Bill Clinton Slams Cheney For Blaming Iraq On Obama
By: Steve - June 30, 2014 - 10:00am
Former President Bill Clinton delivered a devastating blow to former Vice President Dick Cheney Friday as he pushed back hard on Cheney's criticism of Obama's Iraq policy.
David Gregory asked Clinton about former VP Dick Cheney's recent criticism of President Obama over the violence in Iraq. Former President Clinton answered with this:
"Well, I believe, you know, if they hadn't gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening. It might be happening in Syria, but what happened in Syria wouldn't have happened in Iraq. Iraq would not have been, in effect, altered as it has been, but Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it's unseemly. And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it."
One of the interesting things about former President Clinton's take down of Dick Cheney is that it represents what is likely to be Hillary Clinton's 2016 position on the issue. Former Sec. of State Clinton did vote for authorizing the use of force in Iraq while she was a senator, but it is clear that she and her husband have moved toward the Obama position on Iraq.
As far as Dick Cheney is concerned, Clinton was correct. Cheney was one of the primary voices who caused the mess in Iraq, so it is absurdly hypocritical for the former vice president to go on television and criticize the way that President Obama has gone about cleaning it up. Clinton was also right that the current violence in Iraq is a lingering effect of the Bush/Cheney decision to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
As usual, Bill Clinton delivered the blow to Cheney with his usual down-home charm and style. Clinton sent a very clear message. If Republicans want to go there on Iraq, Clinton is ready to remind everybody of just who got the country into this mess in the first place.
Obama Calls Out Republicans For Their Trickle Down Failed Policies
By: Steve - June 29, 2014 - 10:00am
Speaking Friday afternoon at Lake Harriet in Minneapolis, Minnesota. President Obama let go of the tight constrictions of diplomacy and got real about the problems in DC: It's Republicans and their failed trickle down fantasies. They just don't get what people are going through.
"So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked or voted down every single serious idea to strengthen the middle class," President Obama told the crowd. And if you think he's exaggerating, he went through the list and it's not pretty.
And sometimes I'm supposed to be polite about how I say things -- (laughter) -- but I'm finding lately that I just want to say what's on my mind. (Applause.) So let me just be clear -- I want you think about this -- so far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked or voted down every single serious idea to strengthen the middle class.
Basically, Obama was getting real with the truth. Republicans are out of touch with what real people are going through. And it's fair to say that most politicians are out of touch with what real people are going through. They believe that talking about the poor and middle class is simply something they have to do to get elected.
You may think I'm exaggerating, but let me go through the list. They said no to raising the minimum wage. They said no to fair pay. Some of them have denied that there's even a problem, despite the fact that women are getting paid 77 cents for every dollar a man is getting paid.
They've said no to extending unemployment insurance for more than three million Americans who are out there looking every single day for a new job, despite the fact that we know it would be good not just for those families who are working hard to try to get back on their feet, but for the economy as a whole.
Rather than invest in working families getting ahead, they actually voted to give another massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
Don't boo, by the way. I want you to vote. (Laughter and applause.) I mean, over and over again, they show that they'll do anything to keep in place systems that really help folks at the top but don't help you. And they don't seem to mind. And their obstruction is keeping a system that is rigged against families like Ben's and Rebekah's.
Now, I'm not saying these are all bad people; they're not. When I'm sitting there just talking to them about family, we get along just fine. Many of them will acknowledge when I talk to them -- yes, I know, I wish we could do something more, but I can't -- but they can't be too friendly towards me because they'd be run out of town by the tea party. (Laughter.)
But sometimes I get a sense they just don't know what most folks are going through. They keep on offering a theory of the economy that time and again failed for the middle class. They think we should give more tax breaks to those at the top. They think we should invest less in things like education.
They think we should let big banks, and credit card companies, and polluters, and insurers do only whatever is best for their bottom line without any responsibility to anybody else. They want to drastically reduce or get rid of the safety net for people trying to work their way into the middle class.
And if we did all these things, they think the economy will thrive and jobs will prosper, and everything will trickle down.
And just because they believe it, it doesn't mean the rest of us should be believing it -- because we've tried what they're peddling, and it doesn't work. We know from our history that our economy does not grow from the top down, it grows from the middle out.
We do better when the middle class does better. We do better when workers are getting a decent salary. We do better when they've got decent benefits. (Applause.)
We do better when a young family knows that they can get ahead. And we do better when people who are working hard know that they can count on decent childcare at an affordable cost, and that if they get sick they're not going to lose their homes.
That's why it's imperative for voters to look at a politician's record. For example, currently the Republican Speaker of the House is aiming to sue President Obama for taking action to help the workers and citizens of this country after Congress failed to act.
Republicans have rejected all jobs bills, instead clinging to the Keystone Pipeline as a jobs bill -- when in fact it is just more corporate giveaways instead of an investment in this country. Look at their records to see if it matches with their rhetoric.
No matter the party, they should be for raising the minimum wage, be for extending unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed, for fair pay for women, not be cutting aid to children and the elderly in tough times, want to address climate change, not be advocating for more war when the VA is underfunded and they refuse to fund it, and in general should be putting people ahead of corporations.
These used to be bipartisan ideas. If they are not anymore, Republicans need to admit that they are no longer for the working man and woman, against children and the elderly, against our veterans when they get home, and against reality regarding climate change.
President Obama is fired up and taking aim. Wise Republicans would recall what happened to Obama's past opponents before stepping in more mud. But we all know this GOP is not wise at all.
And of course Bill O'Reilly ignores all of this, because he is too busy slamming Obama to report any news like this.
Boehner To Sue Obama For Things He Thought Were Fine Under Bush
By: Steve - June 28, 2014 - 10:00am
Republican House Speaker John Boehner confirmed Wednesday that he will file a federal lawsuit challenging the executive actions of President Barack Obama, despite supporting President George W. Bush's extensive use of executive authority.
Boehner said this at a news conference: "You know the constitution makes it clear that the president's job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws."
He added that the suit was "about defending the institution in which we serve" because "what we've seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch." He refused to say which specific actions he believes to be illegal.
President Obama has issued about 180 executive orders -- a power that has been utilized by every president since George Washington except for the brief-tenured William Henry Harrison -- and taken other executive actions. A Boehner spokesman denounced these as "a clear record of ignoring the American people's elected representatives and exceeding his constitutional authority, which has dangerous implications for both our system of government and our economy."
In other words, when the Republican Bush did it Boehner thought that was ok, but when Obama does it suddenly it's illegal and wrong.
Boehner embraced the power of a Republican president to take action, even at times when he would circumvent Congress by doing so. President George W. Bush's issued hundreds of orders of his own over his eight years in office.
In 2001 and 2007, Boehner strongly supported unilateral actions by Bush to prevent embryonic stem-cell research involving new embryos, saying the 2001 decision "preserves the sanctity of life and allows limited research that could help millions of Americans suffering from life-threatening diseases."
He endorsed a 2008 Bush executive order to limit earmarks. In the final days of Bush's second term, he even wrote to the president asking him to use an executive order to exempt a historic steamboat from safety regulations after Congress opted not to do so.
Boehner himself even pushed for administrative compliance with one of President Obama's executive orders. In 2010, he asked Obama for a progress report on implementation of an executive order banning taxpayer funding for abortion in Obamacare.
In a letter to then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, he noted that the order had "paved the way" for the law's passage and that the lack of update on implementation "does little to diminish widespread skepticism about the administration's commitment to enforcing the Executive Order and preventing the law law from increasing federal support for abortion."
While the president has limited power to act via executive order -- the U.S. Supreme Court has even suggested that it would hold one of President Obama's most controversial executive actions.
And btw, Obama has issued fewer executive orders than all but one of the other presidents since World War II.
The Thursday 6-26-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 27, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Chaos on the Border. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Estimates are that more than 300,000 children will enter the USA illegally this fiscal year. The primary culprit here is Mexico, which is allowing smugglers to abuse children, putting them at grave risk.
So James Carville & Andrea Tantaros were on to discuss it. Tantaros supported the Factor's Mexico boycott. And she wondered why anybody would go to Mexico when there are plenty of other vacation spots.
Human smugglers, associated with the Mexican drug cartels, are charging up to $7,500 a kid to bring minors to the USA from Central America. The smugglers have no fear. They know the Mexican authorities will not stop them, and the porous U.S. border is easy to cross.
The federal government is doing little, and our awful immigration laws actually encourage the exploitation of children. Because of this tremendous abuse of innocent children, I have called for a boycott of Mexico. I am asking Americans not to travel there or buy their products. This is serious business. The American people should demand that Mexico stop hurting the United States."
O'Reilly said his intention is not to hurt Mexican workers, but we're being forced to something about the situation.
Which is just laughable, because the Factor boycott of Mexico is a joke and will have zero effect on anything they do. In fact, I doubt if anyone in Mexico even cares that Bill O'Reilly is calling for a boycott, not to mention, hardly anyone even knows about it.
Carville said we would be better served helping the Mexican government deal with the problems they're facing with human smugglers and drug cartels, to which O'Reilly replied it is not in our best interest to send more money to a corrupt Mexican government.
Then Colonel David Hunt & Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer were on to talk about Iraq.
Angry about ISIS terror army growing in strength, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said this last night on Megyn Kelly's show: "This President is a coward and won't make tough decisions to defend America in Iraq."
Hunt called Lt. Col. Peters hyperbolic, saying it's ridiculous to call the President of the United States a coward and saying it adds nothing to the discussion.
Shaffer sided with Lt. Col. Peters, accusing the President of simply voting present like he's done most of his career. He contended that our inaction is not serving us well and we should attack the ISIS army from the air.
O'Reilly then questioned whether it was appropriate for Ralph Peters to make this particular Iraq policy decision by the President personal. Shaffer wouldn't go so far as to call Mr. Obama a coward, but he did say his inaction on Iraq, when he was briefed on the matter and knew what was coming, is a dereliction of duty.
O'Reilly compared the ISIS army having a staging ground to what Bin Laden had in Afghanistan before 2001. If he were commander-in-chief, he'd attack from the air. But Hunt reminded him there are consequences to airstrikes and said this is one war we shouldn't get involved in right now.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, we have been at war with Iraq for 11 years, and look at what a mess it is, we did not make things better, we made them worse. And we spent trillions and thousands of American lives doing it. We need to leave them alone and let them settle their own civil war. And let's remember one other thing, O'Reilly and all his neo-con right-wing friends were wrong about everything in Iraq back in 2003, so why should we listen to them now.
Then Heather Nauert was on for the mad as hell segment.
1) The first letter writer was mad at the Factor for punishing decent Mexicans in the tourism industry by calling for a boycott, but O'Reilly reasoned that Mexico has to be forced to do the right thing. Nauert said she won't be traveling to Mexico for both moral and safety concerns.
2) One viewer is angry we're still sending foreign aid to Mexico and Central America, when we need that money to care for the children they're sending here. Nauert ran down how much we're giving each of these countries. O'Reilly said that if he were in charge, this money would stop.
Which is just laughable, because the Congress decides what and where money is spent, so what O'Reilly says he would do as President is impossible.
3) The next "mad as hell" issue - cell phone users are rude! But O'Reilly said he is more concerned about the issue of texting while driving, which Nauert pointed out accounts for 26% of car crashes.
4) Finally, there is frustration at the Founding Fathers for neglecting to see the need for Congressional term limits. The Factor proposed five terms for the House and three terms for the Senate. Heather noted the Founding Fathers actually included term limits in the Articles of Confederation, but it was taken out because they thought thought the free market would take care of it.
I would say we should have term limits, 3 in the House and 1 in the Senate, 6 years is enough for Congressman and Senators.
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about legal cases.
A federal judge in Oregon has ruled the no-fly list set up to protect us from terrorism unconstitutional. Kelly explained that 13 Muslim-American plaintiffs found themselves on the no-fly list and sued because they weren't able to challenge the designation. And even O'Reilly said the ruling sounds logical, as the government can't oppress American citizens under a general rule of protection.
Kelly went on to say the ruling specifies that the Department of Homeland Security needs to come up with a procedure for notifying people when they're on the list. She agreed with the ruling and expressed shock that O'Reilly was siding with the ACLU on this one.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled police now have to get a warrant to search your cell phones. Kelly walked us through it: when cops pull you over, they can pat you down. If they feel a gun or drugs, they can search you, but they were feeling phones and taking them out and looking at the information on there, which the court ruled is unreasonable.
To which O'Reilly said nothing, because O'Reilly supported the police searching your cell phone without a warrant.
Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the Marine imprisoned in Mexico since March, Ingraham reported two Congressmen made their second trip this week to visit him. He seems to be doing well physically, and he has a new attorney who says he'll be more aggressive. Ingraham also commented how Mexico is quite serious about enforcing its laws, while we pick and choose who has to abide by our immigration laws.
O'Reilly said if the Marine does get out, he'll give props to Greta Van Susteren, who has really taken the lead on this controversy. In a sound clip, Bill Clinton accused Dick Cheney of attacking this administration for not cleaning up the mess he made in Iraq, which he called "unseemly."
And the best Ingraham could do was make a joke about the irony of Bill Clinton talking about unseemly behavior, a comment for which O'Reilly slammed her for not recognizing the difference between attacking policies and attacking personally.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a real tip, just O'Reilly talking about the Clintons and their finances again.
Actual Voter Fraud Case Found: By A Republican
By: Steve - June 27, 2014 - 10:00am
Republican Voter Fraud Found as Scott Walker Supporter Charged With 13 Felonies In Wisconsin
It turns out that voter fraud is real. A Republican Scott Walker supporter in Wisconsin has been charged with 13 felony counts related to voter fraud.
Robert Monroe, a 50-year-old Republican Shorewood health insurance executive, was charged Friday with 13 felonies related to his voting a dozen times in five elections between 2011 and 2012 using his own name as well as that of his son and his girlfriend’s son.
According to the records, Monroe was considered by investigators to be the most prolific multiple voter in memory. He was a supporter of Gov. Scott Walker and state Sen. Alberta Darling, both Republicans, and allegedly cast five ballots in the June 2012 election in which Walker survived a recall challenge.
According to the John Doe records, Monroe claimed to have a form of temporary amnesia and did not recall the election day events when confronted by investigators.
Yesssssssssssss, Republicans have finally found their voter fraud. Unfortunately for them, they are the ones committing it. The Monroe case is even worse, because he voted multiple times in the April 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court race that required a recount. And this is not the first episode of Republican voter fraud in the state. In 2011, a Republican legislative aide was investigated for voting multiple times.
The greatest irony of all is that the Monroe case exposes why voter ID laws don't do what Republicans claim they do. Since Republicans benefit most from absentee voting, they have refused to address the glaring potential for fraud by absentee ballot. The Republican in Wisconsin was able to commit multiple acts of state and federal voter fraud by using absentee ballots for state elections, and driving across state lines for federal elections.
Republican voter ID laws address none of these issues, and instead focus on suppressing the vote by requiring voters who are more likely to vote for Democrats to show identification. A person is least likely to have identification if they are living in the city, and don't drive. Voter ID laws are being used to suppress the votes of women by making strict rules about acceptable names on the identification.
It turns out that a very small percentage of voter fraud is real, and mostly Republicans are guilty of doing it.
Scarborough Admits IRS Also Targeted Left-Leaning Groups
By: Steve - June 26, 2014 - 11:30am
O'Reilly and his right-wing propagandist friends want you to believe only right-wing groups were targeted by the IRS, when we know that is a lie, and we know O'Reilly is spewing that lie out every day. And as more proof O'Reilly is lying, the Republican Joe Scarborough admitted left-leaning groups were also targeted, and he wondered why Democrats were not very mad about it.
During a segment on the IRS hearing Monday night between congressional Republicans and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, a Morning Joe panel roundly agreed that if a GOP-led government agency had misplaced potential evidence, trials and coverage would be legion, bringing host Joe Scarborough to wonder why Democrats weren't leading a charge to investigate the IRS over the targeting of left-leaning groups.
And I have the answer for him, because it was just bad management practices, there was no political actions taken by Obama or by anyone in the White House. The Democrats are not mad because there is nothing to be mad about. It is not a scandal, it's a non-news story made up by Republicans to make Obama look bad, and it has failed big time.
Scarborough said this: "If it was Henry Waxman or Darrell Issa or whomever, when the IRS gets involved in this sort of play, whether it's against Democrats or Republicans, I think that is the time the Hill should go after him."
