to even bring up a vote on an immigration bill so that will most likely not happen.

O'Reilly blames all the children crossing on Obama, but the law that allows it was passed with all Republicans voting yes. And the current law prevents Obama from doing what O'Reilly wants, so Obama is not to blame at all, and nothing different can be done until the law is changed, National Guard troops on the border will not solve the problem.

The 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act says that undocumented immigrants under eighteen must be placed "in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child" and lays out a step-by-step procedure that must be followed before deportation proceedings can commence. Simply turning these people away at the border is not an option.

O'Reilly and Perry have argued that the presence of National Guardsmen on the border would solve the issue, making it appear as if the Guard has the ability to apprehend or turn away people crossing the border, which they don't.

On the July 8th O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly argued that moving the National Guard to the border "would stop people from physically crossing the border" and argued that doing otherwise was "smoke and mirrors." Later during an interview with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), O'Reilly said Obama should "move the National Guard down there and deny them entry" and "that would stop it cold."

The next day, O'Reilly said sending National Guard troops to the border would "stop the bleeding" and would "protect the poor kids who are being exploited." Later in the program, during an interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), O'Reilly said the flow of people through the border would stop "tomorrow" if the National Guard was sent down. On the July 10th O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said, "you can stabilize the southern border by militarizing it."

Guardsmen along the border were (and continue to be) limited in their duties: They are not allowed to be involved in the direct detention, search, or arrest of individuals.

And btw, the border is more secure than it has ever been. The number of deportations has increased under President Obama while the number of illegal crossings has decreased.

During George Bush's Presidency, 1,600,000 people apprehended crossing the border between Mexico and the United States.

Today it's under 400,000. But George Bush, average of about 200,000 people deported a year, average over his eight years. Over six years of President Barack Obama, 400,000. Over two million deported under already. So despite what O'Reilly and Perry lie about, there has been enforcement.

These are facts Bill O'Reilly never reports. O'Reilly ignores these facts because he is a partisan Republican and he wants you to think it's all Obama's fault, and that putting the National Guard on the border would stop it, even though that is a lie and the law has to be changed, which the Republican led House will not even vote on.

So if anyone is to blame it's Congress for passing the law in 2002 and renewing it in 2008, of which the vast majority of Republicans all voted for, and these are the very same Republicans who now refuse to even bring an immigration bill up for a vote, but somehow in O'Reillyworld it's all Obama's fault, when he is only following the current law passed by Congress.

Obama is not to blame at all, and putting National Guard troops on the border will do nothing, Brit Hume even said so, but O'Reilly and Perry just ignore him.

Brit Hume said this to Rick Perry: "What I don't quite understand is how it is with the law being the way it is, the presence of more troops or forces on the border who are not legally able to apprehend these immigrants, these border crossers, is going to change anything without the law being changed first."

So even Brit Hume from Fox News is telling the truth, but O'Reilly and Perry keep lying about it anyway. Proving that Bill O'Reilly and Rick Perry are nothing but dishonest right-wing stooges who have no problem lying to the American people to make President Obama look bad.

The Monday 7-14-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 15, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A border war in the media. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The sight of tens of thousands of foreign children being warehoused by the United States has angered many Americans. This is a humanitarian disaster and the federal government is at fault. In 2008, the last year of the Bush administration, 8,143 children were deported. By 2013 that number had dropped to 1,669. That means the Obama administration is not aggressively seeking to send illegal alien children back to their home countries.

Because of that, the human smugglers in Central America and Mexico have launched a campaign to encourage parents to pay them thousands of dollars in return for taking their kids to the U.S. border. The liberal press is telling you that the kids are coming because they're in danger in their countries; the media wants the children to be resettled here for a variety of reasons. The truth is that Central America has always been a cauldron of corruption, but we have never seen this kind of migratory movement before.

This is happening for two main reasons: First, the border is not secure, and, second, the Obama administration has sent signals to the world that legal consideration will be given to people who come here illegally. If we don't have border security, Congress will never pass 'comprehensive immigration reform' - the only way many Americans will accept a pathway to citizenship is if the flow stops.

Putting the National Guard on the border would stop the border intrusion cold and quickly stabilize an out-of-control situation. Would it not be humanitarian to stop the madness? But many on the left don't want to stop the illegal immigration; the Democratic Party gains heavily from voting blocs who need entitlements, as many new immigrants surely will. Most Americans understand that the rule of law on immigration has collapsed.

President Obama is taking most of the flak, as he should, even though he's trying to blame the Republican House for the debacle. The problem is solvable - my immigration reform plan is posted on BillOReilly.com and it will work. But no reform will take place until the southern border is under control, and right now it certainly is not.
And that is all lies, come back to this blog Wednesday and I will have the facts for you, not the right-wing propaganda O'Reilly is putting out.

Notice that no guests were on to counter the O'Reilly TPM, because he does not want anyone telling the truth that what he says is nonsense and lies.

Then Glenn Beck, who will head to the Texas-Mexico border next week, was on to discuss it.

Beck said this: "We're raising money through my charity to bring relief to the children down there. The churches have asked us for shoes and food and soccer balls and teddy bears."

Beck also said this is a non-political mission of mercy, saying this: "I don't think we'll ever solve anything if we don't stop yelling at each other and accusing each other of hatred and racism. I fear we are on the edge of losing our country if we don't find ways to say that we all love the children, these are children who are in need. While Washington is arguing, we have a personal responsibility for mercy. God tells us to love one another and to help the least of our brothers."

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to analyze President Obama's declining poll numbers and the border crisis.

Williams said this: "The president is in a position to make a comeback, as long as he focuses on those children. And remember that Congress's ratings are even lower."

Ham criticized the president for constantly demonizing Republicans in the House of Representatives, saying this: "I'm not sure he grasps or cares where he is in the polls, it certainly doesn't change his rhetoric or his speeches. Even liberals have questioned whether his antagonistic tone will help him. He wants a $3.7 billion package for the border, but he's bashing the very people he needs to agree to it."

Then Brit Hume, who spoke on Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran's nuclear program was on.

Hume said this: "Americans are trying to make a deal with Iran, but Benjamin Netanyahu is worried that a bad deal will be made in which the sanctions will be lifted. He fears that Iran will give up very little in its nuclear program and would basically be able to go on its way."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about former Speaker Nancy Pelosi who recently complained that "five guys" on the Supreme Court are deciding what forms of birth control are legal. Kelly, who was highly critical of Pelosi, explained why.

Kelly said this: "The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of certain corporations to stand firm on their religious principles when it comes to certain contraception coverage. Nancy Pelosi and many on the left came out and tried to create this false firestorm, they decided to invent these scary caricatures of the ruling and then tell everybody that's what the Supreme Court did. She went so far as to say this is a 'scary court' and that 'five guys' are determining what contraceptives are legal. She is blatantly misleading the American people and she is suggesting that the male Supreme Court justices are not capable of ruling on issues that affect women."

Said the biased right-wing stooge who works for Fox News and would not know the truth if she saw it. While no Democratic guest was on for balance to challenge anything she said, and O'Reilly allowed it.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he went to Vermont, one of the most left-leaning places in the USA. One young woman told Watters that it's just plain wrong to kill terrorists, while a young man opined that America may well have been behind the 9/11 terror attacks. Another Green Mountain State resident summarized her philosophy like this: "I want the entire world to know that we're all connected."

Back in the studio, Watters described the people he met in Vermont, saying this: "Some of them were drifters, one was an artist and going to school at Bennington College, where there are no grades or no requirements. The state has gay marriage, high taxes, and decriminalized pot."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Building a Nest Egg. Billy said this: "Because it's crucial to have some savings in case of an emergency, never waste money, cut back on any vices, and always check the web for bargains. Most important, try mightily to save ten cents out of every dollar you earn."

Republicans Are Bankrupting Kansas & O'Reilly Is Ignoring It
By: Steve - July 15, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is calling for a Republican President in 2016, and also calling for the people to give the Republicans the majority in the Senate so they can fix the debt and budget. While ignoring the fact that Bush and the Republicans bankrupted the country and got us into the depression in 2009 that we are just now recovering from.

And now we have more evidence we should not vote Republicans back into power, in Kansas, but of course O'Reilly ignores this story because he does not want you to know the Republican tax cut plans for the rich do not work, and never have.

Kansas Is Going Broke Due To The Republican Plan Of Cutting Taxes For the Rich

One cannot fathom the Republican mindset that drives them to believe if they continue their thirty year experiment in trickle down economics, it will create jobs and be an economic bonanza that is both stupid and insane because it is always a monumental failure.

It is puzzling really, that if the so-called supply-side economic theory has been a failure on the national level, why Kansas Republicans thought if they started with a budget surplus, squandered it on huge tax cuts for the rich, the state's coffers would be flush with money and a job creation explosion would follow.

It has not been that many years since George W. Bush squandered a budget surplus on tax cuts for the rich that failed to produce the storied economic benefits of trickle down economics, but apparently Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) and the Republican legislature were asleep during Bush's tenure.

Kansas is going broke and predicted to be bankrupt within two years, job creation is lagging the entire nation, and it is all down to giving tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the state's economic life and the people the Republicans were elected to serve.

The latest news from trickle down Kansas is that the state is so broke after Governor Brownback signed a package of nearly $1.1 billion in tax breaks for the rich last year, there are insufficient funds to keep homeless shelters open.

A homeless shelter specifically for families in southeastern Kansas will have to close its doors starting next week, and it is all down to the increasing state budget shortfall that is a direct result of tax cuts for the rich. The CHOICES Family Emergency Shelter provides a place to live for 350 homeless people every year most of whom are children. The closure is another victim of the state budget shortfall that is so severe that even after cutting the funding by half for all of 2014, $100,000 was not enough to keep the shelter open past next week.