Scarborough also said this: "I'd love to see some Democrats come out and start pounding this guy too. Because there were Democratic groups also targeted as well, right? I slept through three years of law school, but even I know political speech is held to a higher standard."
The Wednesday 6-25-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 26, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Media Bias. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: You may remember New Jersey Governor Chris Christie being pounded by the national media for a controversy on the George Washington Bridge. A grand jury is investigating whether members of Mr. Christie's staff sabotaged traffic on the bridge to get revenge on a political opponent. The story is valid - and the network news went wild with it, devoting 112 minutes to the situation in the first week.
Take note that not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, none, as in zero, so much for fair and balanced. And the media does not cover the IRS story because it's not a scandal, it's a right-wing scam. Not to mention, I thought Fox was supposed to balance out the media.
But when the V.A. scandal broke, there was no coverage on the nightly network news broadcasts for almost two weeks - none. When the lost IRS emails story broke, just three minutes and 14 seconds combined on all the network news casts. That's unbelievable - that's a news blackout.
On the newspaper front, the three big liberal papers - the New York Times, the L.A. Times, and the Washington Post - printed 56 stories and commentaries about Governor Christie in the first week...First week of the V.A. scandal - two stories. First week of the IRS scandal - three stories. You want media bias? There it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no question that the major national media in the USA is trying to protect President Obama and will promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. For informed Americans, the blatant partisanship will not have much effect. But for the 50% of us who do not pay attention, who do not know very much about their country, media bias is devastating.
Then Bernie Goldberg was on, and according to him, it was old-fashioned media bias when he first wrote about it, but it has become full-blown media activism. He wondered - where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins, or better yet where are Woodward and Bernstein? He called the American newsroom the place where Barack Obama scandals go to die.
Then Erick Erickson was on to talk about the IRS story. The agency has agreed to pay the National Organization for Marriage, a group that opposes same sex marriage, $50,000 to settle a lawsuit.
Mr. Erickson, editor of redstate.com, laid out the story, saying this: " Back in 2012, the National Organization for Marriage woke up one morning and found out that their donors were displayed on the website of Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay marriage group. The information came from confidential tax records, which were leaked by an IRS employee."
O'Reilly said that the IRS keeps a list of all non-profit organization donors, but the list is supposed to be private. He said that one IRS weasel got the information and leaked it to gay activists and then the donors got attacked by some gay marriage supporters. He questioned whether this is the IRS' fault or just one corrupt official.
Erickson responded that a judge ruled in June this was an employee mistake, but other confidential documents were leaked by the IRS so there's a pattern of behavior. He also commented that the Attorney General is declining to investigate for criminal activity. O'Reilly said it's another instance of Eric Holder refusing to investigate anything that may make the Obama administration look bad.
Which is no different than what the Attorney Generals did under Bush, they all do it, they protect the guy who appointed them.
Then Carl Cameron & James Rosen were on. Cameron delivered the big headline in yesterday's primary vote yesterday: the Tea Party lost in Mississippi. The group spent a lot of money trying to knock off incumbent Thad Cochran, but their guy Chris McDaniel lost. He reported a similar situation in Oklahoma, where both the national Tea Party group and super PAC put in a ton of money.
O'Reilly said the race in Mississippi will now be closer than if the new guy won, as the Republican establishment believes Sen. Cochran will easily defeat his Democratic challenger.
Rosen was in Paris with John Kerry, who he interviewed yesterday. Stating that Kerry is motivated by social justice, surmised that the Secretary of State probably thinks America shouldn't throw its weight around so much and would benefit more from a conciliatory approach to foreign affairs rather than a militaristic one. O'Reilly of course doubted Kerry, saying that philosophy is not working out.
Then Howard Kurtz & Lauren Ashburn were on to talk about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who are comedians with shows on the Comedy Network. Which I will not report on, because they are not journalists and this is not news.
Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk about Hillary Clinton, who is on a book tour and a conservative activist confronted her, asking her to sign her book to the Ambassador killed in Benghazi.
MacCallum said the activist's antics were over the line. She pointed out that Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi, was a personal friend of Hillary Clinton. She noted the activist was trying to create the irony that the former Secretary of State was surrounded by more security than Ambassador Stevens, but it fell flat.
O'Reilly thought Mrs. Clinton handled the situation well, and said that sort of thing hurts conservatives. He warned that you can make your points about her responsibility in Benghazi without doing this kind of cheap stuff.
Moving on to the World Cup, MacCallum explained how a Uruguayan soccer player bit an Italian soccer player during their match. He has apparently been suspended for biting twice before. O'Reilly urged soccer authorities to ban him forever and suggested the biter get some psychiatric help.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly talking about the Clintons and their money.
Jon Stewart Slams Cheney Over Iraq SOFA Agreement
By: Steve - June 26, 2014 - 10:00am
Jon Stewart took on the latest news from Iraq and had some tough words in particular for "America's tragedy herpe." Yes, Stewart called out Dick Cheney for having the temerity to criticize President Obama on just how bad Iraq's gotten.
Stewart mocked the former vice president and his "Sith apprentice" daughter for acting like the U.S. was just mere seconds away from total victory in Iraq when Obama just ruined the whole thing. And Stewart pointed out it was actually the Bush administration that negotiated the withdrawal of forces, which Cheney bragged about on TV.
And so Stewart was absolutely floored by how Fox News Megyn Kelly actually called Cheney out to his face. Stewart said maybe now Cheney will get how it feels when "someone you thought was a friend shoots you in the face."
The main hypocrisy Stewart pointed out was an interview Cheney did many years ago bragging how the status of forces agreement Bush and him signed was great, that said they would remove all American troops. So back then it was great, now suddenly Obama is a traitor for not leaving troops in Iraq, when Bush and Cheney put the agreement together, signed it, and were proud of it.
Basically it shows what a partisan political hack Cheney is, and how nobody should ever listen to anything he says, because it is all lies. And of course O'Reilly never points out any of that, because he also blames Obama for the problems in Iraq and he does not want you to know the truth.
Supreme Court Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches
By: Steve - June 25, 2014 - 11:30am
And I would say, wow it's about time, this ruling should have happened years ago, it is a violation of your right to privacy.
As of Tuesday, America's Fourth Amendment law was an antique. It was the legal equivalent of trying to solve complicated differential equations with an abacus. It took little account of how much data government can gather or store with modern day computers, and even less account of technological advances such as the smart phone.
With its decision in Riley v. United States, the justices took an important step towards lifting our Constitution out of what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to call the "horse-and-buggy age." As of Wednesday, the police must obtain a warrant before they can search through your cell phone.
Although the Fourth Amendment generally provides that a person's possessions may not be searched unless a judicially issued warrant authorizes the search, the Court has long recognized an exception to this rule for what is known as searches incident to an arrest.
This general rule allowing searches incident to an arrest dates back about a century, long before the era of computers and the iPhone. So the justices who created and fleshed out this rule had no concept of what it would mean when many people carry a small device in their pocket that can access years worth of their emails and text messages, that can reveal a suspects finances and romantic partners, and that may contain extensive photo and video evidence of how they lead their lives.
Riley teed up this question for the modern-day Supreme Court: when police arrest someone carrying a cell phone, does that arrest give law enforcement license to cull through the device and access whatever information they choose?
The answer, according to a nearly unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, is no. "Cell phones," Roberts explained, "place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. A search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search" authorized by previous cases.
It should be noted that Riley does not rule out the possibly that, in extraordinary cases, police may be justified in searching a cell phone without a warrant. Thus, for example, in the rare case where a suspect is "texting an accomplice who, it is feared, is preparing to detonate a bomb," or when a suspect is a "child abductor who may have information about the child's location in his cell phone," a warrantless search would be justified. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases, the Constitution now requires police to get a warrant before they can search a cell phone.
America's privacy law, took a significant step into the modern era with Riley. It remains to be seen, however, how the Court will answer similar questions about whether new technologies require a rethinking of longstanding privacy doctrines -- such as when the National Security Agency builds a database of millions of phone calls made over many years.
The Tuesday 6-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 25, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: In Over His Head? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is a bitter divide in America between committed liberals and staunch conservatives. The left basically wants a different America, a progressive place where the federal government calls the shots. The right wants to maintain tradition and believes that smaller government is best.
Has anyone noticed a pattern in the O'Reilly TPM's, they all slam Obama and they never report any of the good news in America. Which is the same thing O'Reilly slammed the media for when Bush was in office, even calling them un-American, but now it's ok for him to do it. It pretty much proves that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.
Enter perhaps the most liberal president in history, Barack Obama. From the beginning of his campaign in 2007 he has been severely criticized on conservative talk radio. The criticisms are turning out to be somewhat valid - the Obama administration has collapsed in the court of public opinion as independents have joined conservatives in believing the president is not doing a good job.
The basic problem is competency, and you may remember that the radio guys pointed out that Barack Obama had little experience running anything. If you examine the facts without emotion, Mr. Obama's management skill and problem-solving ability are dubious. He was quite clear that he would reform the Veterans Affairs department. So what happened?
The V.A. is now a scandal. Add to that the border, Putin, the IRS, and Iraq, and you have an administration that is basically missing in action. So, to be fair, it looks like the conservative radio talk show hosts were correct in their assessment of Barack Obama's ability to run the country.
And btw, O'Dummy says the left wants a different America, a progressive place where the federal government calls the shots. This is a 100% lie, it's just not true. What the left wants is fair pay for doing work, a living wage, instead of slave wages.
The left does not want the government to call the shots, in fact, we want the government to mostly stay out of our lives, we just want fair wages and help for those that need it, especially people who worked for 20 or more years and paid taxes, then get disabled and need help with the money they earned when they paid in while working. And this BS about the right wanting smaller government is nonsense, the government got bigger under Bush.
O'Reilly also says the problem with Obama is competency, and that is right-wing nonsense, the problem is not competency, the problem is O'Reilly just hates Obama and does not like the way he is running the country because he is a Democrat and O'Reilly is a Republican. Bush had a problem with competency and was a complete idiot, but not once did O'Reilly have a problem with it or say it, and even supported 99% of what Bush did, even calling people who disagreed un-American traitors.
So then Monica Crowley was on to discuss the O'Reilly TPM, saying this: "Those of us on the right, were warning about Barack Obama in 2008. We are seeing great incompetence and we are dealing with a president for whom far left ideology is everything. It matters less to him that he is carrying these things out in a competent way than about what he called the 'fundamental transformation' of the nation. This president laid out a series of objectives to transform the country and he's done it in a lawless way."
Democrat Kirsten Powers said this: "The radio hosts say the same thing about every Democrat who runs for office. I'll predict they'll say the next Democrat who runs for president hates the military and does not have the right experience, and they will accuse whoever it is to be borderline socialist and far left."
And for once Powers is right, the right-wing idiots on the radio say every Democratic President will be a disaster, even though when you look back through history almost all the Democratic Presidents have done better than the Republican Presidents. And as usual O'Reilly and Crowley ignore the facts.
Then Alan Colmes and Dana Perino were on to say if America is in decline, and of course the conservatives say yes, while the liberals say no.
Perino said this: "I think President Obama's intentions, are that America pulling back and not being so involved in the world will ultimately be good for America. Do I think President Obama wants us to have less influence in the world? Yes, but I don't think he came into office thinking he'd like to ruin this country and bring us to our knees."
Colmes disputed the ridiculous claims from the right that President Obama is engineering a decline, saying this: "Charles Krauthammer says we're 'choosing' decline, but saying we don't want to be involved as much in the world doesn't necessarily mean decline. President Obama went into Libya, we had a surge in Afghanistan, we have been involved. You judge a president through the lens of history, this is not the time to be judging him."
Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about a federal court that has released a previously-secret government memo that was used to justify President Obama's decision to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Wiehl and Guilfoyle scoffed at the claim that the drone strike was tantamount to homicide.
Wiehl said this: "This was absolutely not murder. Killing is okay under the law when you have an imminent threat, as you did here. The CIA and other intelligence were telling the president that al-Awlaki was plotting future crimes."
Guilfoyle turned her attention to a massive FBI mission that targeted child prostitution across America, saying this: "This was called 'Operation Cross Country' and it's been a huge success in this war we are fighting against people who prey on children. The FBI was able to recover 168 kids and remove them from this life of sex trade. 281 pimps were also taken in."
Then John Stossel was on to cry about not winning any Emmy awards since going to Fox. He collected 19 Emmy awards while he was at ABC as a host and consumer reporter, but precisely zero since moving to Fox five years ago.
Stossel said this: "The reason I left ABC, is the same reason I no longer win Emmy awards. The mainstream media loves it when you say, 'This is going to kill you and the government must step in and fix it.' My reporting scared people about everything. But then I wised up and realized that things are, by and large, getting better. Business is not the problem, the problem is government regulation."
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, just O'Reilly telling you to stay away from uninformed people, which is not a tip and almost impossible to do, because most people are uninformed about politics.
Obama Hits Back At GOP Warmongers Like O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 25, 2014 - 10:00am
On CNN's New Day, President Obama made his strongest statement yet against Republicans who are calling for ground troops in Iraq. The president said, "There's no amount of American firepower that's going to be able to hold the country together."
BARACK OBAMA: We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy, to work across sectarian lines, to provide a better future for their children. And, unfortunately, what we've seen is a breakdown of trust. There's no doubt that there has been a suspicion for quite some time now among Sunnis that they have no access to using the political process to deal with their grievances.
And for the record, President Obama is correct. The under Bush and Obama the United States gave Iraq more than a fair chance, and literally trillions of dollars in support. The problem has always been twofold. The ability of the Iraqi government to overcome sectarian differences and unify the country, and the willingness of the Iraqis themselves to fight for their government.
So, part of the task now is to see whether Iraqi leaders are prepared to rise above sectarian motivations, to come together and compromise. If they can't, there's not going to be a military solution to this problem. You know, there's no amount of American firepower that's going to be able to hold the country together. I made that very clear to Mr. Maliki and all the other leadership inside of Iraq.
BOLDUAN: But by going into the country, to support this Iraqi government, to support Iraqi forces now, there's a real risk that you will very likely be seen as supporting the Shiite side. Isn't that inflaming the tension further and thus doing exactly what ISIS wants?
OBAMA: Yes, actually not, because the terms in which we're willing to go in as advisers initially is to do an assessment of, do they still have a functioning chain of command, and is their military still capable? But what we've also said is that if we don't see Sunni, Shia and Kurd representation in the military command structure, if we don't see Sunni, Shia and Kurd political support for what we're doing, then we won't do it.
BOLDUAN: Finally, do you really believe in your gut that this change can happen, that they can unify in Iraq?
OBAMA: I think we'll know from soon enough. They don't have a lot of time. There's a timetable that is in place under their constitution. The good news is that so far at least all the parties have said that we want to abide by the constitution.
So, they had the chance, but, you know, ultimately what I think the vast majority of Americans understand is that we can't do it for them, and we certainly can't redeploy tens of thousands of U.S. troops to try to keep a lid on a problem if the people themselves don't want to solve it.
What Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Marco Rubio and other Republicans are either openly advocating, or hinting at is a bigger US role in Iraq. Some Republicans are seeking to exploit the ISIS problem in Iraq, in the same way, that they used 9/11 as a reason for the initial invasion of Iraq. Counter terrorism can't be used as an excuse for propping up the Iraqi government. The intentional confusion of the two goals is what got the United States into Iraq in the first place.
The US will do their part, but at some point the Iraqis must display a willingness to fight for their own government. If the Iraqi people aren't willing to fight to keep their government, the United States can't do it for them. For people like Dick Cheney, sending more combat troops to Iraq isn't about helping the Iraqi people. Cheney is only concerned about protecting his legacy. If the Bush installed government falls in Iraq, it will be the final crushing blow to the Bush legacy of failure.
President Obama is making sure that this nation doesn't again go down the path of failure blazed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The Monday 6-23-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 24, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: President Obama's Problems. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With summer upon us, it's clear that the USA has big problems and the Obama administration seems unable to solve them. But it's important to remember that not everyone sees the situation the same way.
Wow, that is just total right-wing propaganda. To begin with, The IRS story is fake, it's made up by the right, they targeted all groups, not just tea party groups. The so-called liberal media has always been covering the kids crossing the border, O'Reilly lies that they were not. And Bush did not put the military on the border either, no President ever will. There were no troops left in Iraq because of the SOFA agreement Bush signed. O'Reilly is just a right-wing idiot.