According to Steve Lohr, the Executive Director of Southeast Kansas Community Action Partnership, which runs the family shelter, "this is the first time in our 48-year history that it hadn't received enough state funding to continue operating. We were defunded 50 percent."

Since squandering the surplus Brownback inherited and giving over a billion in new tax cuts, the state is facing a serious revenue shortfall that prompted funding cuts for poor school districts and poor people who rely on food stamps to survive.

When Brownback signed the tax cuts, Democrats predicted it would create a revenue shortfall not unlike during the Bush-Republican tax-cutting frenzy.

The House Democratic leader, Paul Davis said, "There is no feasible way that private-sector growth can accommodate the price tag of this tax cut. Our $600 million surplus will become a $2.5 billion deficit within just five years."

Brownback was unfazed and said that his tax cuts would lead to even more success; "I firmly believe these reforms will set the stage for strong economic growth in Kansas," and despite the unfunded $800-million price-tag, "I'm gonna sign this bill, I'm excited about the prospects for it, and I'm very thankful for how God has blessed our state."

Which is just madness, because this tax-cut for the rich trickle down economics does not work, and never has. All it does it make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and bankrupt the states. It's a total failure, and yet Republicans (and Bill O'Reilly) keep supporting it.

Brownback was even thankful to trickle-down economist Arthur Laffer, who guaranteed that increased economic growth would deliver more revenue and create jobs that to this day has the "State general fund revenue down over $700 million from last year" according to Duane Goossen, a former state budget director. Goossen also said the revenue drop is "bigger than the state had in the whole three years of the recession," and that the budget surplus that had been replenished since the recession "is now being spent at an alarming rate."

It was just a little over a month ago that the revenue shortfall was nearing the $500 million mark.

None of the trickle-down economic benefits have materialized and Kansas's job growth lags behind the rest of the nation "especially in the years following the first round of Brownback tax cuts."

The revenue shortfall prompted credit rating agency Moody's cut the state's credit rating in May, and it is entirely because of tax cuts for the rich; not President Obama's economic policies, tax hikes, or overregulation. The travesty of another failed experiment in trickle-down economics is that Kansas legislators will have to make seriously deeper cuts to domestic programs with no plans to repeal the wealthy job creators tax cuts.

If the Bush-Republican tax cuts for the rich, and thirty years of failed trickle down economics, is not a cautionary tale for America under Republican governance, then the state of Kansas's economy certainly is. Brownback's failed economic strategy is minimal compared to the annual Path to Prosperity budget House Republicans pass with claims it will lead to economic growth and incredible job creation all at the expense of the poor and middle class.

It is a sad commentary that Kansas cannot afford $200,000 to keep a homeless shelter for families with children open, is cutting education funding drastically, is cutting food assistance for Kansas residents that cannot find jobs, and is still facing a devastating revenue shortfall all to give the rich over a $1 billion in tax cuts.

It is typically Republican and informs that Kansas Republican loyalties to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the people, including families with children being thrown out on the streets; something Sam Brownback is likely "very thankful for how God has blessed our state."

Survey: Most Republicans Who Got Obamacare Like Their Plans
By: Steve - July 14, 2014 - 10:00am

Which explains why O'Reilly suddenly stopped slamming Obamacare, because almost everyone who got it likes it, even the vast majority of Republicans.

About three-quarters of Republicans who obtained health insurance under Obamacare are satisfied with their coverage, according to a survey published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund.

The survey found that 74 percent of Republicans said they were very or somewhat satisfied with their new coverage. Overall, 78 percent of Americans said they were satisfied: 73 percent of those enrolled in a private plan and 84 percent of those enrolled in Medicaid.

There was a minimal difference between the previously uninsured and the previously insured: 79 percent of the former were satisfied and 77 percent of the latter were, according to the survey by the group, which is generally supportive of Obamacare.

Those surveyed also reported being better off: 58 percent said that they were better off now than they were before, while 9 percent said they were worse off. And 81 percent said that they were optimistic that their new coverage would help them get the health care they need.

Now remember that O'Reilly and the Republicans spent a year telling you Obamacare was terrible, it would cost more, it was a disaster, and it would lead to chaos. While the facts show they were dead wrong, all of them, just like they were on the Iraq war. They lied to you, it was all politics, and it's 100% proof O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are dishonest and can not be trusted.

Majority Of Small Businesses Support A $10.00 Minimum Wage
By: Steve - July 13, 2014 - 10:00am

And the majority of Americans (71%) also support a $10.00 minimum wage, the only people who oppose it are a couple right-wing corporations and a few corporate owned stooges in the Republican party. But the corrupt House (that is run by Republicans) will not even bring it up for a vote.

In a new national poll, 61 percent of small business owners with under 100 employees say they support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

The poll contacted 555 owners of small businesses. They supported increasing the wage, which has stayed at $7.25 an hour for five years, to $10.10 over two and a half years, and then letting it automatically rise as inflation rises. Only 35 percent opposed this proposal.

The largest share of poll respondents identified as Republicans, and those who did were evenly split in support or opposition to the wage increase.

The owners also felt that there would be positive impacts from raising the wage: 58 percent said it would increase consumer purchasing power in the economy, and 56 percent said it would help the economy generally.

Many also felt it would help them specifically, with 53 percent agreeing that businesses would benefit from lower turnover, increased productivity, and customer satisfaction.

Earlier polls have similarly found that small businesses back a higher wage. Nearly 60 percent supported a $10.10 wage, with 27 percent strongly in favor, in a different poll from March.

There are signs that the owners are right to expect positive economic impacts from a higher wage. In Washington, which currently has the highest state minimum wage, small businesses experienced the highest rate of job growth of any state over the last year.

Economists have found that higher minimum wages can improve efficiency as employers push their employees to work harder and lower turnover, which can cost as much as 20 percent of a worker's full-time salary. It can also make it easier to recruit employees.

And to be honest, there are many people who refuse to work unless they can make $10.00 an hour, because they feel it is not worth it.

Some large businesses also see a benefit, as The Gap and Ikea announced they will voluntarily increase their lowest wages. Both stores said they were making the move in anticipation of better employee performance and customer experience.

Florida Judge Rules Florida Republican Party Redistricting Illegal
By: Steve - July 12, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because he is a biased Republican and he does not want to report on his friends breaking the voting laws.

Republicans are gradually learning a difficult lesson: If you're going to do something illegal, make sure you don't get caught.

In yet another clear-cut example of Republicans attempting to break the law for political gain, a Florida Circuit Court judge threw out Republicans 2012 congressional redistricting plan on Thursday after seeing evidence that "made a mockery" of the rules and transparency required for the process.

In a forty-one page ruling, Judge Terry Lewis noted that two of Florida's congressional districts need to be redrawn as they violated a Fair Districts Florida standard approved by voters in 2010 as a way to ensure that legislators would be banned from favoring or protecting incumbents. In his strongly worded ruling, Lewis slammed state Republicans who had been involved in the redistricting process.

In today's day and age, gerrymandering remains a significant threat to our democracy. In 2012, House Democrats won the popular vote by 1.17 million votes and yet did not gain control of the House of Representatives. It was only the second time in the last seventy years that a political party had won the popular vote but not won control of the House.

By ensuring a Republican-led House, Speaker John Boehner and his party have successfully managed to be the least productive Congress on record. By acquiescing to the Tea Party loonies, Boehner and House Republicans have successfully managed to avoid meaningful votes on immigration, ENDA, and raising the minimum wage all while voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act over fifty times.

Thanks to gerrymandering at the state level, Republicans maintained control of the House despite being grotesquely out of touch with the American people. As we saw in 2010, the consequences of Republican-led state governments follow a remarkably similar recipe for disaster: cutting funding for education, refusing to expand Medicaid, attacking and vilifying unions, and restricting women's access to safe, affordable health care.

We have seen a prime example of this in the state of Virginia where Democrats and Republicans have fought tooth and nail in an equally divided state government over whether or not to expand Medicaid. In states like Florida and Texas with high-profile battles for governor, each and every vote will be necessary to ensure that a Republican does not takeover and lead his state to inevitable ruin.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not need to lie, cheat, and steal to win elections. They just need to get out and vote.

New Poll Says America Wants Sarah Palin To Shut Up
By: Steve - July 12, 2014 - 9:00am

A new poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, and Annenberg finally gave a numerical answer to a question people often ask: Out of all political figures that should pipe down, which one should do it immediately?

Answer: Sarah Palin. Overwhelmingly Sarah Palin, says America. 52% of surveyed American adults want Sarah Palin to "be quiet," according to the poll taken between June 30 and July 7 -- immediately before she published a Breitbart column demanding Obama be impeached.

Even four out of every ten Republicans surveyed said that Palin should quiet down. (Two-thirds of Democrats and a "majority" of independents agreed with that sentiment.)

45% of respondents added that they wanted Jesse Jackson to be quiet, too; followed by Dick Cheney (42%), Newt Gingrich (39%), Al Gore (37%), and Bill Clinton (31%).

Only 12% surveyed said that the politicians should keep talking.

Personally, I hope Palin keeps talking, because it not only makes the Tea Party and the Republican party look bad, it reminds everyone that John McCain made her his running mate, even though she is a total idiot who I would not even hire for the school board, let alone have her as a Vice President.

The Thursday 7-10-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 11, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: GOP Presidential Hopefuls Get a Boost from Border Chaos. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With President Obama's poll numbers in a freefall and his strategy of disengagement on major issues, some Republican presidential hopefuls are stepping up. The man taking the most advantage of the situation is Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has now become Mr. Obama's primary adversary.

Governor Perry is clearly looking to run in 2016, and with a good economic story in Texas he does have a solid foundation. Possible candidate number two is Mitt Romney. Some of his acolytes are whispering that he's considering another presidential run and The Factor has learned that this is not just idle talk.

The third possible candidate taking advantage of the southern border situation is Texas Senator Ted Cruz. He is the darling of committed conservatives and is certainly looking at a presidential campaign. You can expect the Republican candidates to become more visible, more vocal, and more critical of President Obama.

By early next year they must be out raising money if they want to compete with Hillary Clinton, who is a lock for the Democratic nomination. The border has given Republicans a big opening and there is no doubt that some GOP folks are crossing into presidential competition.
Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the GOP hopefuls. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Ingraham said this: "Rick Perry has amazing fundraising ability, and he has a lot of star power one-on-one with people. He lights up a room, people like him, and he stepped up in this current border crisis."

But he is a far-right moron that could not even remember the three government agencies he wanted to get rid of in his own platform, the oops moment, and he has no chance of winning.

Ingraham also said this: "I think it's still a long shot for someone like Romney. Remember that a couple of million people stayed home and I'm not sure what state he would win in 2016 that he didn't win last time around. As for Ted Cruz, he has been playing nice with the establishment lately and this border thing throws everything into flux. Do I think Ted Cruz will be the nominee? I don't, but he might surprise a lot of people."

Rick Perry is a far-right idiot, he is the male version of Sarah Palin and a total fool who will never win against Hillary Clinton, if he is the Republican nominee, which I doubt will ever happen.

Then James Carville & Andrea Tantaros were on to talk about the border. Some people are criticizing President Obama for visiting Texas for fundraisers but avoiding the border.

Carville said this: "I think this was a significant mistake. The public expects a president to show up at these kinds of moments and people are frustrated. He should have gone, this is a humanitarian crisis."

Tantaros said this: "This was a huge mistake. If he had gone to the border or even just to one of the immigration processing centers, he could have had the moral high ground and taken the issue away from Republicans. But he didn't go because he and his press secretary repeatedly told us that they sealed the border."

Then two Republicans Rep. Steve King & Linda Chavez were on to discuss the request for funding by President Obama. With no Democratic guests for balance.

King said this: "I'm not going to vote to approve $3.7 billion for the president to hire more lawyers and to squander. There is nothing in this that actually secures the border, and until we stop the bleeding at the border we are not going to solve this problem. I have concluded that the president has no intention to secure the border."

Chavez said this: "I want these kids to be able to get back home to El Salvador and Honduras and Guatemala, but it cannot happen unless Congress appropriates money so we have enough judges to hear the cases. We have a human trafficking law that says these kids have to be handled a certain way, we have to deal humanely with these kids."

Then Heather Nauert was on to field letters from angry viewers. One of them, Melinda Davis of St. Louis, Missouri, is ticked because her hometown newspaper leans so far to the left. "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch filed for bankruptcy a couple of years ago," Nauert reported, "and that paper really is left. I'm not even talking about the editorial page, but the news pages lionize Democrats or promote a liberal agenda."

Georgian Marty Wilkes is mad because alcohol use, despite its often tragic consequences, is widely celebrated in popular culture and commercials. "About 30% of driving fatalities are related to alcohol," Nauert said. "I'm glad this person called it a tragedy because alcoholism can destroy families."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on, who took issue with Sarah Palin's recommendation that President Obama be impeached.

Goldberg said this: "There are only two groups that think impeachment is a good idea. The hard right because they are ideological purists, and the hard left because they know it will destroy the Republican Party. The good news is that no serious politician will take this seriously."

Goldberg also said this: "From time to time, especially when his poll numbers are low, the press will get tough on Barack Obama. But it never lasts. If the press has suddenly decided to behave like real journalists, why haven't they jumped on the IRS scandal? If things get worse for Barack Obama, are we really supposed to believe that they're going to behave like real journalists and push him off a cliff?"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, it was just O'Reilly bragging that the film version of his book was nominated for an Emmy.

Powers Slams O'Reilly For His Bias On Immigration
By: Steve - July 11, 2014 - 10:00am

And I wouls say it's about time, because usually Powers says nothing about the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, most likely just to stay on the show as a regular.

Kirsten Powers snapped at Bill O'Reilly Tuesday night after he told her she doesn't know what she's talking about on immigration, and told O'Reilly she's tired of him mocking liberals every day on every single issue just because "they care about people."

Powers argued that O'Reilly's getting his facts wrong and that immigrants coming to the U.S. back in the day (like the Irish) were poor and uneducated, much like the immigrants O'Reilly is so worried about today. O'Reilly dismissed Powers and told her, "You don’t seem to really know what you're talking about."

That really set Powers off, saying this:
POWERS: I am so tired of this with you. I'm so tired of your mocking -- mocking liberals because they care about people, that there's something self-righteous about wanting to take care of children. You know, I thought this was a Christian thing, Bill.
O'Reilly mockingly shot back that she must "hold the high moral ground" because she favors open borders. Powers told O'Reilly that he continues to misrepresent the views of liberals like herself.

And she is 100% right. Let's get real, the truth is O'Reilly is racist towards Mexicans. If white kids from Ireland were illegally coming over the border O'Reilly would have no problem with that and say we should help them. But when brown kids from Mexico come across he wants them all deported and wants the military on the border to stop it.

The fact is O'Reilly is a racist Republican, and he lies that Obama is to blame when he is simply going by the law Republicans passed and Bush signed. These are the facts, and it is about time Powers said something about it.

The Wednesday 7-9-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 10, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama Stays North of the Border. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It has been a bizarre few days for the President. Yesterday he was in Colorado, raising money and socializing, drinking beer, playing pool. In a calm time, there would be nothing wrong with that, but this is far from a calm time. War could break out in the Middle East at any time, and we now have about 60,000 foreign children under U.S. care because the southern border is so chaotic.

Today, the President arrived in Texas for more fundraising and socializing. He is refusing to go to the border, which has even some of his own supporters mystified.

The U.N. is lobbying to designate many of the children and their guardians, who illegally entered the USA, as refugees. The United Nations believes that Central American countries are somehow oppressing their populations. Central America has been out of control for decades and the U.N. knows it. But that body would love to dump the problem of incompetent and corrupt governments into the lap of the American taxpayer.

America is nearly bankrupt, and believe me, that is not compassionate towards we the people. Creating huge social and economic problems inside our own nation is irresponsible and un-American.
Which is just nonsense, because there is nothing wrong with Obama taking a break to play some pool and have a beer. And if a Republican President had done it O'Reilly would defend it just as he did when Bush was in office and went to his ranch every other month during good times and bad times. It's ridiculous to say the President can not stop and have a beer and play some pool once in a while.

Then the biased right-winger from Fox Ed Henry was on to discuss it, and not one Democratic guest was on for balance. Henry said the President is not listening to anyone right now, including his Democratic supporters who said he should have visited the border. Thus is the current state of his presidency.

Now let's get some facts right, there are a few Democratic supporters who think he should have gone to the border, but not all of them as Henry claimed, so he is lying. And nobody knows what the numbers are, so Henry is being dishonest as he usually does.

O'Reilly pointed out that conservative Americans, including Republicans in the House, don't trust Barack Obama. O'Reilly himself once favored immigration reform, but now he wouldn't want to work with the President to get it done.

Henry mentioned that Obama was once again sounding the alarm for comprehensive immigration reform after his meeting today with Gov. Rick Perry. Henry also wanted to give the President some credit for meeting behind closed doors with Perry, who is a political enemy.

Then the Republican Senator John McCain was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. McCain admitted Obama is having great difficulty, but he insisted it's more about naivete than incompetence. He doesn't believe Obama recognizes the U.S. has to play a leadership role in the world, and he fears the lack of positive American leadership is having serious consequences around the world.

Which is his opinion, an opinion that most people do not believe, it's a Republican narrative that O'Reilly also puts out. It's basically a Republican talking point, and most people do not believe it, only dumb right-wingers buy it.

O'Reilly said he doesn't begrudge the President leisure time, but he would think with a crisis involving children who have been through a horrible ordeal, Obama should be at the border or in one of these shelters talking to people down there.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi who is still being held in a Mexican prison after 100 days. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Kelly called Tahmooressi's hearing Wednesday his first opportunity to address the court and tell his side of the story. She expressed concern that he could be in trouble here because Mexican authorities are going to testify he never mentioned he was a Marine or lost, and the authorities don't believe his story.

O'Reilly said he knows that this isn't a big time gun runner, and for humane reasons, authorities should let him go. After all, he's a U.S. Marine sergeant suffering from PTSD. Kelly argued that Mexico takes the rule of law very seriously.

On another topic, Jesse Ventura is suing the widow of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Kyle said on this program before his death that he punched Ventura for bad-mouthing the war and Bush. Ventura, however, says it never happened and he's suing for defamation.

Kelly slammed the former Minnesota governor and told him to grow a thicker skin. She also confirmed it's very hard to prove a defamation case when you're a public figure. O'Reilly said that there are witnesses to this incident and thinks if Mrs. Kyle can produce just one witness, Ventura loses.

Then Howard Kurtz & Lauren Ashburn were on to talk about the media.

Kurtz suggested it's getting harder and harder for liberals to defend the President, as this is the 4th or 5th train wreck in a row for his administration. Liberal commentators are disillusioned with their guy.

Which is not really true, and it's an opinion by Howard Kurtz. Some liberals are disillusioned with Obama on a few issues, but most are not and would vote for him again.

According to O'Reilly, MSNBC avoids the issue or throws out straight propaganda, but he is recognizing a shift in the mainstream press. Ashburn concurred and said that on MSNBC today, Chris Matthews claimed Obama looked "conflicted" about visiting the border.