For example, when the new IRS commissioner testified last week, I couldn't get over his smirk. John Koskinen is a big-time Democrat who donated about $100,000 to that party over the years and he is clearly not upset that his agency has not been forthcoming about targeting Tea Party groups. But if the IRS is targeting any group in America, that's a scandal and an abuse of power.
Now, on to the border. The liberal media has finally been forced to cover the situation as thousands of unattended children continue to pour into the USA. While the consensus is that the children are victims, what to do about them is contentious. Many on the right want to deport the kids; many on the left believe America should accept them.
The truth is that the Obama administration has not a clue about what to do on the southern border. The answer is securing the border once and for all, and to do that you have to put the military down there. But there's no way President Obama will ever do that, so the problem simply cannot be solved as long as he remains in office.
And finally, there is the Iraq disaster. A terrorist army has overrun the Iraqi military. Why did the Obama administration not see this coming, and why did the president not engage earlier? We are now paying the price for leaving no American military behind in Iraq. For his part, President Obama doesn't seem overly concerned. He was asked by the Iraqis to bomb the terrorist army months ago, but he refused.
And here's something interesting: The left wing press is now calling the invasion of Iraq by terrorists a 'militant Sunni problem.' The liberal media does not want to portray the Iraqi story as a 'terrorist' action because that might turn public opinion in favor of doing something.
Once again, the media attempts to obscure the truth, hoping to provide Mr. Obama with some cover. Nobody is calling for battalions of troops to be deployed in Iraq, but when you can strike dangerous terrorist armies from the air, you do so, especially when asked by a government that you installed at great cost in American blood and treasure. It's simply amazing that President Obama continues to sit it out.
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to evaluate the Talking Points Memo.
Williams said this: "You can't just indiscriminately start using American air power, and make it the air force for Maliki and the Iranians. Bombing those terrorists would also help the Syrian leader Assad, who is not a friend to us. And when it comes to our border, these children are refugees who are escaping war and political instability."
Ham said this: "On all three of the scandals you brought up, the president often is 'president passive voice.' He is not proactive when it comes to these sticky issues. Specifically on the instability in Iraq, he gave an interview today and there was no recognition of his role in that."
Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the Talking Points Memo, specifically the lack of strict enforcement on the southern border. And even Hume basically told O'Reilly he is nuts for saying we should put the military on the border, he said what are they going to do shoot kids?
Hume also said this: "It is clearly to the political advantage of Democrats to be friendly to immigrants coming across the border, and to be seen by the immigrants as being that way. That means they'll do better with the Latino vote, which is growing all the time. But the situation with immigrant children is a different matter - they are under a special category of the law and they simply can't be turned away at the border."
Which is laughable, Hume acts like Obama is letting the kids come over to vote for Democrats, which is just insane. It's an act of humanity, when is he supposed to do, round them up and deport them, they will just come back.
The crazy O'Reilly even agreed that Democrats are seeking political benefits from widespread immigration, saying this: "I have never heard an elected Democrat wanting to militarize the border and I've rarely heard an elected Democrat support tough measures to keep illegal immigrants out. I'd secure that border so you couldn't get on a Jet Ski and get in. There aren't a lot of good jobs for working Americans, this is not a great time to assimilate millions of refugees into America."
Which makes no sense, because no Republican President has ever called for putting the military on the border either.
Then the stupid Jesse Watters was on, he went down to Greenwich Village, one of the most liberal places in America, and asked a few locals to rate President Obama's performance.
Here are some of their replies: "He seems pretty good, he's better than Bush" ... "At this point I'd give him a six, the job isn't getting done" ... "I'm not looking for a handout, I think that's what's wrong with this country" ... "I think Fox News makes up a lot of the scandals" ... "I don't want to sound like I'm apathetic, but I really don't care."
Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the overall state of America in the scandal-plagued sixth year of President Obama. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Krauthammer said this: "There's a big difference between decline as a condition, and decline as a choice. What we have with Obama is a president who is choosing decline. America has innovative people and we've just stumbled across one of the great energy bonanzas in history with natural gas and oil. We're in a position to dominate again but we have a president who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and greatness. He has chosen for America to retreat from the Middle East, to not lift a finger in places like Ukraine, and basically to make us one nation among others. That is a choice and it can be reversed."
These guys are just a joke, the Republican George W. Bush almost run this country into the ground in 8 years, Obama has turned that around, the stock market is setting records, people have health care, jobs are back, and the economy is improving. But all these right-wing hacks do is say Obama hates America and he is ruining it, when in fact he loves America and he saved it from people like Bush, O'Reilly, and Krauthammer.
Then Wendell Goler and Mike Emanuel were on to talk about the bogus IRS scandal. And as usual, no Democratic guests for balance.
Emanuel said this: "A lot of the Republican members, have been saying to Koskinen that if you are a man of integrity you should call the FBI and call for a special prosecutor. You can feel the frustration from Republican members who feel like a crime has been committed between the targeting of conservative groups and now the disappearance of all these emails."
Goler said this: "The folks here at the White House are sticking with their story, which is that the targeting of Tea Party groups looking for tax-exempt status might have been bad management, but there's no evidence that it was politically motivated."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Live and in Concert. Billy said this: "There aren't many true musical icons on this planet, so enrich your life by seeing as many of them in person as you possibly can."
The 8 People That Should Be On TV Talking About Iraq
By: Steve - June 24, 2014 - 10:00am
And take note of this: Not one of these people has ever been on the Factor to discuss Iraq, even though they were all right. Because O'Reilly does not want you to hear what they have to say about it.
Former Bush officials like Vice President Dick Cheney and former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer (and Bill O'Reilly) have found themselves nearly unchallenged in supporting the vision of the Bush administration in launching the war in Iraq in the first place, all while laying the blame for Iraq's current turmoil at the feet of the current White House.
While the Abrams and Bremers of the world find themselves back in the spotlight, the media has done a less than impressive job of raising the profile of those who rightly doubted the wisdom of invading Iraq.
Here are 8 of them for future reference:
1) Brent Scowcroft
Scowcroft served as the National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush, a role he'd first played under Gerald Ford. Though still closely aligned with the elder Bush, Scowcroft was sharply critical of the rationale for going after Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks.
While members of the younger Bush's administration were busy spinning media reports that the Hussein was closely tied to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, Scowcroft was knocking down that belief.
"We've got to be looking at priorities here," Scowcroft told PBS in October 2001. "Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have one thing in common, and that is they both hate the United States. Otherwise, they have very little in common. As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after the number one target."
2) Gen. Anthony Zinni
A former Marine General who commanded U.S. Central Command during Operation: Desert Fox, which struck at Iraqi installations during the Clinton administration, Zinni was no stranger to the country. Zinni served as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East in the lead-up to the war, and openly questioned the argument that invasion was necessary.
"I can give you many more [priorities] before I get to that," Zinni told an audience at the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee in 2002 when asked if the United States should move to remove Hussein. Instead, Zinni said the country should focus on negotiating peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaida. "We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida can't come back," he said.
When his skepticism was proved to be correct, Zinni wasn't shy about saying so. "Yes, in my view, it was a blunder," Zinni said in 2004, talking with MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "The president was not served well with strategy, planning, and decisions made from there. I think they misled him on what to expect -- the rationale, the elements for the strategy, to the situation on the ground. It wasn't going to be a pie-in-the-sky welcome in the streets with flowers. Anyone who knew the region and knew the country knew what this was not going to happen."
3) Richard Clarke
As he detailed in his book "Against All Enemies," former National Security Council counterterrorism director Clarke saw from very early on that the Bush administration would be focused on Iraq no matter how tenuous the connection to al Qaeda.
"I think we knew prior to 9/11 that there was serious interest in having something happen with Iraq," he said to PBS. "Beginning on the night of 9/11, we have the secretary of defense and others talking about going to war with Iraq. I think we knew pretty much that week that the probability of finding a justification for going to war with Iraq was high on their agenda."
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. We all said, 'but no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'" Clarke said in an interview with CBS in 2004. "And Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the September 11 attacks].'"
4 & 5) Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame
In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush said "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the infamous 16 words that were later proved to be based on shoddy intelligence deliberately spun to sound more definite than it actual was.
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson in July of that year wrote at the Washington Post that when he had been sent to Niger to investigate the claims, he found no evidence that Hussein was actually purchasing yellowcake uranium from the west African country. "The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership," Wilson wrote.
"If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."
A few days after Wilson's piece, the Washington Post’s Robert Novak wrote "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Plame's identity as a CIA operative was to this point undisclosed, launching an investigation into just who in the Bush administration leaked the classified information.
The result is that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, close aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice over the disclosure.
6) Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Lee first made waves in 2001 for her being the sole No vote against the authorization to use force against Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. Less than two years later, Lee was one of a small number of Democrats committed to avoiding war with Iraq.
"We do not have to go to war, we have alternatives," she said at the time. Lee also led the charge on a bill in the House that would have expressed the sense of Congress that "the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means."
That bill died in the House International Relations committee.
In the end, she was one of 133 in the House to vote against the war in Iraq. Recently, Lee introduced several amendments to the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act formally barring the U.S. from funding renewed combat operations in Iraq.
7) Howard Dean
Before his campaign collapsed in early 2004, former Vermont governor Dean was the leading candidate in the Democratic primary because of his prescient stance against the war in Iraq. "My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq," Dean told PBS' Gwen Ifill in February 2003, a little less than two months before the invasion was launched.
"Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases."
In the same month, Dean slammed Congress for passing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force giving the Bush administration a green-light to act.
"Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq -- unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency," Dean said in a speech at Drake University.
"That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election. To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests."
8) Colin Powell
Though a controversial choice for this list, Powell actually has more credibility to speak on the issue of Iraq than any other Cabinet-level member of the Bush administration. Critics of Powell will never forgive him for his role in selling the war, including his dramatic presentation at the United Nations making the case for Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
But in the years since, Powell has acknowledged that the information he had provided was "not solid." In an interview with Barbara Walters soon after leaving the administration, Powell said: "I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now."
In his memoir, he also he writes that his presentation at the U.N. was "one of my most momentous failures. I am mad at myself for not having smelled the problem. My instincts failed me." While some say that he dodged his own personal responsibility for Iraq, this is far more than many officials have given, many of whom are now making the case that it's really Obama that is to blame for Iraq's current situation.
In addition, unlike many of those officials, Powell has actually served time in the military, including being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first Gulf War.
Rand Paul Says Obama Not To Blame For Iraq Crisis
By: Steve - June 23, 2014 - 10:00am
NBC News has just released a preview of David Gregory's interview with Rand Paul, set to air on this Sunday's Meet The Press, in which the Republican senator responds directly to criticism President Barack Obama has received from former Vice President Dick Cheney and others on Iraq. After listening to what Cheney had to say, Paul remarked, "I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War."
In his Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Cheney, along with his daughter, wrote, "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many" and criticized President Obama for trying to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Do you think Dick Cheney is a credible critic of this president?" Gregory asked Paul.
"I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War," Paul answered. "You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That's what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won? They didn't really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out."
He went on to say he doesn't blame Obama for the current crisis in Iraq. "And what's going on now -- I don't blame President Obama," he said. "Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry."
When Gregory suggested Paul does not consider himself to be a "Dick Cheney Republican" when it comes to foreign policy, the senator did not disagree.
"What I would say is that the war emboldened Iran," he said. "Iran is much more of a threat because of the Iraq War than they were before -- before there was a standoff between Sunnis and Shiites. Now there is Iranian hegemony throughout the region."
And of course O'Reilly fails to report any of this, because he is still putting out the Dick Cheney/GOP propaganda that it's all Obama's fault, even though the Iraq war caused it, and he does not want you to know the truth.
Karl Rove Caught Lying About Obama & Iraq SOFA
By: Steve - June 22, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course neither Bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox has pointed it out, they just let Rove lie because they do not want you to know he is full of it.
Karl Rove argued that the Obama administration's effort to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in 2011 failed because Obama placed unprecedented conditions on Iraq -- even though it was the very same conditions the Bush administration included in its 2008 agreement with Iraq.
Rove went on the June 20th America's Newsroom and accused the Obama administration of adding unprecedented demands into the renegotiation of the 2011 Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.
According to Rove, the U.S. and Iraq failed to agree because the Obama administration insisted on parliamentary approval of the agreement -- a condition that "was impossible for Iraqis to meet" and divergent from what we've done in any other country around the world where we have a Status of Forces Agreement:
BILL HEMMER: Are you of the mind that the reason why we did not leave a force of 10,000 behind in Iraq -- you know, the president said yesterday 'the Iraqis didn't let us, Maliki would not give us the agreement, so we had no decision but to pull out.' Are you of the mind that this administration did not want that agreement in order to have the reason and the rationale to pull American forces out of Iraq and say to the American people 'campaign promise fulfilled, the Iraq war is winding down and now ended.' What do you think?
Which is a lie, because the Bush administration -- in which Rove served for seven years -- included parliamentary approval in its 2008 SOFA with Iraq, setting the terms for future SOFA's renegotiations.
ROVE: I do think the administration, they said they wanted it, they assigned Joe Biden to negotiate it, and then at the last minute they put in a condition that was impossible for the Iraqis to meet -- that is to say, they wanted parliamentary approval of the SOFA. That's not what we've done in any other country around the world where we have Status of Forces Agreement. We've signed it with the leader of the country.
And Maliki had the authority to do it, but it was impossible for him to go to his parliament at that time because he was trying to form a government and this would have been embroiled in domestic politics. So the administration basically made it impossible to do the deal.
In November 2008 the Iraqi Parliament approved the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S., and then-President Bush praised them for the vote, saying "the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."
Thus in 2011, when the Obama administration began talks to renegotiate the SOFA, a necessity if U.S. troops were to remain in Iraq after January 1, 2012, parliamentary approval was required.
Colin H. Kahn, the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, explained, "Because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around."
And like Bush's 2008 SOFA agreement, in 2011 the U.S. requested that soldiers receive legal protections and immunities, protections common "in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate," Kahn noted:
Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament.
This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki's own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections.
Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular. Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out.
The Friday 6-20-14 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review
By: Steve - June 21, 2014 - 11:00am
There was no TPM because the far-right hack Eric Bolling filled in for O'Reilly. His top story was called: Fiery IRS Hearing. Bolling started Friday's show with the hearings on Capitol Hill, where members of Congress grilled IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over the mysteriously missing emails sent by former IRS official Lois Lerner.
Democratic strategist Steve Leser accused Republicans of engaging in a witch hunt, saying this: "This is a trumped-up scandal. The question is whether conservative groups were unfairly targeted, and they weren't. We have analyses showing that liberal and conservative groups were denied tax exempt status at the same rate. In all of these scandals the Republicans are trying to monger on the American people, they stop short of actually trying to find out what the truth is. They know that at the bottom of it there is no scandal."
Leser also dismissed the notion that the missing emails are evidence of a cover-up, saying this: "I spent nearly 20 years in IT and you'd be surprised how many instances like this you see in the public and private sector. Prior to 2013 the IRS had an antiquated tape backup system and every six months old data was deleted."
But of course the far-right Bolling said he wasn't buying what Leser was selling, saying this: "They think the American people are fools and that we're going to believe everything that they're shoveling our way."
Then the former Navy aviator and military analyst Captain Chuck Nash was on to say if U.S. troops should be dispatched to quell the bloody fighting in Iraq.
Nash said this: "Absolutely not. For that to happen the president would have to have the confidence of the American people and his polls are the lowest ever. Also, the enemies would have to fear that we would actually go in to win, and right now U.S. credibility abroad is at a low ebb as well. There are also military reasons not to do that right now. This is a Sunni tribal rebellion against the central government in Baghdad. Iraq is the land of broken promises and broken dreams, and this is not the time to reinsert ourselves, at least until we figure out what's going on."
Then Geraldo was on with his take on the border turmoil.
Geraldo said this: "There is a huge misinformation campaign being waged by coyotes and immigrant smugglers in Central America, but where is the information that they are twisting coming from? This is definitely the unintended consequence of President Obama's declaration in the run-up to the 2012 election that the children brought here by their parents at a young age would be allowed to stay. The president made very specific limitations, but what he said is being twisted by the smugglers."
As for what to do with the thousands of children now in the country illegally, Geraldo said this: "There's a 7-year-old girl who is tired and hungry and filthy. Are you going to send this child back to an uncertain life?"
Bolling said this: "She's breaking the law just like her parents are breaking the law by coming here, and people who break the law should go back."
Then Talk show host and Marine veteran Montel Williams was on to talk about new reports indicating that the problems at the VA are even more widespread than had been realized.
Williams said this: "We need a V.A. surge. If we had a surge to send people off to die, why don't we surge to take care of them right now? There's plenty of money, this is a leadership problem."
Even though V.A. boss Eric Shinseki was recently axed, Williams called for a purge of the entire department, saying this: "We chopped off the head and think thought we took care of the problem, but the chicken is still running around aimlessly. It's time to take the chicken down. There are some people who made the V.A. a career for themselves, and even made sure they could get exit pay. The V.A. people who gave themselves bonuses for a rigged system should go to jail!"
Finally, Williams made a recommendation for new V.A. leadership, saying this: "Ken Fisher, founder of the Fisher House Foundation, knows more about the pain that families go through than any person the president could appoint. Put him in charge right now!"
Obama Slams GOP For Climate Change Propaganda
By: Steve - June 21, 2014 - 10:00am
During a commencement address at UC Irvine, President Obama outlined a new $1 billion competitive fund to encourage cities to develop their infrastructure in advance of the effects of climate change, and criticized those who still disputed the environmental phenomenon.
Obama said lawmakers were failing to uphold the responsibilities of their office by not taking bold action to curb the harmful effects of carbon emissions.
OBAMA: "Today's Congress, is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change. They'll tell you it's a hoax, or a fad."
"It's pretty rare that you'll encounter somebody who says the problem you're trying to solve simply doesn't exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn't be worth it. But nobody ignored the science. I don't remember anybody saying the moon wasn't there or that it was made of cheese."
Obama also said efforts to deny the science were cloaks for electoral queasiness: "They say, 'Hey, look, I'm not a scientist.' And I'll translate that for you: what that really means is, 'I know that manmade climate change really is happening but if I admit it, I'll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot.'"
OBAMA: "I'm not a scientist either, but we've got some good ones at NASA."
The president also took the media to task for not providing sufficient coverage of climate change, such as the impact of a new EPA proposal that would cut carbon power plant emissions 30 percent by 2030. The media should spend less time speculating about how it would affect November's midterm election, and more time on the potential impact to the environment, he said.
The Thursday 6-19-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 20, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: President Obama & Iraq. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking like a college professor, President Obama today outlined the problems Iraq faces because different Muslim sects can not get along. His analysis was long on detail, short on solutions. Even though the Pentagon recommends bombing the Al Qaeda army, Mr. Obama says he will not bomb the terrorists. Instead, he's sending in about 300 military advisers and asking for international help.
Note: Not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, so much for fair and balanced.
So once again, the president seeks consensus from other countries rather than charting a direct course. There are two things in play. First, what's happening inside Iraq, which few people care about. Those people have been killing each other for centuries and are not likely to stop any time soon, so let's stay out of Iraqi politics.
The second issue is very important to America. We defeated terrorism there at great cost, but now terrorism is back. We can not defeat it again on the ground, but we can damage it from the air. President Obama dissents, but why? All I could glean from his remarks is that he feels military action will lead to unintended consequences.
Remember, he wouldn't pull the trigger in Syria on the poison gas deal and is generally very cautious about direct action to right wrongs. This emboldens our enemies, who don't believe Mr. Obama has the will to punish them. He is basically a man of theory, a person who avoids evil rather than confronting it. And the evil-doers know it.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, we never defeated terrorism there, ever. Bush said mission accomplished but that was a lie only you and a few other right-wingers believed. Nobody supports a new war in Iraq but you and a few other fools.
Then Ed Henry from Fox News was on to talk about Iraq. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Henry said this: "President Obama blamed Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, as the reason the president didn't leave any troops behind in Iraq in 2011. He said we couldn't get legal immunity for U.S. troops in case they killed a civilian in self defense. But today President Obama didn't take a question as to whether we now have immunity, which we clearly don't. We're only sending a few hundred people, but the idea of mission creep is obviously a worry."
Henry expressed doubt as to whether the White House is aware that trust in the president is declining both at home and abroad, saying this: "I don't think they realize, how much of a defining moment the Syria debate was for the president. His going right up to that 'red line' and then pulling back sent signals around the world."
Which is total speculation and O'Reilly allowed it, even though he has said a hundred times that he does not allow speculation.
Then Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer were on with their recommendations for handling the Iraq turmoil. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Hunt said this: "I'd let it burn, Iraq is about to fall completely and we should not get in the middle of this war that has gone on for a thousand years. Americans have done enough, we should not get in the middle of this civil war."
But Shaffer argued that the Al Qaeda army is too dangerous to ignore, saying this: "They've already threatened us and they're trying to create conditions to have camps so they can attack us here. We need to figure out the centers of gravity of ISIS and then we can slow down their progress with air power."
O'Reilly warned Col. Hunt that his prescription could eventually damage America, saying this: "The logical conclusion of letting it burn would be an Al Qaeda stronghold in the north. These people would organize and get stronger, then they'd want to launch attacks on Israel and America."
Then the Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry was on to talk about children crossing the border, with no Democratic guest for balance.
Perry said this: "This has been going on for some time, and we've been calling it to the attention of this administration since 2009. Now we have a humanitarian catastrophe, as well as a homeland security issue. The federal government must uphold its constitutional duty to secure that border. Until they do that, Texas is doing even more - we have approved more than $1-million a week for additional border security. I don't have any confidence that the president is engaging in the way that he should."
Huh? How are children crossing the border a homeland security issue, that is just ridiculous.
Perry warned that a tornado or some other natural disaster could be especially calamitous, saying this: "If we have a major event in Texas today, I do not have a place that can give safety to my citizens because of all of these facilities that are being used by these individuals that are overrunning our government."
Now here is the stupid part of it, Perry and the right say the federal government should leave them alone and do nothing, but now they want the federal government to help them. It's double talk, one day they say the government should leave them alone, the next day they demand their help.
Then Heather Nauert was on to discuss letters from some angry viewers. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Joy Craw of North Carolina, defended Vladimir Putin from accusations that he is a tyrant. Nauert said this: "Putin is pretty much trying to reestablish the Russian empire, and that's popular in that country. His term expires in 2018, when he could run again, and then in 2024 he could put somebody else in office."
Michael Karr of Illinois, claims that calling for a boycott of Mexico is akin to boycotting Chicago because of the city's violence. Nauert said this: "Chicago has a lot of violence. But when it comes to Mexico, the question is whether you trust the Mexican government, which certainly hasn't been cooperative. There's a corrupt police force in Mexico, while I trust the police department in Chicago."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the Iraq situation and what pundits are saying. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Kelly said this: "I thought Glenn Beck's take was interesting. He backed the war in Iraq initially, but now he believes the left was correct in objecting to it. He doesn't think we should go back over because he doesn't think they want freedom."
Kelly also talked about the government's decision to revoke trademark protection for the name "Redskins," claiming it offends many citizens, saying this: "If you have a trademark on something it helps you, and Redskins' owner Dan Snyder is now hobbled legally. The feds are trying to mess with him, no question about it. Some Native Americans say they're offended by the name, but some polls show that 90% of Native Americans do not find the name offensive."
Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss the border mess. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Ingraham said this: "The first thing we should do is to reassert our right to have borders, our right to sovereignty. That means we have to start deporting people. Both parties say we aren't going to deport the people who already here, and people in Central America got that message. If you don't deport anyone, you're going to keep getting people coming over the border. We have a health care crisis with the people coming in, we have an economic disaster brewing, and there are the security issues."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing with Insane Bosses. Billy said this: "If you have a boss who is truly irrational, maybe even crazy, do whatever you can to extract yourself from that situation."
Glenn Beck Admits The Liberals Were Right About Going Into Iraq
By: Steve - June 20, 2014 - 10:00am
Glenn Beck led off his radio show on Tuesday morning with a stirring monologue about all the ways he believes the left and right can come together to heal America. As part of that, Beck suggested that perhaps all Americans can come together to recognize the blunder that was invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 -- an act that he now regrets having supported.
After listing the Veterans Affairs Department scandal and the fight against Common Core standards as two ways in which the left and right can unite, Beck asserted that "maybe we could come together now on this nightmare in Iraq."
He then took a contrite tone and said this:
BECK: From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn't. At the time I believed that the United States was under threat from Saddam Hussein. I really truly believed that Saddam Hussein was funding terrorists. We knew that.
He went on to say this: "You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else," largely because "If people vote for Sharia Law, they vote for Sharia Law."
He was funding the terrorists in Hamas. We knew that he was giving money. We could track that. We knew he hated us. We knew that without a shadow of a doubt. It wasn't much or a stretch to believe that he would fund a terror strike against us, especially since he would say that. So I took him at his word.
Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn't get involved. We shouldn't nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right. We shouldn't have.
Considering how many hundreds of thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars spent on the war, Beck put forward the idea that maybe we should never have gone in the first place.
"I have more of a chance of hacking off my loyal listeners and audience by saying this," he conceded, "but so be it: Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more."
In conclusion, Beck said that conservatives need to listen to their non-interventionist instincts before politicizing Iraq and supporting another military action simply because of politics -- i.e., because the president is a Democrat. "This has to become about the principles because in the principles we all agree," he ended. "Enough is enough. Bring them home, period."
And finally, for once I agree with something Glenn Beck said. But of course you will never hear this kind of talk from O'Reilly, because he is totally in the tank for George W. Bush, the Republican party line, and the Iraq war. He will continue to spew out the GOP propaganda that it's all Obama's fault and the Iraq war was a noble cause, which is exactly what he said Monday night.
The Wednesday 6-18-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 19, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Figuring out what to do. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama is under siege. His poll numbers are declining rapidly and almost everywhere he looks there is chaos. The key question is, why is the president so often caught off guard when bad things happen? We still have no concrete strategy about what to do in Iraq, even as the Al Qaeda army is close to seizing that country's main oil refinery and has butchered thousands of people.
Wow, I bet the Mexican government is really worried that O'Reilly's 80 year old viewers are going to boycott Mexico, when none of them go there in the first place. It's just ridiculous, and O'Reilly sounds just like he did in 2003 when he supported the first Iraq war, which he was wrong about then. He was wrong, and now we are supposed to listen to him now, when he is not a military expert, haha, no chance.
The president had yet another meeting today about Iraq, but action remains delayed. Why hasn't the United States been confronting the Al Qaeda army, which controls parts of Syria and northern Iraq? The president and others say we must first deal with the Iraqi government in Baghdad before we can strike, but that is pure bull. President Obama's most effective terror strategy has been using drones to kill Al Qaeda all over the world, and we don't get governments' permission to do that.
So why have we stopped offensive actions in the face of an Iraqi army that is seizing vast amounts of territory in the Middle East? Now, down to the border, another colossal catastrophe. Nearly 50,000 foreign children are now being shipped around the country by the federal government. In fact, planes full of kids and some illegal alien adults are landing in far away states like Massachusetts.
So the feds are allowing illegal aliens into the country in great numbers and then flying them around the country without asking permission from the states. Is that insane? The answer is yes. That brings us to Mexico. It is time for all of us to stop going there - that country is not our friend. Mexico helps the millions of people crossing its territory to enter the USA illegally because they don't really like us and they're corrupt.
So I'm asking every American to boycott you, President Nieto, because you and your government are harming the USA. When are we the people going to wake up?
Then Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez was on to talk about the children from Central America crossing into Texas.
Gutierrez said this: "I met this morning with representatives from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico. I made it clear that they have a very clear responsibility to inform people in their countries that children coming on this treacherous odyssey, being raped and murdered, is no way to resolve the problems they confront in their own countries. They have a responsibility to tell people that it's dangerous, that they're not simply going to show up in the United States and get a green card. They made a commitment to do exactly that."
But of course O'Reilly had a more immediate solution, saying this: "I would move the National Guard down to the Texas and Arizona borders right now."
Yeah that's a great idea, put national guard troops on the border to stop kids from coming to America, what could go wrong, haha, what a loud mouth fool, it will never happen.
Then James Rosen & Carl Cameron were on, Rosen confronted State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, asking why it took the U.S. so long to capture Benghazi suspect Ahmed Abu Khatallah.
Rosen said this: "I know and respect Jen Psaki and the other State Department spokesperson, but backwards reels the mind at some of the talking points that these two women are dispatched to dispense. For example, Ms. Psaki suggested that our news media have means and methods of getting close to terrorists that our military and intelligence lack. That's preposterous!"
Cameron said this about President Obama's Wednesday meeting about Iraq with Congressional leaders: "There is no consensus at the White House and there is no consensus in Washington. The president told lawmakers that he has a wide array of things on the table, but the leadership didn't get any other information out of him. We do know that the Defense Department is sending F-18 fighter jets to conduct surveillance over Iraq, and we know that the president has said he is not willing to commit combat troops."
Then Bret Baier was on to talk about the Hillary Clinton book tour, Clinton visited Fox News Tuesday for an interview with Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren. And all they did was ask her about Benghazi of course.
Baier said this: "Hillary Clinton still believes, that the anti-Islamic video played a significant role in Benghazi. She said something new yesterday about the 'careening' of intelligence - she thought it was the video and then she thought it was a coordinated terrorist attack. What I was trying to get to in this interview was that she put out a press release that night at 10:07 PM in which she says Benghazi was the result of this video that was playing throughout the Middle East."
Then the former CIA director James Woolsey, who ran the agency under President Clinton, assessed the current intelligence failures that seem to come almost daily.
Woolsey said this: "Sunni and Shia have only been massacring one another for 1,400 years, so it shouldn't be too surprising that it happens again and again. Seriously, I don't think the problem is a lack of competence in our intelligence services, I think the problem is political correctness and the narrative. The narrative was that we've already won the war against Al Qaeda, and then if something doesn't fit that narrative they fiddle with the facts in order to make it look okay. If the president implies that he might use force and draws a red line, like he did with Syria, and then backs down, that's not the intelligence services' fault."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly telling people to visit his website and take a survey.
New Poll Shows The People Agree With Obama On Iraq
By: Steve - June 19, 2014 - 10:00am
A new poll released Tuesday by PPP found that by a nearly two to one margin (54%-28%), the American people are strongly siding with President Obama's decision not to have sent combat troops back into Iraq.
Only 16% of Americans would support sending combat troops to help deal with the crisis in Iraq, compared to 74% who are opposed. There's a bipartisan consensus on that issue with with Republicans (28/57), Democrats (10/86), and independents (9/86) all strongly opposed to sending combat troops.
Asked specifically whose vision they agreed with more about having US troops in Iraq between Obama (no troops under any circumstances) and John McCain (troops should have remained in Iraq after 2011), voters side with Obama by a 54/28 spread. In addition to Democrats strongly siding with Obama's perspective, independents (53/28) and Republicans (49/30) do as well.
O'Reilly also has the same position as McCain on leaving troops in Iraq, so the majority of Americans also disagree with Bill O'Reilly.
People aren't buying what O'Reilly and the Republicans are selling on Iraq. They are blaming the violence on the withdrawal of American troops, but 67% of Americans think the conflict is rooted in centuries of internal conflict that was exacerbated by the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.
Americans overwhelmingly support providing intelligence to the Iraqi government (56%-30%), and a major international diplomatic effort (52%-30%) to stabilize Iraq.
It turns out that the American people aren't about to get fooled again by the same lies that got the country into Iraq in the first place. O'Reilly and the Republican Party are playing a politically dangerous game by trying to blame President Obama for the wave of violence in Iraq. Instead of blaming Obama, their attacks are reminding the American people that it was the GOP who lied to them and got the nation into a war of choice.
A war Bill O'Reilly supported 100 percent, and even called people who opposed it un-American traitors.
The American people don't want combat troops back in Iraq because Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. President Obama did not lose Iraq because Iraq never belonged to the United States. It is up to the Iraqis to stabilize their country, and resolve their internal differences. The neo-con war agenda has never been less popular than it is today.
The 275 troops that Obama sent to Iraq to secure US facilities and personnel was a smart decision. If the president didn't send the extra security and something happened, Republicans would be screaming about another Benghazi. However, there is a big difference between sending a few hundred troops to keep Americans secure, and sending hundreds of thousands of troops to do the Iraqi government's fighting for them.