Kurtz clarified the President doesn't want to be seen in Brownsville, Texas because then he owns the problem in a visual sense. But O'Reilly disagreed - and said it's all about avoiding the problem entirely. Ashburn said the media are turning against Obama now because reporters are actually human beings first and this crisis is too big for them to ignore. Now let me note that these people all hate Obama, so they are biased and nothing they say can be trusted to be truthful. Then on top of that O'Reilly does not have any liberals on to give the other side of the story, so all you get is one side, which is a violation of the rules of journalism.

And btw folks, it is now Thursday and O'Reilly has still not said one word about the great June jobs report, the unemployment rate going down, and the stock market breaking 17,000 last Friday. Proving he is a biased right-wing hack who avoids reporting good economic news because it makes Obama look good, as he is saying the economy and jobs are a disaster.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, it was just O'Reilly promoting a tv show on FX.

Palin Wants Obama Impeached For Following Law Passed By Republicans
By: Steve - July 10, 2014 - 10:00am

Another day, and another opportunity for Sarah Palin to call for President Obama's impeachment. In an exclusive article for Breitbart.com, the former half-term Governor of Alaska wrote that the President needs to be removed from office due to the crisis at the border involving tens of thousands of refugees, most of them children, who are trying to escape violent conditions in Central America.

In typical Palin fashion, she is unable to point to any law the President has broken that should lead to his removal from office. Instead, the article is nothing but Palin nonsense meant to energize angry conservative racists.

Palin said this:
PALIN: Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, "no mas."

President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution's role in protecting our rights.

It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.
But here is the problem for simple Sarah, if you want to impeach Obama you have to actually point to a law he has broken and then argue your point. You can't just try to elicit an emotional reaction in readers out there who are going to jump on board with anything you say.

Sure, it might get you a lot of likes and comments on your Facebook page or a bunch of Breitbart readers cheering you on. But that still isn't going to do anything. Just typing out screed after screed without backing anything up with even rudimentary facts or the most basic of legal arguments just proves that you are doing nothing more than crying wolf, time and time again.

And the reason we have a surge in young immigrants from Central America that need to be processed and allowed into this country is rooted in a law that was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 created protections that would allow children from certain countries that crossed the border to stay in this country. Basically, if children crossed the border alone, and they fled one of a number of countries on the list, they would be cared for. Usually, they end up with family members or in foster care.

This law was uncontroversial at the time it was passed. Nobody wants to turn away children who are victims of human trafficking or have fled extremely violent situations in their home countries. That is why it passed through Congress unanimously and President Bush signed it.

There were no objections.

But now that situations in Central American countries have led to a mass influx of young immigrants looking for refuge, somehow in the eyes of Bill O'Reilly and his Republican friends, this is all Obama's fault. He needs to be impeached because he is following the law. Since we have a humanitarian crisis going on, and thousands of brown people are being allowed to enter our country legally, Obama needs to be thrown out of office.

On Tuesday, President Obama asked Congress to provide $4 billion to deal with this ongoing crisis. This money will be used to beef up border patrols, bring in more immigration judges, build more detention facilities and provide better care for the migrant children being held at the border while they are processed.

Will Congress act on this? Or will members act just like Palin and merely use this crisis, just like any other issue that pops up, to whine and complain about the President.

The Tuesday 7-8-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 9, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama Getting Hammered Over Illegal Immigration. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today, the President asked for nearly $4 billion to deal with the crisis on the Texas-Mexican border. Mr. Obama wants to use the money to place more immigration judges at the border, build more detention centers, and hire more Border Patrol agents.

But throwing money at the problem will not work. If the President is not going to move the National Guard down there, which would stop people from physically crossing the border, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Nancy Pelosi and other liberals ignore the facts, preferring to live in a fantasy world of self-righteousness, attacking those who want immigration law to be enforced and the government run responsibly. According to all the polls, most Americans do want illegal aliens to be treated fairly.

Only the fringe has animus towards them. People living in corrupt nations are desperate - most understand that. But fair-minded Americans also understand that this country is in severe decline, and the President, as well as the Democratic Party, is largely responsible for that.
Then Monica Crowley & Kirsten Powers were on to discuss it.

Powers said that a lot of immigrants, including the Irish, who came to this country at the turn of the century would have taken welfare, if it existed back then. She defended liberals, saying there's nothing self-righteous about wanting to take care of children.

And she is right, but of course O'Reilly slammed her for claiming to hold the higher moral ground by wanting an open border situation.

Crowley said the earliest waves of immigrants came into this country legally. She then ridiculously claimed the Democrats created this crisis so they could demonize Republicans for blocking Obama's immigration reform efforts - in other words, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Powers then reminded O'Reilly and Crowley that fewer people have crossed our borders illegally under the Obama administration, and more have been deported than under the Bush administration.

Then the crazy Republican Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert was on, he recently said he believes President Obama is allowing illegal aliens to come to the U.S. in order to turn the state of Texas Democrat.

Which is pure insanity, because Obama is simply going by the law that Bush signed and the Congress approved.

O'Reilly laughingly warned that it's quite serious to accuse the President of subverting the process in order to flood the zone with immigrants who will vote Democrat. Because the claim is almost treasonous, it requires evidence.

Gohmert griped that he's tired of liberals saying they're the ones with compassion. As a nation of laws, he finds it more compassionate to secure the border and make people follow the law.

O'Reilly said Nancy Pelosi and her ilk would like to take everyone in the Western Hemisphere in, but Gohmert said that can't be done without harming Americans.

Then the right-wing moron John Stossel, who is not a fan of big government was on, he said it would take big government action to stop the madness at the Mexican border.

Which is laughable, because Stossel says big Government should stay out of our lives because they screw everything up, but now he wants big Government to help. What a joke.

Stossel launched the discussion by saying libertarians have clear answers to a lot of things, but not to this. When you have a welfare state and many who are coming here to freeload, you can't have open borders.

O'Reilly said liberals don't seem to want to do what's right for America and their open border view will overwhelm our system. Which is a lie, because liberals do not want open borders, they simply want immigrations laws that work and make sense, they do not want open borders.

Stossel reminded the Factor Obama has, in fact, been deporting a lot of people, with 38 charter flights a day. But he also said Obama was playing golf when the border situation happened and he didn't know what to do, proving once again his libertarian conviction that government is incompetent.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on for is it legal.

The first trial in the Boston Marathon bombing case is underway. Two brothers allegedly set off two bombs, but today federal prosecutors are after a guy who is charged with helping to cover-up the crime.

Wiehl laid out the case, saying the defendant all but admitted going to the dorm room of younger brother and taking his laptop, firearms, and ammunition out of the room after getting a text during the coverage of the bombing.

Guilfoyle mentioned his defense is that he was going to the room just to get marijuana, but she said there's definitive evidence and predicted he will get convicted.

Andrew Rector, a fan caught by ESPN cameras sleeping at a Yankees game, has filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against MLB, the Yankees, ESPN, and the ESPN commentators, accusing them of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Wiehl and Guilfoyle both agreed it was frivolous suit that will ultimately be tossed. O'Reilly said the guy's lawyer should be fined for bringing such a ridiculous lawsuit.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to say if you can trust the media ir not, which is just laughable, because Krauthammer is a biased right-wing hack who has no business talking about the media, he even admits he has not watched a network newscast in 20 years, so how the hell can he tell you about something he does not even watch.

Then O'Reilly asked if there is any press organization in the United States, besides Fox News, that's really trustworthy? Is anyone truly objective?

Which is beyond laughable, because Fox News is not trustworthy, it is as biased as you can get and barely a news network, it's more like an arm of the Republican party and a propaganda news network. Not to mention no Democratic guest was on for balance, just the totally biased right-wing stooge Krauthammer.

Krauthammer, while admitting to reading mainstream papers, insisted he's reading it through a filter because he knows it's liberal.

And now here is the truth, Republicans like O'Reilly and Krauthammer think any news that is not slanted to the right like Fox News is liberal, they see it through biased eyes.

And I could give you almost as many examples of conservative bias on the network news shows as liberal bias, so it is balanced. O'Reilly and Krauthammer just deny reality, and ignore all the conservative bias. Like the Sunday news shows that have way more Republicans guests than Democrats, they just ignore that.

With Krauthammer's column running in the Washington Post, the Factor asked about that outlet's trustworthiness. Krauthammer hailed the WashPo's op-ed page as the finest in the country, but said, like all mainstream media, its hard news is slanted. Pivoting to broadcast news, he purported not to have watched a network newscast in 20 years because he gains nothing from it.

Think about that folks, O'Reilly does a segment on media bias at the broadcast news networks, with one Republican guest who is biased to the right and works for Fox News, with nobody from the broadcast news networks or a Democratic guest for balance. It's just laughable, and an example of media bias, from O'Reilly, and he did it while complaining the rest of the media is biased. Are you kidding me, it's ridiculous.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, it was simply O'Reilly promoting a book.




O'Reilly Still Ignoring Jobs, Unemployment, & Stock Market Numbers
By: Steve - July 9, 2014 - 10:00am

Last week new jobs numbers, unemployment numbers, and stock market numbers came out. They were all good news for America and President Obama, and O'Reilly ignored it all on his Monday night show.

Jobs were over 280,000, which is 5 straight months of 200,000 or more new jobs a month, unemployment dropped from 6.37 to 6.1%, and the stock market broke 17,000 for the first time. All numbers that O'Reilly would have reported instantly if a Republican was in the White House, as he did when Bush was in office.

When good numbers came out under Bush O'Reilly screamed it from the rooftops and even gave Bush credit for it, saying it was a measure that Bush was doing a good job as President. But when good numbers come out under Obama O'Reilly not only does not praise Obama for it and give him credit for it, he ignores the entire story to spend the show on border issues and the gay pride parade.