The Republican era of war is over, and Obama's decision to not send combat troops back to Iraq is a reminder of why so Americans voted twice for him to be president.
The Tuesday 6-17-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 18, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Chaos on the Border. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The New York Times, the liberal standard-bearer in this country, ran an editorial saying that the Obama administration should provide massive humanitarian aid for about 50,000 children who have illegally entered the USA since last fall and the hundreds more who come every single day. The Times describes the children and some of their parents as 'refugees.'
So then Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were on to evaluate the Talking Points Memo. And for once Powers sounded like a real Democrat saying she disagrees with every word he said.
So liberal America is trying to convince us that poor people in Central America are fleeing economic oppression, and therefore we have to accept them and allow them to stream across the border at will. The left points out that this is humane and Christian, and it's true that compassion for the downtrodden is a hallmark of Judeo-Christian philosophy.
But the harsh reality is that we cannot support all the world's poor, and since the Obama administration cannot control the southern border the USA is facing a crisis. For years, some on the left have wanted open borders like they have in Europe, but the massive welfare state that goes along with supporting poor migrants would break this nation financially. Most of these kids and their parents can't speak English, have little education and few skills.
It will take decades for them to be self-sufficient, so we are creating an underclass totally dependent on American taxpayers. Because I just laid that all out for you, I will be attacked by the left. But I'm telling you the truth - we are compelled to help the poor, but we cannot destroy the fabric of the nation by granting refugee status to everyone who wants it.
Powers said this: "I disagree with just about every word that came out of your mouth. If you're going to invoke the Bible and Judeo-Christian standards, there is no 'but.' It's a false choice to say we can't take care of the entire world's poor. Are you going to tell me that we can't afford to pay for 50,000 children? C'mon, Bill! We should take care of every child that comes into this country."
But of course Crowley agreed with O'Reilly saying that the USA doesn't have the resources to care for tens of thousands of children, saying this: "When you see these pictures, it's hard not to feel heartbreak for these kids. But we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of anarchy and chaos. The United States is not supposed to be a dumping ground or an international day care center."
Which is just laughable, because when the GOP wants to spend trillions on a war against a country that did not attack us they find the money for that, but if some kids need care they say we can not afford it, give me a break.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the chaos in Iraq, where the terror group ISIS is posting gruesome photos of its savagery. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Krauthammer said this: "Obama has to produce overnight a mini-version of what he declined to do in 2011. That is, we need a small residual force that could gather intelligence, help plan tactics, and carry out air support. Those are the three things we should have been in a position to do for the last three years, but we were not. The consequence is the liquidation of all the gains we made."
O'Reilly again urged President Obama to employ air strikes, saying this: "No credible person wants to send mass troops into Iraq again, that would be foolish. But using air power to diminish the terror army is feasible and necessary. President Obama is dithering."
Then John Stossel was on to talk about Iraq, and no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Stossel said this: "This is awful, but we ought to protect our people and otherwise stay out of it. When you and Charles talk about air power, that means you're talking about killing not just the terrorists. This bothers libertarians because in 20 years bombs will be smaller and easier to conceal, and every time we kill people we make 100 new enemies who want to kill us."
O'Reilly insisted that the terrorists have to be hit, saying this: "This ISIS army would kill you and your family and everyone else, so why give them the chance? You have to knock them out, this is war!"
Stossel then summarized the libertarian philosophy regarding foreign intervention, saying this: "We want to participate in the world but not run the world."
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the IRS claims that it has lost emails sent by former official Lois Lerner, who is accused of targeting conservative groups. And no Democratic guest for balance.
Wiehl said this: "The U.S. Attorney in D.C. could start an investigation, and Attorney General Holder could appoint a special prosecutor. There's a lot of pressure on him to do that."
Guilfoyle ridiculed the idea that Eric Holder will get involved, saying this: "That's just not happening, he's not going to do that and it would be a false expectation if you even look in that direction. But there are four pending civil lawsuits, look to one of those groups to try and obtain the emails."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the media's coverage of the turmoil in Iraq. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Goldberg said this: "Liberals are blaming George Bush for getting us in Iraq in the first place, and conservatives are blaming Barack Obama for a million different things, beginning with his failure to negotiate a deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. I may be the first person on cable television to say this, but they're both right. George Bush started this fire and Barack Obama thought he could waltz out of the Middle East with little consequence."
Goldberg turned to coverage of the southern border, saying this: "Oddly, there's been precious little coverage of this story on the network evening newscasts. It's odd because this is a made-for-TV news story with kids. If I were cynical, I might think that the media is downplaying this because they cover so many stories the way Barack Obama wants them to cover stories."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Cure for Car Sickness. Billy said this: "Researchers have found a simple remedy for nausea or dizziness. Pull and pinch some skin from the underside of your wrist, which frequently can alleviate the symptoms."
Pat Robertson Tells The Truth About Iraq & Bush
By: Steve - June 18, 2014 - 10:00am
Now think about this, Robertson is a die-hard Republican who hates Obama and all liberals, and yet, he still had the guts to tell the truth about Bush and Iraq. And if Bill O'Reilly were an actual non-partisan Independent journalist as he claims, he would be reporting this same thing, instead of blaming it all on Obama, who had nothing to do with the Iraq war, and even voted against it.
Pat Robertson unloads on Bush for latest Iraq crisis: 'We were sold a bill of goods!'
By David Edwards
Monday, June 16, 2014
Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday blasted former President George W. Bush for selling Americans a "bill of goods" before the Iraq invasion, which led to the violence that is currently sweeping across the country.
During his Monday broadcast, a viewer asked Robertson if there was a solution to the ongoing violence caused by an al Qaeda splinter group, ISIS, threatening to take over Iraq.
"Right now, what we did -- and it was a great mistake to go in there," Robertson explained, pointing out that Saddam Hussein's "bomb maker" had said that the then-dictator "doesn't know how to make an atomic bomb."
"And so to sell the American people on weapons of mass destruction, he had WMD and was getting yellowcake out of Africa and all of that, it was a lot of nonsense," Robertson said. "We were sold a bill of goods, we should never have gone into that country!"
"As bad as Saddam Hussein was, he held those warring factions in check, and he contained those radical Islamists," he continued. "Fix it, no? It's too late to fix it. It's unfixable. Those simmering animosities have been there for centuries."
And O'Reilly can not say any of that, even though it's true, because if he does he has to admit the entire Iraq war was a mistake, and that Bush was wrong and he was wrong. Which he will never do, even though it's the truth. Instead he will spin it that it's all Obama's fault, simply because he is the current President, and to cover for Bush.
Monday night O'Reilly even told Karl Rove that it's Obama's war now and he has to own it. Which is just laughable, and total right-wing propaganda. It's Bush's war, always has been, and always will be. And anyone who says different is a fool and a hack, Obama voted against the war and had nothing to do with it.
O'Reilly & GOP Refuse To Report Bush Signed Force Agreement In Iraq
By: Steve - June 18, 2014 - 9:00am
It's too bad O'Reilly and his Republican friends lack any memory dating back to before America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration saw an opportunity to enrich Dick Cheney's company and kill Muslims. If they did, they would see a relatively stable region where Iran was not the dominant force in the area, radical Muslims were not attempting to overthrow Syria, Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims lived in peace in the same neighborhoods, and the idea of an Iraqi civil war was remote.
Now, O'Reilly and the Republicans can hardly remember what they lied about yesterday much less what Bush did thirteen years ago, so it is typical that they find no issue blaming the current situation in Iraq on President Obama.
What any of the Republicans blaming Obama for pulling American troops out of Iraq in 2011 should remember, is that in October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008. The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."
Still, Republicans are slamming the President for abandoning the Iraq they were fully prepared to continue occupying in perpetuity, and forget that besides Bush, an ill-advised strategy by former Republican man-god General David Patraeus mishandling of the so-called "surge" that created the militant insurgency threatening to completely tear Iraq apart and finish completely destabilizing the region Bush's invasion started eleven years ago.
The sectarian war raging in Iraq today is the result of America's allegedly successful effort to contain sectarian violence in Iraq through the so-called "surge" that is the reason for what is becoming a devastating and uncontrollable civil war in Iraq.
It is important to remember that part and parcel of General David Patraeus strategy in the "surge" was arming and paying Iraqi Sunnis to assist Americans on the one hand, and the other allowing Iraqi Shias to cleanse entire neighborhoods of Sunnis who are now waging an insurgent war against government forces.
Some of the arms the insurgency are using are holdover gifts Patraeus showered on them that were used in Syria and now Iraq. There is a reason Iran supports Iraq's government forces and called on Shias to fight with Iraq's national army and put down former Iraqi Sunnis who were attacked viciously by the majority Iraqi Shias during the American occupation.
It is true that some of the blame clearly falls on Iraqi leader Maliki for religious sectarianism targeting Sunnis since before the insurgency began in earnest, and now the entire nation is paying a heavy price.
According to a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and now a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, James Jeffrey said, "they (Maliki's army) had lost the support of the people because they had a sectarian policy, and I saw it with my own eyes."
No doubt many of the militants are driven by revenge and retribution for being driven out of their homes and massacred by the government under majority Shia control with assistance from Americans who failed to protect minority Sunnis on orders from Patraeus.
What is happening in Iraq is a continuation of the sectarian religious war, or civil war, that began after America invaded and upset the balance that Saddam Hussein presided over. Saddam was a tyrant, but there was relative calm and cooperation between minority Sunnis and Bathists in control of the government and the majority Shia population.
After America overthrew Saddam's government and installed a Shia majority, not only did predominately Shia Iran rise to power, Iraqi Shias embarked on a crusade to eradicate Sunnis and exact retribution against ordinary Sunnis. Now the shoe is on the other foot and seeing the gravity of the situation, Iraq's Shiite religious authorities issued statements in support of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army.
The top Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani gave his support to "the sons within the Iraqi security forces," and a representative for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, urged Shiites to join the security forces to combat Sunni militants.
Whatever is happening, or will happen, in Iraq is a direct and irrefutable result of America's invasion and poorly administered war of occupation by George W. Bush. None of the blame rests with the troops sent to fight and die in a completely unnecessary war of American aggression, any more than it is Barack Obama's fault for honoring the agreement George W. Bush put in place in 2008 to withdraw American forces by December 2011.
Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but while he was in power Sunnis and Shias were not involved in a sectarian religious war, Iran was not a regional power, and Syria was not threatened by Islamic extremists and civil war.
O'Reilly and the Republicans learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq War debacle except that it was not George W. Bush's fault and like everything else they screwed up during their eight year reign, they blame the black man in the White House.
And remember this, O'Reilly supported the Iraq war 100 percent, and was one of the wars biggest supporters.
Facts On The Iraq Status of Forces Agreement O'Reilly Is Ignoring
By: Steve - June 17, 2014 - 11:30am
Here are the facts Bill O'Reilly is not telling you, they show that George W. Bush signed the agreement, and that Iraq refuse to let us keep troops there. Not to mention this, polls show that the majority of the American people want the troops out of Iraq.
The U.S. -- Iraq Status of Forces Agreement:
The U.S. -- Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.
The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat. U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity.
If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S. - Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.
On July 8, 2008, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani stated "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops."
Deputy speaker Khaled al-Attiyah also said on July 8 that the Iraqi parliament would insist on vetting any agreement with the United States and would likely veto the agreement if American troops were immune from Iraqi law: "Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds."
On October 16, 2008, after several more months of negotiations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice briefed senior U.S. lawmakers on the draft SOFA, and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki prepared to circulate it with Iraq's Political National Security Council before going on to the Council of Ministers and the Iraqi parliament.
Despite a compromise on the issue of jurisdiction over off-duty U.S. troops who commit crimes under Iraqi law, issues related to the timeline for U.S. withdrawal and Iraqi insistence on "absolute sovereignty" remained.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, President Obama had nothing to do with any of that, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did it.
On November 16, 2008, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreement, which cited the end of 2009 for the pull out of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of U.S. military presence in country. U.S. concessions involved a ban on U.S. forces searching and raiding homes without Iraqi approval, the right of Iraqis to search shipments of weapons and packages entering the country for U.S. recipients, and the right of Iraq's justice system to prosecute American troops for serious crimes under some circumstances.
The vote was passed by 27 of the 37-member cabinet, of which nine members were absent and one opposing.
Note to Bill O'Reilly: You are a biased right-wing hack who has no business calling yourself a journalist. You are a biased partisan who puts out right-wing propaganda as much as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
The Monday 6-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 17, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Were American Lives Wasted in Iraq? The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We have received a number of letters from military families who saw their loved ones killed or severely wounded in Iraq. The letters are heartbreaking, and all of them ask this question: Why did our people sacrifice so much if Iraq is now going to become a terror state? The Al Qaeda militants who seized the northern part of Iraq are part of a worldwide terror movement, hell-bent on imposing a fanatical strain of Islam on the entire world.
And that is what you call whitewashing history, because the Iraq war was not a noble cause, it was a massive waste of lives and money. We attacked a country based on lies about WMD's, and it stirred up the hornets nest that we have today. It was all Bush's fault, his war, and O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, which is just laughable.
Yes, Iraq has been poorly managed since President Obama pulled out all U.S. troops, but our initial sacrifice was not in vain. In fact, it was noble. So I am addressing the following comments directly to the brave men and women who served in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq: You guys defeated a killer, Saddam Hussein, a man who oppressed millions of people and was the embodiment of evil.
We are now doing the same thing in Afghanistan, trying to give the people a chance to throw off the brutal oppression of the Taliban. Likewise in Vietnam - armed forces fought against communist totalitarians who, once we left Southeast Asia, murdered millions of people. The truth is that modern America has always fought on the side of freedom, giving people the chance to decide what their country should be. The Iraqis are apparently not interested in freedom, they want to settle scores.
All you guys in the military can do is give people a chance, and you have done that at great sacrifice, time after time after time. Now, on to the current Iraq mess. President Obama seems to understand that if Al Qaeda takes over Iraq, they can use that country as a safe haven from which to launch attacks all over the place, including on America itself.
That being said, I fully expect President Obama to begin bombing the Al Qaeda army very soon. If he does not do that, it would be an enormous dereliction of duty. Al Qaeda wants to kill us, so he must send a message to them and to the largely cowardly world. Let me ask all you bleeding hearts this question: What's wrong with destroying an Al Qaeda army anywhere on earth? Again, I expect the commander-in-chief to begin bombing the Al Qaeda army in Iraq and Syria, forthwith!
And the BS that O'Reilly puts out about nobody was saying they did not have WMD's is right-wing lies, because Scott Ritter was screaming from the rooftops that Bush and Cheney were lying about the WMD's, but nobody would listen to him. Including O'Reilly and Paula Zahn, who even called Ritter a traitor for saying what he did, when he was telling the truth and the O'Reilly crew were all wrong.
Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, who was part of the Bush administration who got it wrong and lied to the American people. With no Democratic guest on for balance. Instead of having this fool on he should never be allowed to talk about Iraq, because he is a liar and he was wrong.
Rove said this: "There are tactical restraints to how effective bombing can be. We're best at this if we're hitting concentrations of forces on the ground, but what we've seen here is a modest number of fighters who merge in an urban environment and then move on to the next target. They may be content to remain where they are, consolidate their gains, and not provide a high profile that could be dealt with air power. But we do have the ability to help provide intelligence and logistical support."
So then the insane O'Reilly criticized the Obama administration for engineering a complete withdrawal of all troops, saying this: "We should have left 10,000 soldiers behind, but we have to deal with reality now. Inaction would be a disaster for this country."
Which is just ridiculous and more lies. Obama did not engineer anything, Bush signed the status of forces agreement, not Obama. And Iraq has refused to let out forces stay, they want us out and there is nothing Obama can do about it. O'Reilly just refuses to tell you the truth. Do a google search on the U.S. -- Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. And you will see the truth O'Reilly is not telling you.
Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the Iraq turmoil and President Obama's options. Yeah, two more right-wing pundits with no military experience, no thanks.
Williams said this: "First, we should protect American personnel, including the embassy staff and the private consultants. Secondly, I would protect American assets in terms of the military equipment that we sent over there and the oil fields. Even as a symbolic gesture, I think bombing to set a clear line is important."
Ham said this: "I do not want to hear the suggestion that this was inevitable - that is gut-wrenching to the people who lost life and limb making these gains that were given away. Air strikes in some capacity could be helpful, but my fear is that bombing alone won't help because we don't have the institutional knowledge that we need on the ground."
Then Brit Hume was on to slam President Obama, because he is a biased partisan, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Hume said this: "This is an administration, that is one of almost unimaginable incompetence and disengagement. It's not clear to me that the intelligence agencies aren't trying to keep the administration informed, but I don't know that this president is paying much attention. I think he's overwhelmed, I don't think he knows what to do. This president is smart enough, but he is not wise enough for the job, in my judgment. The chickens are coming home to roost and they're coming home in droves."
Then O'Reilly questioned the president's decision to hit the links over the weekend, saying this: "He is playing golf while 2,000 people are being beheaded and gunned down in Iraq. Here's a guy brilliant enough to get elected president twice, but he doesn't understand that this looks bad. It's staggering!"
Which is also just laughable, because he defended Bush golfing during the war, and now when Obama goes golfing he slams him, what a right-wing hack. O'Reilly is simply a biased right-wing fool, and he is not fair to Obama or any Democrat.
Then Jesse Watters was on, he went to a Hillary Clinton book signing event, where he asked some of the people there to name her most admirable qualities. A few of their answers: "She has the most integrity that I have ever seen" ... "She is an icon for feminists" ... "We've had enough men" ... "We like her because she's a woman" ... "Only ignorant people would not vote for Hillary" ... "She can take a licking and keep on ticking."
Back in the studio, Watters reported that the event was overflowing with true Hillary believers, saying this: "It was kind of like a campaign rally. There was a big security protocol, you had to submit all your personal items, and you couldn't get a photograph with her."
And nobody cares but O'Reilly, this is not news, it's nonsense.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: And The Livin' Is Easy. Billy said this: "Here are four things that you can do to make it a productive and healthy summer: Get a physical, read some good books, get in the water, and see at least part of this magnificent country."
Hey O'Reilly: Goldman CEO Admits Inequality Is Real & Destabilizing
By: Steve - June 17, 2014 - 10:00am
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs, called income inequality "very destabilizing" during an appearance on CBS This Morning on Thursday.
Arguing that the growing division between the top and bottom of income earners drives political divisions that makes it difficult to legislate and "deal with problems and therefore drive growth," he said, "It's a very big issue and something that has to be dealt with."
Blankfein himself can be counted among the 1 percent who have been grabbing most of the country's income growth, as he is the world's best paid banker with a $2 million annual salary and tens of millions more in bonuses, adding up to a net worth of $450 million.
Blankfein admitted that "too much of the GDP of the country has gone to too few of the people." He added, "If you grow the pie but too few people enjoy the benefits of it, the fruit, then you'll have an unstable society."
In fact, that's what the country has been experiencing for the past few decades. Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent of families saw their incomes rise by 278 percent, but those in the middle only saw a 40 percent increase. That top 1 percent also got 47 percent of all income growth in about the same time period and took home 20 percent of all income in 2010.
In 2012, the wealthiest 10 percent of the country took home half of the country's total income, the largest share ever recorded.
Meanwhile, the bottom of the income scale hasn't been reaping the rewards of a growing economy. Corporate profits are hitting record highs and workers keep increasing their productivity, but wages are growing at the slowest rate since the 1960s and they’ve experienced an entire decade of stagnant growth.
Rising income inequality comes with a host of negative consequences: It pushes Americans into more debt, makes them sicker, makes them less safe, and keeps them from moving up the economic ladder. It also hurts economic growth, while addressing it through modestly redistributive policies doesn't.
And it destabilizes the political system, as Blankfein predicts. Research has found that high inequality leads to a less representative democracy and a higher chance of revolution as the less well off come to believe that the government only serves the rich.
And those people would be right, as our current political system is far more responsive to the wealthy -- like Blankfein himself -- and doesn't listen to what the middle class and poor want and need.
Notice that O'Reilly never has guys like this on the Factor, that's because they destroy his biased and partisan claims that income inequality is not real, and as the CEO of Goldman he has credibility. So O'Reilly ignores what guys like Blankfein have to say, so he can keep up the lie that inequality is bogus.
Cantor Spent More At Steakhouses Than Brat's Entire Campaign
By: Steve - June 14, 2014 - 10:00am
A New York Times article on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) surprise defeat Tuesday night is getting a lot of play, perhaps because it so perfectly encapsulates the combination of largesse and Washington detachment on which many are blaming Cantor's loss.
It shows that the incumbent spent more at steakhouses since the start of last year than his opponent Dave Brat spent on his entire campaign.
Cantor's total tab at the steakhouses was $168,637 -- and that was at only three restaurants -- compared to Brat's roughly $123,000 in total campaign expenses.
PunditFact puts Brat's total expenditures at $123,000 through last month, thanks to a shoestring campaign featuring only two paid staffers.
In all, Cantor outspent Brat 40 to 1 and lost by over ten percentage points.
In Cantor's defense, the steak was probably pretty good.
And remember this, Cantor complains that liberals waste too much money, then he is caught spending close to $200,000 on steaks for himself and his staffers. Hypocrite is not even a strong enough word, dishonest fraud should be included too.
Coulter & Ingraham Praise Brat Win: Wakeup Call to GOP
By: Steve - June 14, 2014 - 9:00am
Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, two big Dave Brat supporters, joined Megyn Kelly Tuesday night to react to his huge victory over Eric Cantor and touted it as a serious positive for a Republican Party that will hopefully go in a different direction.
Coulter said this is proof positive that amnesty is a losing issue for the Republicans and said more in the GOP should be speaking out against immigration reform, which would mark "the end of the Republican Party" if it happens.
She argued it's a winning issue for the GOP that will prevent the Democrats from getting what they want and prevent the Chamber of Commerce from "buying their way" into Congress.
Meanwhile, Ingraham said this is a huge victory for conservative activists, sending a "massive wakeup call to the Republican party."
She and Kelly also noted how remarkable it was that Brat pulled off the victory when he raised significantly less money than Cantor did.
The Thursday 6-12-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 13, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: A Bad Spring for America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Although many Americans don't know it, this country is getting battered. In the past few months it has been one fiasco after another. It began with Vladimir Putin seizing the Crimea from Ukraine, humiliating the USA and Western Europe. Number two is the V.A. scandal, where the president did not pay attention to the issue. It took some whistleblowers in Phoenix to expose the Veterans Affairs department as a corrupt entity.
And nobody said the border was secure, you can not secure a 1000 mile long border, so O'Reilly is lying about that. Then the liberal James Carville and the conservative Andrea Tantaros were on to talk about the O'Reilly TPM.
Now, on to terrorism. The release of five Taliban commanders and war criminals in return for the freedom of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has given the terrorists a huge victory. The swap definitely hurt America, but Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to think so. In an interview with NBC News, she said, 'These five guys are not a threat to the United States.' The USA is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan because they ally with Al Qaeda, and that led directly to the 9/11 attack.
So why is Mrs. Clinton saying that five released Taliban commanders pose no threat to America? It's just inexplicable. Now, the two latest debacles: The Iraq army is falling apart and the terrorists are overrunning that country, so we're now looking at a possible terrorist state in Iraq run by Al Qaeda. That's a catastrophe! President Obama wanted to get out of Iraq totally, when he should have left a small force of Americans to prop up the Iraqi army.
After more than $1-trillion spent and nearly 4,500 dead U.S. military people, Iraq is going down the drain, and it's happening on President Obama's watch. Finally, there's the border and another disaster. Tens of thousands of children, many unaccompanied by an adult, are streaming across the southern border because they believe if they can get here, they can stay here.
The federal government is now warehousing thousands of kids and can't stop the influx of illegal aliens from the south. Weren't we told the border is secure? It's not secure, it's still chaotic thirteen years after 9/11. It's unbelievable. There's no ideology involved in this analysis, and this has indeed been a very harsh spring for America.
Tantaros said this: "I can understand when the White House tried to spin the 'recovery summer' and the ObamaCare situation, but when you have dead veterans you should move past the point of saying we're doing okay. President Obama doesn't have anyone surrounding him telling him he can't say that, he doesn't know how bad things are."
Which is just laughable, because of course Obama knows what's going on, he just does not say it because all Presidents ignore bad news and spin things to be positive while they are in office, Bush did the same thing but Tantaros and O'Reilly pretty much ignored it to help him because they are Republicans.
Carville minimized America's current problems and President Obama's sinking popularity, saying this: "I think the V.A. is a legitimate thing to bring up, but you didn't mention that the deficit is shrinking faster than it has at any time since World War II and the rate of illegal immigration is down. President Obama's average approval rating is at around 45%, which is hardly a collapse."
O'Reilly also ignores the stock market setting new record highs every other week, and the improving jobs market every month, or the unemployment numbers dropping.
Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about illegal immigration. With no Democratic guest on for balance.
Ingraham said this: "This has hit a critical mass recently, but there has been change in the air for a while. A lot of Republicans like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan were starting to entertain this idea of immigration reform, so the green light was flashing in Central America, indicating that as long as you get here the federal government won't enforce our laws. When people know that the U.S. government won't enforce its laws, they want better lives for themselves and they're going to try to get here. It used to be that people ran from the Border Patrol, but now in Texas they're running into their arms."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to analyze the Obama administration's reaction to the many problems now facing the country. With no Democratic guest on for balance.
Kelly said this: "I've been looking at this, and wondering whether President Obama is just the victim of some very bad coincidences or whether this is the law of natural consequences. When we left Iraq, President Obama was warned by the generals that we needed to keep some troops there. The generals were saying this is going to be a disaster, and now it's a disaster. The administration is now asking for almost $2-billion to take care of the immigrants at the border, but who are they and what are the conditions we're paying for. They won't let the press in there, but we have a right to know!"
Then Greg Gutfeld & Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about NBC.com, who recently did a report on a "poly family," where numerous adults share a household and raise a child.
Gutfeld said this: "The worst part about this, is that all the adults are unattractive. But I think it's beautiful, I think families come in all shapes - I live with four ferrets in a tree house. The serious point here is that the media has no ability to judge anything, everything that is odd is considered normal and everything normal is considered odd."
McGuirk also ridiculed the segment and the people it included, saying this: "I don't mean to be poly-phobic, but a liberal network like NBC should not have showcased the sketchiest looking people in the whole community. Having people who look like they just crawled out of dumpsters won't help the cause."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Golden Bear With A Heart of Gold. Billy said this: "If you pay a visit to Nicklaus.com, the website of the great golfer Jack Nicklaus, you can purchase top-notch golf balls with a portion of the money going to help sick children."
Elizabeth Warren Declares War on Mitch McConnell
By: Steve - June 13, 2014 - 10:00am
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) declared war on Mitch McConnell after he blocked her student loan bill. Warren said everyone should donate money to Alison Lundergan Grimes, and announced that she will be going to Kentucky to campaign for the Democrat.
Warren said she is going to fight back and hold Republicans accountable for the obstruction by going to Kentucky to call out Mitch McConnell on his own turf:
WARREN: Accountability is exactly the right word. I plan on fighting back on this, and I hope that everybody else does too. One way, I'm going to start fighting back is I'm going to go down to Kentucky and I'm going to campaign for Alison Lundergan Grimes.
Warren is angry, because Mitch McConnell blocked her student loan reform bill, which would have helped 40 million borrowers cut their interest rate nearly in half. The bill came up just short of passage. McConnell had signaled that he intended to block the bill because it was paid for by raising taxes on millionaires.
She's tough. She's feisty. She endorsed the student loan bill, said she wanted to bring down interest rates for Kentuckians, and so my view is, I'm going to get out there and try to make this happen for her.
I hope lots of people give her money at alisonforkentucky.com. I hope people will support her, because it's really a way to say Alison is a candidate who's there for all of us. For trying to make sure that everybody gets a fighting chance. It's one way to deal with this. I gotta tell you, given what Mitch McConnell's has been doing in the United States Senate.
The way it's just block, block, block, no, no, no. We get Alison Lundergan Grimes, in there and I feel like she could almost single-handedly get rid of some of the gridlock here in Washington.
Sen. Warren isn't going to take McConnell obstruction for the sole purpose of saying no anymore. She would have supported Alison Lundergan Grimes anyway, but now she seems even more passionate about sending McConnell off into retirement.
Warren did bring up an excellent point. The obstruction campaign was designed and is being carried out by McConnell. If Mitch McConnell is no longer in the Senate, it isn't unreasonable to expect things to run more smoothly.
Make no mistake about it. Mitch McConnell has made a powerful enemy. When Elizabeth Warren tells progressives and liberals to donate, wallets start opening up. McConnell went too far by needlessly blocking the student loan bill, and now Elizabeth Warren will be heading to Kentucky to hold him accountable.
The Wednesday 6-11-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 12, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Tea Party Resurgence? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost big last night to David Brat, a Tea Party candidate in Virginia, and the race was not even close. Some analysts believe Cantor alienated Republican voters because of his stance on immigration, but Talking Points does not believe that was the primary reason for his defeat.
And while O'Reilly is probably right about Cantor losing, there is no Tea Party resurgence in America. It was only in the Republican party, the far right Tea Party nuts just did not think Cantor was far right enough for them. The rest of America still thinks the Tea Party is a joke and that they are the extreme fringe right in America.
Cantor has become unpopular in his district and one interesting item may be telling. Mr. Cantor's campaign spent almost $170,000 eating in steakhouses, while Mr Brat's campaign spent just over $200,000 on everything. So it seems that Mr. Cantor was living large and perhaps the voters in Virginia saw that.
In South Carolina it was a different story - Senator Lindsey Graham beat his conservative opponents by a wide margin. Graham and Cantor have similar outlooks on immigration, but Cantor lost because he is part of the establishment, while Graham has been a consistent critic of President Obama.
Now, on to the immigration deal. There will be no reform passing Congress any time soon - thousands of children illegally crossing the southern border has pretty much put an end to comprehensive reform. In order to assimilate illegal aliens already here, you have to first secure the border.
The Obama administration claims the border is secure, but now we know that is not true. I ask all you left-wing loons out there, why do you think all these kids are coming to the USA now? Because they know that once they get here, they can stay here The situation is disgraceful.
Then Col. Ralph Peters was on to talk about radical Islamists who have overrun two of Iraq's largest cities, and Peters even thinks Baghdad may fall. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Peters said this: "When President Obama took office in his first term Al Qaeda was broken. But today Al Qaeda in its many forms is far stronger than ever. Forget that line on the map dividing Syria and Iraq - there is now a new jihadi state stretching from central Iraq to central Syria, and it is continuing to expand. The root evil is that after we won in Iraq, President Obama withdrew all our forces for purely political reasons."
But remember, Peters is a biased Obama hating right-wing partisan, so his opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Then Alan Colmes and Jeanne Zaino were on to talk about Peters claim that President Obama's foreign policy is in tatters.
Zaino said this: "There's no doubt that terrorism has increased under his presidency, and the White House does bear some of the blame. But why were we in Iraq in the first place? President Obama is trying to clean up a big mess."
Not to mention this, trying to blame President Obama for an increase in terrorism is ridiculous, and something only a partisan right-wing hack would claim. O'Reilly is a biased joke to make such a foolish claim.
Colmes said this: "What did we expect? The Sunnis and the Shiites were going to go after each other the minute we left Iraq unless we stayed forever. We wanted a security arrangement to keep American soldiers there, but we could not get that. Iraq was never a threat to the United States."
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the scandals in the Obama administration. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Krauthammer said this: "If this were a parliamentary system like Britain, we would have a vote of no confidence, the government would be out, and we would have new elections. People are seeing the worse economic recovery since World War II, incompetence in ObamaCare, venality in running the VA, and abuse at the IRS. The list is incredibly long and I think it will do lasting damage, the country is getting a demonstration of liberalism in action."
And of course O'Reilly agreed that most Americans are deeply disenchanted with the Obama administration, saying this: "The perception is that things are not working with President Obama. We tried it, it failed, and we want something different."
Which is all biased one sided opinions from two right-wing Obama hating hacks. They do not deal in facts, they spin out Republican talking points to make Obama look as bad as possible and blame him for things he has no control over. No President has control over terrorism, not even Bush. But a President can make it worse by attacking a muslim country for no reason, which is what Bush did. So if anyone is to blame it's Bush, but the idiots O'Reilly and Krauthammer blame Obama, because they are biased fools.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, just a promotion for the new Lis Wiehl book that I will not mention.