This is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased partisan Republican, and there is no doubt. Even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no-spin zone. It's just ridiculous, because O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing propaganda spin doctor.

And btw, all the real journalists reported the good news, except O'Reilly. The Monday show was nothing but segments about the border, Iraq, and a gay parade, in one segment O'Reilly even said if President Obama doesn't start solving problems soon, his administration is likely to go down in history as a disaster.

Even though things are going great, except for the few made up and fake right-wing scandals O'Reilly and the right try to blame on Obama. It's just laughable, in O'Reillyworld the Obama administration is a disaster, as he ignores all the good news coming out as if it never happened.

A real journalist would have reported the jobs numbers, the unemployment numbers, and the stock market record high, and had a balanced debate on it with a Republican and a Democratic guest. O'Reilly did not do any of that, instead he ignored it all, and spent the whole show on issues nobody cares about except partisan Republicans.

And he does it while telling people he is an honest journalist with no bias that you should listen to for the truth, he even says all the other journalists are biased liars and you should not listen to them. As he is being a total partisan right-wing hack who ignores all the good news while claiming the Obama administration is a disaster.

The Monday 7-7-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 8, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Two Dangerous Situations Still Unresolved. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In Iraq, the terrorist thug al-Baghdadi is openly threatening America, Jordan, and other countries, saying that his ISIS army will attack. Incredibly Baghdadi was in U.S. custody, but the Defense Department let him go during the Bush administration. Now he heads perhaps the most powerful terrorist organization in the world. Another big screw up in the war on terror.

But even more upsetting to some Americans is the chaos on the southern border...The stats are grim: So far this fiscal year, about 300,000 undocumented aliens have been apprehended by the border patrol...that's a 99% increase from fiscal year 2013; so far on President Obama's watch, more than 2 million illegal aliens have been apprehended by federal authorities.

All over the USA, social problems are arising because of the massive influx of migrants. Again the Obama administration seems unprepared to deal with the problem...Some on the left believe that the USA should accept all so-called refugees, and if you oppose that philosophy, you are inhumane, uncaring, unchristian, and so on.

There is a lunatic fringe on the right as well, and it greatly harms the debate for effective public policy. The truth is that President Obama has lost control of the process.

If Americans do not wake up and demand a better performance from their elected officials on all levels, this country will continue to decline. Right now, the President should degrade the ISIS army by using American air power and should move the National Guard to the southern border to stop the madness down there.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the country is not in decline, things are improving, just look at the jobs numbers, the unemployment rate, and the stock market. You are a liar, and a biased fool. Wake up, your ratings are even down because people are getting wise to your bias and lies.

Then Alan Long was on to talk about the town of Murrieta, California that has become ground zero for the current border situation. Last week, the federal government tried to move busloads of illegal aliens to Murrieta, but protesters stopped the buses, making them turn around.

Murrieta Mayor Long explained that while protests have calmed down, emotions are still high in his town because a national problem has landed on their doorsteps. He suggested the facility Homeland Security intended to house these illegals in is basically a jail. When he demanded answers to safety and health concerns, he found out the immigrants didn't have the health screens they needed.

O'Reilly wondered how Murrieta's Hispanic community is reacting. Long speculated that many Hispanic legal immigrants in his town share the same concerns as everyone else and just want the immigration process to be fair and efficient.

O'Reilly then commended the Mayor and his town for largely keeping the lid on a tough situation there, but the called the federal government's handling of it outrageous.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance. The biased O'Reilly said he thinks President Obama is "paralyzed" by the ISIS and border situations.

Brit Hume said he thinks Obama is going to ask Congress to change the law that treats illegal immigrant children differently than adults. The current law says kids can't be immediately deported, but instead have to be taken into custody and given a hearing before a judge. And according to Hume, Obama has changed his mind about asking Congress to amend this law, which suggests to him that he's in no hurry to solve the problem.

So there is more news O'Reilly has not reported on it, that the law says kids can't be immediately deported, but instead have to be taken into custody and given a hearing before a judge. O'Reilly never reported that, he just screams at Obama to put the military on the border and deport the kids instantly, even though it would be illegal.

Then Juan Williams & Mary K. Ham were on to talk about President Obama. O'Reilly said if President Obama doesn't start solving problems soon, his administration is likely to go down in history as a disaster. Which is his opinion, and nobody else believes that except other right-wingers who hate Obama. If the economy and jobs are back, and the stock market is high when Obama leaves office he will be seen as a good President.

The insane O'Reilly said he was confused over Obama not pulling the trigger on degrading the ISIS army, or putting any effort into trying to deport the Central American children flooding across our border. He described the President as weak and looking like he doesn't know what to do. Which is of course his biased opinion, not shared by anyone but other right-wing loons.

Williams defended the President, saying he has insisted he's eventually going to deport most of these kids, but they're not showing up for hearings, which poses a challenge. In Iraq, Williams cautioned that we have to be careful who we start bombing.

Mary K. Ham said that Obama is a reactive leader, not a proactive leader. She is certain Obama doesn't see himself as a failure, but she begged to differ: part of the issue with being president is figuring out solutions to complex problems.

And btw, the majority of Americans, and O'Reilly's own military expert Col Hunt want Obama to stay out of Iraq and let them settle their own civil war, a fact that O'Reilly never mentions.

O'Reilly then said that if Barack Obama were the CEO of a major American corporation, the stockholders would fire him.

Williams admitted the President is enjoying the lowest level of confidence since he took office, but set the record straight on immigration arguing the President has tried to get a comprehensive immigration plan through but Republicans in the House continue to block it.

Bingo, Williams nailed O'Reilly. Obama is just going by the law and the Republicans are blocking a vote on the immigration bill, even though it has the votes to pass, O'Reilly ignores all that and blames it all on Obama, which i just insane.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he went to San Francisco for the annual gay pride parade to see what the folks think of Americans who only believe in traditional marriage.

Watters encountered Gavin Newsom, the Lt. Gov. stressed he believes in marriage equality. Nancy Pelosi asked him to tell Bill to love his neighbor. Parade-goers, when asked about people who oppose gay marriage, said the haters should get with the program or go the way of the dinosaurs. Others suggested gay marriage opponents should be shamed for their views.

And not one word was said in the entire show about the jobs report, the unemployment numbers dropping to 6.1%, or the stock market breaking 17,000 for the first time. Proving O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who hates Obama.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Check the Hate. Billy said this: "A conservative blogger ambushed Hillary Clinton at a book signing, mentioning Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the Benghazi attack. It was a nasty display, but the results of the BillOReilly.com poll are in and 62% of viewers didn't think the ambush was out of line. Here's the tip: hate is a motivator, but not a pathway to victory. Check the hate - you're not going to win with it."

Food Stamp Misuse Is At An All-Time Low
By: Steve - July 8, 2014 - 10:00am

And as expected O'Reilly has not said a word about any of this, while arguing the system is full of fraud, which is a right-wing lie that is not backed up with facts.

At the same time that O'Reilly and his Republican friendss were justifying cuts to food stamps by slandering the program as error-riddled and wasteful, the system was delivering its lowest erroneous payments rate of all time, according to newly released data. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) overpayments rate and overall error rate hit all-time lows in 2013, marking the seventh straight year of declining error rates in the country's premier food assistance program.

The amount of SNAP money issued to the wrong people or overpaid to the right people (the overpayments rate) fell to 2.6 percent of total spending. Money that didn't get paid but should have (the underpayments rate) amounted to 0.6 percent. That gives the program a combined error rate of 3.2 percent, according to numbers the USDA published last week.

Numbers that O'Reilly did not report, or do a segment on. All three are record lows, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes, and "more than 99 percent of SNAP benefits are issued to eligible households."

The net loss to taxpayers from SNAP errors in 2013 was just 2 percent of the program's spending. Food stamps enjoys one of the lowest error rates of any public benefit program in the country, and imposes far lower net costs due to error than, say, tax evasion: "16.9 percent of taxes legally due in 2006 (the most recently studied year) went unpaid," CBPP adds.

So O'Reilly and the Republicans are all over the 2% error rate in the SNAP food stamp program, while saying nothing about the 16.9% tax evasion rate. This is called bias from right-wing hacks, and bad journalism that violates the rules of journalism.

The USDA data breaks all three figures out by state and U.S. territory as well, and while there is significant variation among states the CBPP report also points out that there has been a significant shift and positive shift in the distribution of error rates in states. While just 13 states or territories had error rates below 6 percent in 2002, 47 states were below that threshold in 2013.

The recent SNAP numbers are even more impressive given how many more people have had to rely on the program since the financial crisis and the Bush recession. The USDA and state officials who administer SNAP managed to break their own records for accuracy despite having to process far more payments and applications for assistance than they did in the pre-recession years of the early 2000's when error rates were far higher.

In other words, they are now giving SNAP benefits to millions more people than they were 10 years ago and the error rates have gone down to 2% from 6% or more. And all during that time O'Reilly has been saying the SNAP food stamp error rate has got worse, when it actually got a lot better while dealing with millions more people. Proving that Bill O'Reilly has been lying about it.

By contrast, farm programs like crop insurance have far higher erroneous payment rates. One estimate late last year by the USDA put the crop insurance overpayment rate at 4.84 percent, and the total error rate for the farm program at 5.23 percent.

And yet, O'Reilly says noting about those higher error rates.

The same Republicans who insisted on cutting SNAP by about 1 percent in the most recent farm bill supported expanding the crop insurance program. While Democrats in Congress and the White House acquiesced to that pressure from the right, the tradition of painting food stamps as a wasteful and error-riddled program is a conservative one.