DNC: Brat Win Shows Tea Party In Control Of GOP
By: Steve - June 12, 2014 - 10:00am
The DNC wasted no time reacting to the big GOP primary upset where Dave Brat defeated incumbent Eric Cantor. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz put out a statement going after the GOP for going further and further to the right every chance it gets.
The Democrats hadn't really prioritized Cantor's district, given how easily they assumed he would have coasted to reelection. In fact, the candidate facing Dave Brat in the fall, fellow Randolph-Macon College professor Jack Trammell, was literally nominated yesterday.
Wasserman-Schultz touted Trammell's campaign in her statement and attacked the GOP for continuing to "redefine" what constitutes the far right these days.
Here is her full statement:
Tonight's result in Virginia settles the debate once and for all -- the Tea Party has taken control of the Republican Party. Period. When Eric Cantor, who time and again has blocked common sense legislation to grow the middle class, can't earn the Republican nomination, it's clear the GOP has redefined 'far right.'
Democrats on the other hand have nominated a mainstream candidate who will proudly represent this district and I look forward to his victory in November.
Polls: Americans Divided By Party Lines On Bergdahl Swap
By: Steve - June 11, 2014 - 10:00am
While the exchange of five Taliban detainees for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is unpopular with a plurality of Americans, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to disapprove of the deal, according to two polls released this week.
A poll released Monday by the Pew Research Center and USA Today found that 43 percent of Americans overall said the Obama administration did the wrong thing in trading Taliban prisoners for the detained U.S. soldier while 23 percent said the deal was the right decision to make.
Republicans were overwhelmingly negative about the prisoner swap, with 71 percent responding that the exchange was the wrong thing to do, according to the poll. By contrast, 55 percent of Democrats said the swap was the right thing to do.
The poll also found a partisan divide among respondents who thought the U.S. was responsible for securing a captive soldier's release, no matter the circumstances. Seventy-five percent of Democrats versus just 39 percent of Republicans said the U.S. was obligated to do all it could to secure a captive's freedom.
Forty-eight percent of Republicans also answered that the U.S. was not obligated to do all it could to secure Bergdahl's freedom because he left his post, compared to 16 percent of Democrats who shared that opinion. Those figures reflect some doubts on the Bergdahl prisoner exchange in particular.
A CBS News poll released Tuesday found 45 percent of Americans disapprove of the Bergdahl deal, with opinion splitting similarly down party lines. Most Republicans and independents disapproved of the prisoner exchange while just over half of Democrats approved.
The Monday 6-9-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 10, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Taliban Swap Closing in on President Obama. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This may turn out to be the worst controversy President Obama will experience; he's catching it from all sides and his far-left acolytes are getting desperate in his defense. Mr. Obama says he made the exchange for five Taliban prisoners because he believed Sgt. Bergdahl's life was in danger.
Then Col. David Hunt was on to assess the Times article on Bowe Bergdahl's "raggedy" unit. And of course no Democratic guest for balance.
But according to American doctors who examined Bergdahl in Afghanistan and Germany, his physical health is fine. So once again, the president finds himself in a truth controversy. Bergdahl's mental health is another matter, that remains undefined. Talking Points is not jumping to any conclusions, we'll stay with the facts.
But some Americans don't want to acknowledge the facts - the far left is attacking people who are raising questions about the sergeant and his family. The New York Times ran a front page headline reading, 'Bergdahl Was In Unit Known For Its Troubles.' The article said the unit was 'raggedy' and sometimes soldiers wore bandanas and cut-off t-shirts.
That was what the New York Times came up with to denigrate the entire platoon, and the paper ran that story on page one! There is no question that the release of five Taliban commanders will have an effect on the entire world, which is why this story is so important, and there is no way President Obama is going to win this controversy. Sgt. Bergdahl is a deserter and five dangerous Taliban war criminals are free. It's tough to justify.
Hunt said this: "The article was uninformed, specious, and disingenuous, Infantry soldiers live in mud, there are no showers, no clean clothes, they don't get sleep and they smoke too much. Somebody took a picture of guys digging a trench with one guy wearing a bandana. Soldiers have looked like that throughout history, it was insulting to write this!"
Cody Full, who served with Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan, also disputed the Times' characterization, saying this: "We were digging bunkers in the side of a hill in 100-degree weather. We were told that security was in place and we could take off some clothing so we wouldn't pass out from the heat."
Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham, were on to talk about the New York Times page one story.
Williams said this: "If they're trying to suggest that we shouldn't listen to the truth being spoken by those soldiers, that's patently ridiculous. But I don't think it's wrong to report accurately on the fact that the unit had bad leadership. The thing I have trouble with in the Talking Points Memo is that you're saying this guy looks healthy, but the truth is that this kid could have psychological scars we can't see."
Ham disputed the claim that Bergdahl's platoon was a bunch of misfits, saying this: "The unit was disciplined enough that after Bergdahl disappeared they launched several rescue missions looking for him, putting themselves at great risk and losing some brothers-in-arms. These guys seem like sober and smart and calm people discussing this issue."
Then Brit Hume was on with his biased opinion of the Bergdahl story and its possible political ramifications.
Hume said this: "What's striking about these controversies, is that the controversies themselves seem to be utterly manageable in political terms. But it's the effort to try and spin things afterwards, to cover up the truth, and to make a rash of misstatements that prolongs these controversies. It leaves a bad taste that this administration, and by extension a political party, can't shake hands with the truth. It's the accumulation of things over time and the sense that the administration can't run things effectively, they're not up to it. That can give the Republicans a leg up in the coming election."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the New York Times and its disparaging report on Bowe Bergdahl's unit in Afghanistan.
Goldberg said this: "The Times says the unit was 'known to wear bandanas and cutoff t-shirts,' which is a crime against humanity. The Times also reported that a platoon leader was dismissed because he didn't inspire the troops. That's pretty much it! I think they did the story to suggest that Bergdahl isn't completely responsible for whatever he did, because if he's in a 'raggedy' unit, then what do you expect? They're trying to take the blame off of Bergdahl, and the real reason behind this is that they're covering for President Obama."
Then Jesse Watters was on to talk people in Bowe Bergdahl's home town of Hailey, Idaho, were he got opinions about the controversial soldier.
Here are some of their comments: "Please reserve judgment until due process is held" ... "People are mad at our town and all we did was support someone who grew up here" ... "He went in the wrong service, he should have been in the Peace Corps" ... "I don't know how anyone can describe that young man as a traitor" ... "I think he switched over to the other side" ... "They should have left him there!"
Back in the studio, Watters summarized his visit. "By about 60-40, they support Bowe Bergdahl, and they're upset that the media is coming in. When I walked around, some people yelled out their window, 'Go home!' It looks like Bowe was an introspective and cerebral guy who went over there to help the villagers, not to fight them."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting something the Koch brothers did.
Republican Eric Cantor Suffers Stunning Primary Defeat
By: Steve - June 10, 2014 - 10:00am
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor suffered a crippling primary defeat tonight at the hands of Dave Brat.
But you might ask yourself: who's Dave Brat? Well, Brat is an economics professor who's been teaching at Randolph-Macon College since 1996. He and his wife Laura have two children, Jonathan and Sophia, and they live in Henrico, Virginia.
He mounted a local political run back in 2011, but lost. This year he got into the race against Cantor as a tea party challenger, receiving a great deal of support particularly from conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
In fact, his Facebook page banner is currently a picture of Brat, his family, and Laura Ingraham.
Brat told ABC News last month that Cantor used to have a good track record, but it's long gone now as he's, in Brat's words, fostered a "crony-capitalist mentality" and has also said Cantor is too liberal on issues like immigration reform.
A poll released last Friday showed Cantor just above 50 percent, compared to 40 percent for Brat. Two years ago, Cantor easily beat his primary opponent with 79 percent of the vote.
The Rush to Demonize Sgt. Bergdahl
By: Steve - June 9, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is an op-ed from the NY Times, it explains the political bias behind the attacks on President Obama over the Bergdahl prisoner swap, and the dishonest hypocrisy from O'Reilly and his right-wing friends, like John McCain.
Four months ago, Senator John McCain said he would support the exchange of five hard-core Taliban leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. "I would support," he told CNN. "Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if the exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider."
But the instant the Obama administration actually made that trade, Mr. McCain, as he has so often in the past, switched positions for maximum political advantage. "I would not have made this deal," he said a few days ago.
Suddenly the prisoner exchange is troubling and "poses a great threat" to service members. Hearings must be held, he said, and sharp questions asked.
This hypocrisy now pervades the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and has even infected several fearful Democrats. When they could use Sergeant Bergdahl's captivity as a cudgel against the administration, they eagerly did so, loudly and in great numbers.
And the moment they could use his release to make President Obama look weak on terrorism or simply incompetent, they reversed direction without a moment's hesitation to jump aboard the new attack Obama unfairly bandwagon.
The last few days have made clearer than ever that there is no action the Obama administration can take -- not even the release of a possibly troubled American soldier from captivity -- that cannot be used for political purposes by his opponents.
Though we criticized the administration for ignoring the law in not informing Congress of the transfer of the Taliban detainees 30 days in advance, leave it to Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other hyperventilators to claim that continued release of prisoners from Guantanamo without prior notice is now considered an impeachable offense, a ludicrous leap.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas says the whole exchange was cooked up to distract the public from the Veterans Affairs scandals, and the talk-show crowd has piled on Sergeant Bergdahl's father for his suspiciously long beard.
Cowering politicians now even seem to regret their initial burst of joy that a prisoner was coming home. "A grateful nation welcomes him home," said Representative Lee Terry, Republican of Nebraska, in a Twitter message on Sunday. The statement on his website was deleted a short time later.
"Warmest regards to his family with gratitude for his/their service and sacrifice," wrote Representative Stephen Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, in another quickly deleted tweet.
This duck-and-cover response is the result of the outrageous demonization of Sergeant Bergdahl in the absence of actual facts. Republican operatives have arranged for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters that he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him.
In fact, a review of casualty reports by Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren of The Times showed there is no clear link between any military deaths and the search.
And a classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
If anything, the report suggests that the army unit's lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant's history.
Thousands of soldiers desert during every war, including 50,000 American soldiers during World War II. As many as 4,000 a year were absent without leave for extended periods during the Iraq war. They leave for a variety of reasons, including psychological trauma, but whatever their mental state, it is the military's duty to get them back if they are taken prisoner.
That's what the Obama administration did in this case, and there was a particular sense of urgency because a video showed that Sergeant Bergdahl's life might be in danger.
But the critics seeking political advantage don't care about the life or mental state of a particular soldier, or of a principle of loyalty that should provide comfort to any soldier in danger of capture. They live only for the attack.
Bill O'Reilly Is Lying To You About Jobs & The Economy
By: Steve - June 8, 2014 - 10:00am
Just last Friday night Bill O'Reilly said the economy is in chaos and Obama has no clue what to do. But it's all lies, it's nothing but right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly, because he can not dare admit the truth or he will be flooded with hate mail from his 80 year old right-wing viewers.
Here is the truth, not the BS you get from O'Reilly, the actual numbers.
6-6-14 -- Jobs report takes Dow, S&P to fresh record highs
(Reuters) - U.S. stocks rose on Friday, with the Dow and the S&P 500 closing at records, after the May payrolls report provided the latest confirmation of improving economic conditions.
The CBOE Volatility index, Wall Street's so-called fear gauge, ended down 8.1 percent at 10.73, its lowest level since February 2007.
The day's gains were broad and led by cyclical sectors, which outperform in times of economic expansion. Industrial shares jumped 1 percent while energy shares rose 0.8 percent.
About 217,000 jobs were added in May, while the unemployment rate held steady at 6.3 percent. This was the first time job growth has topped 200,000 for four consecutive months since January 2000.
While the report did not point to spectacular growth, "the main thing is that the world's biggest economy is moving in the right direction and slowly gathering momentum," said Marcus Bullus, trading director of MB Capital.
The Dow Jones industrial average rose 88.17 points or 0.52 percent, to 16,924.28, the S&P 500 gained 8.98 points or 0.46 percent, to 1,949.44 and the Nasdaq Composite added 25.17 points or 0.59 percent, to 4,321.40.
With the day's gains, the S&P 500 marked its sixth record close in the past seven sessions. So the Dow is almost at 17,000 and the S&P is almost at 2,000, and O'Reilly does not even mention it, as he claims the economy is in chaos because Obama has no clue how to manage it. When in reality the economy is doing good, jobs are back, and the stock market is setting new record highs all the time.
Overall, we have finally added back all of the jobs that were lost during the Great Recession. The private sector reached pre-recession levels back in March. However, due to Republican austerity measures that have led to the shedding of a million public sector jobs, it took until now for total employment numbers to reach that goal.
Wages saw a slight increase, as the average hourly wage came in at $24.38, up five cents. Over the past year, wages have increased 2.1%, essentially staying in tune with inflation. This is one of the key factors of income inequality, as the average worker's wage has stayed stagnant compared with the economy while those at the top have seen their income increase at a much greater rate.
This is one of the arguments for the increase of the minimum wage. With solid jobs gains and a robust stock market, there should be no real reason why employers can’t increase the lower-end wages up a bit more.
This report is good news and shows that the economy is recovering. While there are definitely more progressive policies that can be put in place to grow the economy faster and create even more job growth, the fact remains that since Barack Obama took over as President, the nation's economy has reversed course from the downward spiral it was on.
In the first full month of Obama's presidency (February 2009), the unemployment rate was 8.3% and steadily rising. After hitting a peak of 10.0% in October 2009, we have seen it steadily drop. In the past 12 months, the rate has dropped from 7.5% to its current rate of 6.3%.
Now of course, this new jobs report, and the continued improvement of the economic landscape, will not receive much focus from O'Reilly and the right-wing media or Republicans in Washington. Right now, conservative media and GOP lawmakers would rather talk about the made-up scandal of the day, and the release of an American POW who was held captive for five years.
And they are also trying to figure out a way to make the deal the President made to secure the release of the nation's last prisoner of war into an impeachment-level scandal. This comes on the heels of them doing the same thing with the deplorable situation involving the VA, Benghazi (multiple times) and the IRS.
Scandalmania took full-effect once O'Reilly and the GOP realized they couldn't hammer the President anymore on Obamacare after it was successfully implemented and millions of people had received health coverage through the exchanges. Which also shows that O'Reilly and the Republican party were lying to you about Obamacare.
Now, we see more positive news showing that the President, despite non-stop Republican obstruction and obstinance for 6 years, has still been able to persevere and create positive change for the country as a whole. When history looks back at this period of time, Republicans will not be looked upon kindly, while Obama will be.
And guess what, none of that was ever reported by O'Reilly, ever, not once.
The Friday 6-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 7, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: President Obama and War. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The world marked the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion today. It's worth pointing out that almost all of the 2,500 Americans who died in that fight were regular guys who understood the evil they were fighting, and who were willing to die rather than let their buddies down.
This is just ridiculous, because it is a political attack, and a partisan one. O'Reilly ignores the fact that Bush let 3000 Afghan prisoners go, and that a former Bush spokesman said Bush would have done the same deal, not to mention Krauthammer also said he would have done the deal. It's partisan garbage by O'Reilly and the right to make Obama look bad, plain and simple.
Fast forward to the current Taliban swap controversy. There is no difference between the mindset of the Taliban killers and the Nazis, both groups engage in atrocities and crimes against humanity on a mass scale. There's no difference between the acolytes of Hitler and the followers of jihad, so it is a false narrative to equate the release of five Taliban commanders with legitimate prisoners of war.
The Obama administration does not seem to understand that the Taliban killers who were traded for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a suspected deserter, will commit atrocities again. But President Obama's defenders would have you believe otherwise. A New York Times editorial tries to save the president, saying, 'Thousands of soldiers desert during every war, including 50,000 American soldiers during World War II.'
The new spin is that Sgt. Bergdahl deserted his unit in eastern Afghanistan because he was 'traumatized' and President Obama did the moral thing in making the swap for him. The editorial even says that questioning Bergdahl's conduct is a political attack, which is a gross insult to the men in Bergdahl's platoon who have come forward to describe his behavior.