And after the Republicans forced the cuts, my food stamp rate dropped from $200.00 a month to $189.00 a month, at the time when food prices went up, so that $189.00 a month buys even less food now than it did a year ago. I needed a raise to keep up with the rising cost of food, and thanks to the Republicans they took $11.00 a month away from me.

The numbers just released by the USDA show that the program is in fact a far better steward of taxpayer dollars than the USDA programs that enrich wealthy landowners, insurance companies, and massive agribusinesses. And you will never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, because he is a corrupt and biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.




More Proof Republicans Are Lying About The Minimum Wage
By: Steve - July 7, 2014 - 11:00am

States That Raised Their Minimum Wages Are Experiencing Faster Job Growth

Think a higher minimum wage is a job killer? Think again: The states that raised their minimum wages on January 1st have seen higher employment growth than the states that kept theirs at the same rate.

The minimum wage went up in 13 states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington -- either thanks to automatic increases in line with inflation or new legislation, as Ben Wolcott reports in his analysis at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

The average change in employment for those states over the first five months of the year as compared with the last five of 2013 is .99 percent, while the average for all remaining states is .68 percent.

Wolcott's analysis builds on a previous one from Goldman Sachs, which did the same evaluation for just January and compares it to December of last year. It found that the states that had minimum wage increases experienced faster job growth than those without a raise.

This does not mean that increasing the minimum wage necessarily creates more jobs. "While this kind of simple exercise can't establish causality, it does provide evidence against theoretical negative employment effects of minimum-wage increases," Wolcott writes.

This adds to the evidence that higher minimum wages may not hurt job growth as much as some Republicans have warned. Washington has the highest minimum wage and saw the biggest increase in small business jobs last year. Its job growth has also remained steady and above average in the 15 years since it raised its wage.

That's all good news for the ten states that have increased their minimum wages this year. Massachusetts went the furthest, raising its wage to $11 by 2017, but three -- Hawaii, Maryland, and Connecticut -- passed the $10.10 minimum wage being pushed at the federal level by Democrats and Vermont increased its wage to $10.50. And some cities have gone even further, with Seattle enacting a $15 minimum wage.

And not only did it lead to more job growth, it gives working class Americans more money to spend, which will help the economy grow at a faster rate. In some cases it even lifts them out of poverty and gives them a higher quality of life, which makes them happy and also leads to less crime. And of course O'Reilly never reports any of this, because he does not want you to know this information.

Progress in raising the entire country's minimum wage has stalled, because Republicans recently blocked a bill that would have increased it to $10.10 an hour.

Fox News Stooge Says Jobs Report Might Be Too Good
By: Steve - July 6, 2014 - 9:00am

Yes it's hard to believe, but some moron at Fox thinks the latest jobs report is too good, which is just laughable, but expected. And O'Reilly will most likely just ignore it, because he claims there are no jobs and the economy is in chaos. Even though the facts say different.

Fox Business host Charles Payne tried to put a negative spin on the news that the unemployment rate fell in June, tweeting that it might be "too good for the stock market."

Economists and business reporters praised the numbers from the July 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report. That report found an increase in total nonfarm payroll employment of 288,000 in June, with unemployment decreasing to 6.1 percent, the lowest rate since September 2008.

But Payne immediately attempted to negatively spin the report, asking in a tweet "is the jobs number too good for the stock market?"
PAYNE: Charles V Payne - @cvpayne

"Is the jobs number too good for the stock market....equity futures are drifting lower not sure how to react."

7:31 AM - 3 Jul 2014
The Dow Jones Industrial Average recently broke 17,000. When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, it was at 8,279.63.

Now here is a tip, do not take financial advice from that partisan political hack, he is a biased fool, just like O'Reilly, who either will not admit reality, denies it, or ignores it.

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - July 5, 2014 - 10:00am

July 2, 2014 -- Private sector employment increased by 281,000 jobs from May to June according to the June ADP National Employment Report. The report, which is derived from ADP's actual payroll data, measures the change in total nonfarm private employment each month on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Goods-producing employment rose by 51,000 jobs in June, up from 31,000 jobs gained in May. The construction industry added 36,000 jobs over the month, more than double the May number. Meanwhile, manufacturing added 12,000 jobs in June, up slightly from last month.

Service-providing employment rose by 230,000 jobs in June, up from 148,000 in May. The ADP National Employment Report indicates that professional/ business services contributed 77,000 jobs in June, up from 46,000 in May. Expansion in trade/transportation/utilities grew by 50,000, up from May's 36,000. The 11,000 new jobs added in financial activities was about double last month's number.

"The June jobs number is a welcome boost," said Carlos Rodriguez, president and chief executive officer of ADP. "The number of construction jobs added was particularly encouraging, representing the highest total in that industry since February of 2006."

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, said, "The job market is steadily improving. Job gains are broad based across all industries and company sizes. Judging from the job market, the economic recovery remains fully intact and is gaining momentum."

And someone should tell O'Reilly, because the stock market is also setting records, and the car companies are doing well. But O'Reilly is still saying the economy is a disaster, proving he is not just a biased right-wing hack who spins out propaganda, he is a liar, a flat out 100% liar.

Russell Brand Calls Out O'Reilly Bigotry on Immigration
By: Steve - July 4, 2014 - 10:00am

Russell Brand had so much fun slamming Fox News last week that he decided to do it again on Monday. But this time, instead of going after the unknown weekend host Judge Jeanine Pirro, Brand decided to focus his outrage directly at Fox's biggest star, Bill O'Reilly.

Brand was taking on a recent segment from The O'Reilly Factor in which the host argued that immigrant children are never going to be able to compete in "our competitive marketplace" without the necessary education and language skills.

As Brand explained to O'Reilly, in Los Angeles, Mexican and Central American people are "doing all of the work," or least all of the "actual stuff that matters."

"Bill, your whole economic argument is rubbish and based on bigotry," he added.

When O'Reilly said it will "take decades" for these immigrant children to become productive members of society, Brand laughed out loud at him, saying, "I think what you're describing Bill, is people growing up!"

Stocks Close At All-Time Highs As Hiring Surges
By: Steve - July 4, 2014 - 9:00am

And O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because he is a biased right-wing hack who has been telling his viewers that the economy is a disaster and in chaos. Which is all a lie, and when the truth comes out O'Reilly ignores it.

July 2nd, 2014 -- NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks closed at their latest all-time highs Wednesday following news that business hiring surged in June, adding to evidence that the U.S. economy is picking up momentum.

ADP, a payroll processer, said businesses added 281,000 jobs last month, up from 179,000 in the previous month. The figure suggests the government's monthly jobs report, due out Thursday, could also show a significant gain from May.

The stock market climbed back to record levels a day earlier after separate reports showed that manufacturing expanded in China and the U.S., the world's two largest economies.

"We're in the middle of what's been an extended recovery, but there's still a lot of room to go," said Ed Hyland, a global investment specialist at a JPMorgan Private Bank. "We believe that for the stock market as well."

The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 1.30 points, to 1,974.62. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 20.17 points, to 16,976.24. Both the S&P 500 and the Dow are at all-time highs.

Now think about this folks, every time the stock market hit a new high or a good jobs report came out under Bush, O'Reilly reported it, every single time. Then he even praised Bush and gave him credit for it. But now when it happens under Obama, O'Reilly not only does not praise Obama and give him credit for it, he ignores the entire story and does not even report it.

And he does not stop there, he does talking points memos full of lies and right-wing propaganda saying the economy is a disaster and in chaos. While the reality shows the stock market hitting record highs and the economy adding over 200,000 (or more) jobs every month.

Not to mention, we have now gained back all the 2 million jobs that were lost under Bush in his last year in office. And O'Reilly never reported that either, or the fact that it took 5 years to do it, which shows how bad the economy got during the Bush administration. These are facts that O'Reilly never reports, as he blames Obama for an economy and jobs that are doing just fine.

This is 100% proof O'Reilly is a lying right-wing propagandist, he ignores reality to report lies that the economy is a disaster and in chaos, all while it is doing great and jobs are back. And he does it while claiming to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair to Obama, which is just laughable.

The Wednesday 7-2-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 3, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: America Growing Angrier at the Federal Government. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, the feds cannot stop the flow of illegal immigrant children into the USA. The situation has overwhelmed the border states and now thousands of illegal aliens are being sent to other communities around the country. More than 100 illegal aliens were sent to settle in Murrieta, California, but protesters blocked the buses.

That confrontation got nasty, not what America is supposed to be. The fault lies mainly with the federal government and the president. Mr. Obama knew for years that the border was not secure and that smugglers were developing an industry to bring tens of thousands of foreign nationals into the USA illegally, aided by Mexico.

So now we have mass chaos, a humanitarian disaster, and anger that may erupt into violence. Americans should not despise illegal aliens, who are mostly victims. But the federal government has an obligation to enforce the law and enforce the borders, and for decades they have not fulfilled that obligation. The result is a growing animosity among the folks, which should never happen. But it's the incompetence of the federal government that is driving that.
Which is just ridiculous, because Obama has deported more people than Bush did, and he has an immigration plan but the Republicans in the House will not even bring it up for a vote, even though it has the votes to pass. And what does O'Reilly do, blame it all on Obama of course, that is just insane right-wing garbage. And people are not mad at the Government, they are mad at Republicans for doing nothing.

So Father Gerald Murray & Pastor Joshua DuBois were on to discuss it.

DuBois said this: "I don't think we can blame the federal government. Congress has lit this fuse as well - what we have is the absence of a plan, and in the absence of a plan we are going to have chaos. President Obama has put forth a number of comprehensive reform plans."

Murray said this: "I understand people going into the street because their community was about to become the unwilling recipient of people who don't belong in the country. I would advise them to put forth their grievances, but blocking roads is not a good idea."

Then James Carville & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about a new poll that shows that many Americans are not generally proud of this country. The poll that O'Reilly is lying about.

Obenshain said this: "I'm not surprised, because there is a divisiveness that Obama has been stoking since day one. We have a president who has been insisting that things are our fault, but we also have to realize that this started decades ago with the liberal takeover of college campuses."

Carville said this: "It's pretty hilarious to say that banks blowing up or the disastrous Iraq war has nothing to do with this. The Republican Party is more unpopular than the Democratic Party and President Obama is significantly more popular than Congress."

Then Greg Gutfeld & Bernard McGuirk were on to discuss a new survey that shows young Americans care more about the World Cup than issues like Iraq and the IRS.

Gutfeld said this: "This is no surprise because soccer is the greatest thing ever. This sport is so interesting that it doesn't need scoring. And our country is in the toilet so we'll take up anything, even soccer, to take our minds off it. I actually took up nude Pilates."

McGuirk issued a ringing indictment of young folks and negligent parents, saying this: "We've raised a bunch of lowest-common-denominator nitwits. They think a misogynist is somebody who gives you a back rub, they don't know Ghana from yo' mama. If it's not trending on Twitter, they don't care about it."

Notice what the dishonest Gutfeld said, he said the country is in the toilet. Which is a right-wing lie, because the country is doing great. Jobs have been over 200,000 for 5 months in a row, the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1%, the stock market is hitting new highs all the time, and will most likely break 17,000 today, and the economy is getting better every month. But the Republicans like O'Reilly and Gutfeld still deny things are better because if they admit it they would have to give Obama credit for it.

In general, young people will never care about politics, when I was 20 or 30 I did not care about politics either, you only care as you get older. To act like it's something new is ridiculous, most 20 to 30 year olds only care about texting, having fun, and checking their facebook and twitter accounts every 10 minutes.

O'Reilly just makes himself look like an old out of touch fool when he slams the young for not caring about politics or Iraq.

Then the far-right Laura Ingraham was on with her insane suggestions for dealing with the immigration turmoil.

Ingraham said this: "The first thing you do, is start deporting people. Not by the hundreds, but by the thousands. Wherever we find people who are not supposed to be in this country, they have to go back to their home countries. Number two, we have to stop visas and stop foreign aid to countries that do not repatriate their citizens who left and came here illegally. Number three, there has to be an end to birthright citizenship. We should also have severe penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. There are a lot of steps we can take that will take the magnet away."

And even O'Reilly disagreed, he warned Ingraham, saying this: "If you do have mass deportations the Republican Party would become obsolete."

Hey O'Reilly, don't worry about your Republican party going away, because nothing Ingraham wants is ever going to happen. Her ideas are extreme, crazy, impossible, and will never be put in place.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Doing Something Noble on the 4th of July. Billy said this: "One way to celebrate the privilege of living in this great nation is to do something to help other Americans on the Fourth of July."

O'Reilly & Krauthammer Lied About The Patriotism Poll
By: Steve - July 3, 2014 - 10:00am

This is what I call spinning a poll to fit your partisan ideology to make the other side look unpatriotic, as O'Reilly and Krauthammer did Tuesday night. Here is what Krauthammer said:
KRAUTHAMMER: If you break this down by ideology or party, these are mostly Democrats and liberals, people who take their cues from the president. Remember, in 2008 Michelle Obama said it was the first time in her life she was proud of her country, which wasn't just a slip.

And then her husband traveled the world for a confession tour in which he talked about all of America's sins. This is new and quite remarkable and it's coming from the top. But for conservatives, the numbers are still quite high on patriotism and American exceptionalism.
O'Reilly then questioned why so many liberal Americans remain loyal to the president, saying this:
O'REILLY: What I don't understand is why the president's core still believes in him and still echoes what he says. His worldview is obviously not working and is making this country weaker.
Now think about this, Krauthammer was on with no Democratic guest for balance, so they could lie and spin the poll to make Democrats and liberals look bad. Now here are the details from the poll, that tell a whole different story, and show that the main reason the numbers dropped so low is because 15% more Republicans said they are not proud to be Americans.

Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and Krauthammer told you. Here is what the pew poll actually said.

As Americans prepare to celebrate the country's birthday, a clear majority considers the U.S. to be one of the greatest countries in the world. But the view that the U.S. is exceptional - standing above all other countries in the world - has declined 10 points since 2011.

About three-in-ten (28%) think that the U.S. "stands above all other countries in the world," while most (58%) say it is "one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others."

Few Americans (12%) say there are other countries in the world "that are better than the U.S."

Note from Steve: Notice that only 12% say there are other countries better than the USA, but neither O'Reilly or Krauthammer said a word about that.

More from the actual pew poll.

Three years ago, 38% said the U.S. stood above all others, while 53% said it was one of the greatest nations and 8% thought some others were better than the U.S.

This data comes from the Pew Research Center's political typology survey, released June 26.

The decline in the view that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world has occurred across most demographic and political groups, but it has been particularly acute among Republicans.

Note from Steve: Did you see that, the decline is mostly among Republicans, which is the exact opposite of what Krauthammer said Tuesday night, in other words, he lied about the poll, and O'Reilly not only let him, he agreed with him.

More from the pew poll.

In 2011, 52% of Republicans said the U.S. stood above all other countries in the world, while 43% said it was one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others.

Today, Republicans are 15 points less likely to say the U.S. stands above; 37% say it does, while 55% say the U.S. is one of the greatest countries, along with some others.


Currently, about a quarter of Democrats and independents say the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world (down from about a third in 2011).

Still, most Democrats view the U.S. as among the greatest nations in the world: 62% say it shares this status with some others, while 25% say it stands above. Similarly, a 57% majority of independents say the U.S. is one of the greatest, along with others, and an additional 26% say it is exceptional.

As was the case three years ago, young people are far less likely than older Americans to say that the U.S. stands above all other nations: Just 15% of those under 30 express that view today, down from 27% three years ago.

Yet the belief that the United States "stands above" other countries has slipped among all age groups since 2011, including among those 65 and older, who remain the most likely to think that the U.S. is superior to all other countries.

And now you have the facts, all of the facts, not the right-wing propaganda you got from O'Reilly and Krauthammer.

The Tuesday 7-1-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 2, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and Illegal Immigration. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As the chaos on the southern border mounts and thousands of children pour into the USA, President Obama finds himself in a very bad place. He has not been able to secure immigration reform and now, as things are falling apart, Americans are growing angry. So the president has decided to take matters into his own hands, and some of his solutions will anger his liberal base.

Current immigration law grants all children from Central and South American political asylum hearings, allowing those kids de facto legalization status. President Obama wants to eliminate that law and send the kids back quickly, which is not what the open border folks want to hear. So how to solve the entire immigration mess?

Talking Points has come up with a plan that is fair, humane, and can be implemented quickly. Number one, President Obama must demand that Mexico police its own borders and stop illegal aliens from crossing into Mexico from Guatemala. In addition, Mexico must control the border with the USA. On the other side of the border, the American military will also be patrolling to back up the Border Patrol at the hottest spots.

If Mexico does not cooperate, President Obama should threaten trade sanctions. What about the undocumented aliens who are already here? All of them must register at their local post office within three months, and if they don't it's a felony. Once a foreign national registers, he or she is sent a tamper-proof ID card allowing them to apply for working papers.

They can also apply to be citizens, but their applications will be placed behind those applying legally. The feds should have the power to immediately deport anyone they feel is dangerous, criminal, or a social miscreant. Also, the aliens could not receive entitlements, although their children could. There's no amnesty, but there is hope that a hardworking foreign national might build a life here.

That's a fair plan that would put a severe dent in a problem that has been vexing America for decades. Finally, it is long past time for the ideologues on both sides to stop the nonsense and do what is best for the country. The border must be controlled, amnesty is not fair, criminal aliens must be jailed and deported, and anyone caught sneaking in after immigration reform is passed will also be charged with a felony. That's reform that would work.
Now that is funny, because nobody asked O'Reilly for his plan, and nobody is going to use any plan he comes up with. Thanks for wasting out time O'Reilly, you wrote up a plan that nobody cares about and nobody is going to ever put in place.

Then Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were on with their opinions on how to deal with the immigration problem. The problem nobody cares about except O'Reilly and a few Republicans.

Powers said this: "I disagree with the president about sending children back, and I don't understand how he's going to do this. Who is he sending them back to? Is he just going to throw them on a bus and send them back to their dangerous countries? These are human beings and I support amnesty."

Crowley endorsed President Obama's plan, but expressed skepticism about his willingness to follow through, saying this: "This sounds good on paper, but the problem is the president's credibility. No one believes him now about anything, but if he follows through I'll be the first one to give him props."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the war on women, some on the left are in mad after the Supreme Court ruled that some small companies do not have to supply female workers with certain forms of birth control. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Stossel ridiculed the accusation that the ruling is another salvo in the war on women, saying this: "Nobody is talking about taking anybody's access. Even if all this stuff was banned, buy it yourself! It's not saying women can't have it, it's just saying other people shouldn't be forced to buy it for you. And if you can't afford it, Planned Parenthood will give it to you for free. This is the totalitarian left saying that unless someone else pays for your health care you aren't getting it. Some people are so hell-bent on seeing oppressors of women that they actually believe it."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby birth control case.

Wiehl said this: "The president thought the court was going to say that small corporations do not have freedom of religion, and he got that wrong. The court had already ruled that corporations are people, so the court got this right."

Which is just ridiculous, because corporations are not people, so they got that wrong, and only right-wing idiots think they got it right.

Guilfoyle said this: "There is hysteria and political propaganda. This was a really sound legal decision, the court had the standing to be able to do this, and it was a narrow decision."

It was 5 to 4, so the right barely won, that does not make it right, it just means they had the votes to pass it.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on with his immigration plan. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance. Not to mention, nobody cares about his plan either, and it will never be put in place, especially by a Democratic President.

Krauthammer said this: "This is not new, but this is the way to do the decent thing. I have two premises - number one, Americans are a humane people and they don't want to see 11-million people living in the shadows. Number two, Americans believe in a sovereign America that chooses who comes in. Therefore, if you could assure the American people that you would secure the border, they would then say we will legalize the cohort that is here now. However, if they feel there is no enforcement and there will be another 11-million in ten years, then they won't do it. So you have to secure the border, and when that is certified I would legalize. I would not give citizenship to those who broke the law, but they should have a right to work if they pay a fine."

Krauthammer also talked about a new poll showing that only 56% of those questioned often feel proud to be an American.

Krauthammer said this: "If you break this down by ideology or party, these are mostly Democrats and liberals, people who take their cues from the president. Remember, in 2008 Michelle Obama said it was the first time in her life she was proud of her country, which wasn't just a slip. And then her husband traveled the world for a confession tour in which he talked about all of America's sins. This is new and quite remarkable and it's coming from the top. But for conservatives, the numbers are still quite high on patriotism and American exceptionalism."

Which is ridiculous, because many of the Tea Party and the far-right say they do not feel proud to be an American. And Krauthammer is lying about what Michelle Obama said, what she said was taken out of context, and she later clarified it. She said she has always been proud of her country, but that she was proud of the country for voting a black man into the White House. Krauthammer and the right misrepresent what she said, and do not talk about her clarification.

I am a liberal and I am damn proud to be an American, I even have a sticker on my truck window saying American and proud. Most liberals I know are also proud to be an American, so Krauthammer and O'Reilly are lying.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Headache Relief. Billy said this: "According to one newsletter, you can get rid of a headache by tensing your jaw and face muscles and holding your breath for 30 seconds."

Clinton Points Out Republican Politics Over Diplomats Deaths
By: Steve - July 2, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill Clinton made a great point in his Meet The Press interview Sunday, a point that O'Reilly never mentions. He pointed out that many Diplomats have been killed in the past in foreign countries while Bush was in office, but not once did Republicans say a word about any of them. That they suddenly have a problem with it when it happenes under Obama, but not before that.

During his wide-ranging interview on Meet the Press today, Bill Clinton briefly addressed Benghazi, which will undoubtedly be a hot button issue for Republicans against Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton wondered why, when diplomats were killed during the Bush administration, Republicans didn't say a word.

David Gregory brought up Benghazi and how it's become the one issue Republicans seek to link to Clinton's wife leading up to 2016. He noted that Republican criticism suggests that Benghazi wasn't just mismanagement, but so egregious a scandal that it alone disqualifies Clinton to be president.

Clinton responded by calling Republicans hypocrites for one-sided outrage.

CLINTON: "When ten different instances occurred while President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed around the world, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there? Zero."

Proving it's all about politics, and that if Benghazi had happened with a Republican President they would not have said a thing. And btw, not once did any Democrats try to play politics when the 10 Diplomats were killed under Bush.

Take note that O'Reilly ignores these facts, because he is one of the Republicans who is playing politics with the death of the Ambassador, and he wants to hurt Hillary so it's harder for her to be the next President.

The Monday 6-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 1, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A Big Victory for Traditional Americans. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today the Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 that the federal government cannot force small companies to buy controversial birth control devices for their employees. The Obama administration wants all corporations to fund things like the morning-after pill, which many religious Americans believe is an abortion-inducing medication.

The very disturbing part of the Supreme Court's opinion is that the four liberal justices apparently believe that American taxpayers should fund abortions. That's hard to believe because religious freedom is a hallmark of the Constitution. If you sincerely believe that abortion is morally wrong, you have a right to opt out, but these four justices would deny you that right.

The other matter decided today by the Supreme Court is that the government can not force people to join unions. Again, it was 5 - 4 with the liberal justices believing the feds should be able to force American workers into a union situation. Talking Points is concerned that if one more liberal Supreme Court justice is appointed, freedom in America will be compromised forever.

On a practical basis, what are these four liberal judges thinking about? Wages for working Americans continue to fall and almost every major problem in this country is getting worse, yet four members of the Supreme Court want to empower the government even further! So while traditional Americans have a reason to celebrate tonight, there is a cautionary wind blowing. Liberal America, including President Obama, wants the federal government to control our lives. Every American should think about that.
And think about this, O'Reilly supported the partisan ruling 100 percent, proving once again that he is not the non-partisan Independent he claims to be. And not only did he not take an impartial position on it, he slammed liberals who spoke out against the ruling. Which is only what partisan Republicans are doing.

If O'Reilly were an actual non-partisan Independent he would not have taken a right-wing position on the issue and he would not have slammed liberals for their position on it. And he would have had a balanced debate in it, instead he had Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume on to discuss it, with no Democrats for balance.

Megyn Kelly said this: "I'm not surprised at all, and I'm fascinated to see the reaction from those on the far left to what happened in the Hobby Lobby case. An 'assault' on women, an example of the 'war on women?' Hillary Clinton came out with some crazy statement comparing the United States to extremist countries. Why? Because the Supreme Court basically upheld the law that Hillary's husband signed into law. Small companies that feel strongly about their religious beliefs will not have to provide drugs that terminate an already-fertilized egg."

Brit Hume said this: "This is the reason the Democrats and the left are so terribly worried about the upcoming election for control of the Senate. If the president does get to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court, he won't be able to get through somebody as far to the left as he might like. He'll have to have somebody who would be acceptable to Republicans in the Senate. The left is terribly afraid of that because they have depended on the courts to uphold measures that they like, or to create rights and laws out of whole cloth."

Hume also said this about liberals: "They see freedom as the freedom of a woman to go about her sexual activities as she pleases and to be protected from the possible consequences of that by having free birth control. That's their idea of freedom."

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk abou the thousands of unaccompanied children flooding across the Rio Grande, and how President Obama has announced his intention to "fix our immigration system" on his own, because the House Republicans refuse to have a vote on the immigration bill, even though it has the votes to pass. Something O'Reilly never mentions.

Williams said this: "There are 52,000 kids who began coming here last October, and we have Republicans who are confusing illegal immigration with the refugee situation. They're using this to score points against President Obama - I think it's cynical and terrible."

Ham of course slammed Obama, saying this: "This follows a regular pattern for him. He gives a speech, says he's going to act on his own, makes fun of Republicans in Congress, and then asks them for a bunch of stuff. President Obama almost never acts proactively, he acts reactively."

O'Reilly said this: "Compassionate Americans want people treated fairly, but that doesn't mean that you should be derelict in protecting the country, as the Obama administration has been."

And the crazy answer from O'Reilly is to put the military and a big wall on the border, which will not work, and will never happen. Even most Republicans do not support the military on the border, or a wall.

Then the Democratic strategist Mark Hannah was on to defend the White House on Iraq.

Hannah said this: "I think ISIS is trying to draw America into a civil war that's been going on in that region for the past 1,500 years, and I think there are no good options and cooler heads will prevail if we exert a little bit of patience. The threat is not going to go away if we drop a couple of bombs on some bad guys who say bad things about the United States."

But of course O'Reilly the neo-con right-wing hack disagreed, saying that the terrorist army must be confronted: "I suggest we use air power to diminish their power. It is no secret that they want to go into Jordan and Israel and other countries and eventually stage attacks on Europe and the United States."

Remember this folks, O'Reilly is not a military expert, he was never in the military, his guy Col. Hunt even disagrees with him, and O'Reilly was also totally wrong on Iraq 11 years ago, just like Bush and Cheney were. So nobody should listen to anything he has to say about Iraq.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he went to New Mexico and the annual convention of the National Organization for Women, and got these comments from some of the feminists. "I object to the term 'gal,' I am not a 'gal'" ... "The whole structure is designed to have men be dominant" ... "There is actually an all-out war on women raging right now." Before long, though, some NOW bosses called the (male) security guards and had Watters forcibly escorted from the premises and threatened with arrest.

Back in New York, Watters summarized his visit with the women of NOW, saying this: "They booted me and gave me a criminal trespassing summons, so I don't think I'm going back to Albuquerque any time soon. Next time we'll send Megyn Kelly."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly asking people to vote in his worthless and unscientific website poll.

Megyn Kelly Beat O'Reilly For First Time In The 25 To 54 Demo
By: Steve - July 1, 2014 - 10:00am

For the first time Megyn Kelly beat the almost unbeatable Bill O'Reilly in the key news demo last week. Yes, the 9 PM The Kelly File has topped 8 PM's The O'Reilly Factor on FNC before both on individual nights and even for a full week.

However, those single nights were mainly around the time Kelly's show debuted in early October last year and on Election Night 2013. The Kelly File beat The Factor during the week of May 5, but O'Reilly himself wasn't hosting that week.

Last week's victory was the first host-to-host face-off where Kelly came out the winner. From June 2-June 6, Kelly File drew 413,000 adults 25-54.

That's a hair ahead of the 402,000 that O'Reilly pulled in among the demo, but in ratings as in horse races, a win is still a win. Both shows were up from the 344,000 and 370,000 among the 24-54s that they had the previous week, respectively.

O'Reilly remained No. 1 with 2.528 million viewers overall, but just barely, compared to Kelly's 2.434 million. Last week was Kelly's second best week of the year among the demo so far.

And btw, the Factor ratings are down from a year ago when he was getting 2.8 to 3.2 million total viewers a night, which of course O'Reilly never mentions.

For the week of January 27, the host had 440,000 viewers on average among Adults 25-54. With Kelly at No. 1, O'Reilly at No. 2 and Hannity at No. 3 with 340,000 in the demo.