According to the Times, this is all about denigrating President Obama, Sgt. Bergdahl's desertion is not his fault, and Mr. Obama did the morally correct thing. Talking Points is used to both liberal and conservative media spinning issues to support their ideology. But when you call into question the honesty of soldiers who come forth to tell their eyewitness stories, and when you impugn those who oppose a trade that is obviously dangerous to America, something is very wrong.
President Obama has an obligation to protect this country from harm, but freeing five notorious war criminals does not do that. The fiasco is a huge victory for the jihadists and will inspire even more violence. I feel sorry for Sgt. Bergdahl and his family, but it's clear that he left his comrades and put them in even more danger. No amount of spin will change that, just as no amount of spin will change the fact that the Taliban swap was bad for America and the world. Churchill and FDR would not have done it.
Then James Rosen was on, who has been investigating the possibility that Bowe Bergdahl collaborated with the enemy. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Rosen said this: "I would describe him as a confused and inept figure, and we got our hands on real time dispatches from a private intelligence firm that was retained by the Pentagon. The reports contain the names of the men who controlled him, what tribe they belonged to, and where they held him."
Rosen also reported that Bergdahl's behavior changed dramatically during his five years in captivity, saying this: "Nowhere have I reported that Sgt. Bergdahl was actively collaborating with the enemy, but I have reported concerns to that effect in the intelligence community. These reports show that Bergdahl was observed to be on friendly terms with the enemy and was even taking target practice with them."
O'Reilly then speculated that Bergdahl may be found unfit to stand trial, even though he claims to have a no speculation zone, Billy said this anyway: "It looks like they're setting up Bergdahl for a mental incompetency deal, and indeed he might be a mentally unbalanced guy. If this guy was a collaborator, the Obama administration is done."
Then Geraldo was on, and he defended the five-for-one swap with the Taliban, saying this: "This is a Rorschach test. Bergdahl will be the embodiment of everything you hate about Obama or everything you love about him. If you love Obama, you're going to love Bergdahl. I think people will see that this is a deeply troubled person who had five years of extreme hardship. He was a U.S. soldier in trouble overseas and you bring him home no matter what."
And I strongly disagree with Geraldo, I like Obama and I voted for him, but that does not mean I like Bergdahl. I am waiting for the facts to come in, if he deserted and was working with the enemy I say put him in jail for life. If not, I say cut him some slack. Let's wait and see what the facts show.
Then Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on to talk about the Taliban-for-Bergdahl swap. And of course no Democratic guests were on for balance.
Gutfeld said this: "This is like a Joseph A. Bank sale, where you buy one suit and get five for free. This is not about Bowe, it's about O and his need to close Gitmo. The Rose Garden fiasco was a victory lap that turned out to be a victory lapse. He has a blind spot so vast that Helen Keller could see it."
McGuirk defended Bill's claim that the elder Bergdahl looked and sounded like a Muslim when he appeared with President Obama at the White House, saying this: "He attempted to look like a Muslim to show solidarity, and the late-night comics are trying to defend the indefensible by attacking you. And some people were trying to turn Bergdahl into Pat Tillman."
Which is wrong, they are attacking O'Reilly for his attacks on Obama and his rush to judgement on Bergdahl before the investigation is done and all the facts are in.
Then they named their pinheads of the week. McGuirk went with the Secret Service, which was on hand when someone taped President Obama working out at a European hotel, saying this: "Kudos to Obama for not throwing all of my Polish brothers and sisters out of the gym, but the Secret Service should have confiscated the personal devices so they couldn't tape him. The president makes Richard Simmons look like Vin Diesel."
Gutfeld selected New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who got high, very high, in Colorado, saying this: "She ate a brownie, and then spent eight hours in a hotel room in a fetal position thinking she was going to die. You don't do this, this is like doing a story on happy hour and drinking a half-gallon of rum in a closet."
O'Reilly picked French President Francois Hollande, saying this: "This guy is selling two warships to Putin. France is supposed to be our ally and the ally of Ukraine, but our ally is giving Russia two big warships, including a carrier!"
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Internet Networking. Billy said this: "If you're seeking a new or different job, the very popular website LinkedIn.com allows you to post your credentials and experience for employers to see."
O'Reilly Slams CNN Guest & Anchor Over His Own Stupid Comments
By: Steve - June 7, 2014 - 10:00am
This is classic O'Reilly, stick your foot in your mouth making a stupid comment, then after someone calls him on it, slam them for reporting it and call them pinheads, even though he claims to never call anyone names or do personal attacks. And they were right, nothing they said was not true.
O'Reilly has repeatedly observed this week that Bowe Bergdahl's father looks Muslim and hasn't backed down from it. A CNN guest took a shot at him over it, and anchor Carol Costello didn't dispute any of what he said, so O'Reilly went after both of them on his show Thursday night.
Rolling Stone's Matthew Farwell told Baldwin O'Reilly's comment was disgusting and said O'Reilly hasn't done anything dangerous in his life. O'Reilly shot back that he's either uninformed or a liar, and cited his past reporting career, and blasted Costello, saying she "obviously doesn't know what she's talking about."
Laura Ingraham told him that if the liberal media doesn't target people like them, "they're gonna have to actually speak about what this means for our country" and they can't have that. She agreed that it was odd and bizarre to hear Bergdahl's father speaking Arabic and Pashto in the White House Rose Garden.
O'Reilly called Farwell a "pinhead" and claimed that Costello "has an ethical obligation as a journalist to challenge that kind of stuff," before mocking her for just letting it slide.
Which is just laughable, coming from the 2nd most biased right-wing hack in all of cable news, who violates the rules of journalism every night. All they did was quote O'Reilly, word for word, and O'Reilly slammed them for doing it. That's not journalism, and O'Reilly is not a journalist.
The Thursday 6-5-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 6, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Blowback Over the Prisoner Swap. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama is under withering fire for the deal he made to trade Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban war criminals. It has raised questions about the president's judgment and leadership, but he remains defiant. A brand new Fox News poll delivers some bad news for the president.
So then Ed Henry was on with the latest on the Bergdahl story. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance. Which means all you got is right-wing spin on the story from two Republicans.
84% of Americans are 'very concerned' or 'somewhat concerned' that terrorist groups will take more U.S. soldiers hostage. Also, 55% believe the Obama administration has made America weaker. Those are bad numbers, so the spin begins. The president's acolytes in the media are saying this is a simple prisoner-of-war swap, but that is fallacious.
The five men released from Gitmo are criminals, brutal men who target civilians. The Taliban is not a legitimate nation or a legitimate army, they are terrorists who torture and kill civilians. You don't free five war criminals, even if the life of an American soldier is on the line. The evidence suggests that Sgt. Bergdahl and his father appear to be Taliban sympathizers.
However, Talking Points believes they should be given the benefit of every doubt. As for President Obama, public opinion has turned against him ... big time!
Henry said this: "The president keeps getting pulled back into this because of the firestorm back home, and he's been very dismissive of it. Today he said he's not surprised that this sort of controversy is being 'whipped up,' and his aides are saying this is just 'Obama haters' whipping this up. That's not true. When you compare this to Benghazi or IRS, which did go along partisan lines, there has been bipartisan outrage here. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has flat-out said that the law might have been broken."
Then another Republican Col. David Hunt was on to talk about Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who has denied reports that some U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan as they were searching for Bowe Bergdahl. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Hunt criticized Hagel for advancing that argument, saying this: "I'm very disappointed, because Hagel was an enlisted soldier and a combat veteran who knows better. The other soldiers in Bergdahl's platoon are saying that 6 to 14 guys died while looking for Bergdahl. They knew he was a deserter the day it happened, and it's disingenuous for the secretary of defense to make that remark. He either is lying or he has not asked the chain of command."
Said the biased Fox News employee who never tells the truth.
Then a Democrat was finally on to discuss it, but of course he was on with a Republican, so it was an unbalanced segment with two Republicans to one Democrat.
Carville, who defended the five-for-one swap said this: "The Israelis gave up a thousand prisoners for one soldier, and we gave up five. We always give up more in these things than we have a different value on human life. I agree these are bad guys, but they have been in captivity for 13 years and the war in Afghanistan is going to be over in 2016."
And btw folks, a former Bush spokesman said Bush would have done the same swap, and O'Reilly has never reported it once. Charles Krauthammer even said he would have done the swap. But O'Reilly never reports that either.
The n Republican Kate Obenshain asserted that Bergdahl is almost surely a deserter and the deal should not have been made, saying this: "His comrades said he left a note saying he was leaving to start a new life. We gave up five commanders of the Taliban, there is a real problem with releasing these inhumane individuals back into society to prey on Americans and other citizens."
Then two Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Rob Portman, were on to discuss it. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Portman said this: "They did not provide a justification for ignoring the law, which is very clear in saying that the president had to notify Congress. We can't have this again, we have to know that terrorists are not going to go back to the battlefield and have more American blood on their hands."
Ignoring the fact that Bush let over 30 captured terrorists go from Afghanistan, and those Republicans never said a word about that.
Sessions post-briefing perspective was much the same, saying this: "We hoped to get a rationale for what seemed to be an implausible circumstance, but we did not get it. I didn't feel it was a credible briefing and I know virtually nothing that I didn't know from the media."
Then Laura Ingraham was on to defend O'Reilly, which of course she would do because she is a Republican and his fill-in host when he is gone. Some media analysts have criticized Bill for drawing attention to the fact that Bowe Bergdahl's father, who praised Allah at the White House, looks and sounds like a Muslim. Ingraham, reacted to the dustup.
Ingraham said this: "If they don't go after you or me, they're going to have to actually speak about what this means to the country. They want to turn this away from the hideous way the Obama administration has handled this. You were well within your right, it was odd that Mr. Bergdahl spoke in Arabic and praised Allah. That was an Islamic statement and it was bizarre for someone at the White House to speak in Arabic at a moment like this. Most Americans who saw that thought it was odd."
Ingraham also analyzed President Obama's recent missteps, saying this: "When you see what he's done since he was reelected, it doesn't appear to me that he cares. He's flouting immigration law and we know what he's doing with all these executive orders. I think he's a man on a mission to re-make America, and I think he realizes that the press is always going to rally to the left's cause."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was just O'Reilly promoting his bolder fresher tour with Dennis Miller.
More Proof Fox News Has A Bias Against President Obama
By: Steve - June 6, 2014 - 10:00am
Fox News provided heavy coverage of two separate instances of U.S. Marines imprisoned in Mexico on gun charges, using the stories to criticize the Obama administration for what was deemed an inadequate response to each situation.
But Fox paid no attention at all to an identical case of a jailed U.S. soldier that occurred during the Bush administration.
On March 31, Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi was arrested after he claimed he accidentally crossed into Mexico with personal firearms in his car, and has been held in a Mexican prison on weapons charges since that time.
Fox News heavily covered the story. A Nexis search of the network's evening programming showed that since March 31, there have been at least 31 segments about Tahmooressi's detainment, including phone interviews with Tahmooressi, his mother, and his friends.
Fox host Greta Van Susteren demanded President Obama take action to free the Marine on the May 20 edition of Fox's On the Record. Later on the show, Fox contributor Allen West bashed Obama and Secretary of State Kerry as "neutered pajama-boy leaders." Bill O'Reilly has also done multiple segments on it and even started a petition to get him released, with threats of a Mexican boycott.
More recently, Fox ramped up its criticism of the purported lack of action to more absurd levels, conducting polling asking whether the border with Mexico should be closed until Tahmooressi is returned, and one Fox host going so far as to suggest that an exchange of "five jailed illegal immigrants" with Mexico for his return, a reference to the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity after several years.
In 2012, after U.S. Marine Jon Hammar was arrested in Mexico for carrying an antique shotgun across the border, Fox devoted at least 35 evening programming segments to Hammar, according to Nexis, often similarly complaining about the Obama administration response.
But when Spc. Richard Torres was arrested after crossing into Mexico in a similar accident in mid-2008, Fox News voiced no such criticism over the failure of the Bush administration to act quickly to secure his release. In fact, a search of Nexis shows that they never covered the story at all, an omission that cannot be explained away by differences in the cases, as the circumstances are remarkably similar.
From a May 30 CNN report on Tahmooressi's arrest:
The Marine's mom said he accidentally crossed into Mexico with three personal firearms -- all bought legally in the U.S.
Now this from a May 10, 2008, Houston Chronicle report on Torres arrest:
The 25-year-old had intended to drive to meet friends in San Ysidro, California, on March 31. He was moving from Florida to California in the hope of getting a job and continuing treatment he had just begun for post traumatic stress related to his two combat tours, she said.
With all his possessions in his truck, Tahmooressi accidentally drove across the border, she said. When he realized his mistake, his mother said, he dialed 911 and asked the operator to help him. No help came, Jill Tahmooressi said. Her son first encountered Mexican customs agents, she said, and he believed they understood that he'd made an innocent error.
They seemed to be getting an escort car to help him, she said.
But officers with the Mexican military interfered, she told "New Day," and her son was arrested.
When he crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Spc. Richard Torres was carrying a small arsenal in his car: an AR-15 assault rifle, a .45-caliber handgun, 171 rounds of ammunition, several cartridges and three knives.
Torres ultimately spent a little more than a month in jail before he was released.
At a checkpoint, Torres didn't try to hide the weapons. But he insisted he hadn't meant to cross the border with the guns, which in Mexico are restricted for use only by the military. While searching for parking in El Paso, he said, he inadvertently drove onto a bridge leading to Mexico and could not turn around.
Now the Iraq veteran is in a Mexican jail while a judge decides whether to believe his account: that an experienced soldier accidentally ended up in a border town where drug cartels pay top dollar for exactly the kind of high-powered weapons he happened to have.
And btw, I searched Fox News Network transcripts for "Andrew Tahmooressi," "Jon Hammar," and "Richard Torres" for all available dates. Thirty-one results were found for "Andrew Tahmooressi," 35 results were found for "Jon Hammar," and zero results were found for "Richard Torres."
Proving once again that O'Reilly and Fox News are nothing but biased right-wing hacks who cover the same stories in different ways, or not at all, depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.
And O'Reilly is worse than all of them, because he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, when in fact he is as big of a right-wing hack as any of them.
The Wednesday 6-4-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 5, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The prisoner swap fracas continues. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is becoming clear that the Obama administration severely miscalculated reaction to trading a suspected deserter, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, for five Taliban war criminals. Sergeant Bergdahl definitely deserted his post - there is no question about that. And he may have even collaborated with the enemy.
And once again I will say this, we do not know all the facts yet and it is too early to decide if O'Reilly is right or not. But I will also say this, if it is true that Bergdahl deserted his post he should be put in prison for 20 years, afte he is found guilty in court.
That has been investigated and there is a classified report on the situation. Public opinion has definitely turned against Sergeant Bergdahl and the swap in general. In a Rasmussen poll, 43% of Americans oppose the swap, 40% say it's okay, and 17% don't know. That number will change - more will come out against, wait and see.
Once again the Obama administration has botched an important decision. Even the President admits the five released Taliban war criminals might kill again. And his administration has embarrassed itself by saying Sergeant Bergdahl served with honor. He did not.
Then John McCain was on, he said those Taliban guys are the hardest of the hard core, and he found it stunning for the President to enter into a deal where he admits they may re-enter the fight.
The Senator also admitted he's grateful Bergdahl is back home, but stressed that a commander-in-chief has to make tough decisions. He said war is a very cruel business, but the first priority should always be national security over individuals.
O'Reilly urged McCain to get answers, saying that Americans need to know what Bergdahl did and how bad these Taliban guys we traded for him are.
Then Carl Cameron & James Rosen were on to discuss it, and of course no Democratic guests were on for balance.
Rosen talked about the various government investigations into Bergdahl. He reported the Army investigated him after he walked off his base, and then the intelligence community undertook a separate investigation into his final period of active duty, as well as conduct over the past five years.
Rosen also said many inside the intelligence community are harboring concerns Bergdahl became an active collaborator with the enemy. In 2012, the Daily Mail reported Sgt. Bergdahl taught the Taliban how to make mobile phones into IEDs.
Cameron focused on the controversy in Congress that the President may have broken the law by doing this swap without authorization. He told the Factor viewers that lawmakers are meeting behind closed doors to review classified information. In his opinion, as this unfolds, we'll begin to hear from more Congresspeople and see whether this becomes partisan mudslinging or whether the ongoing concerns about the prisoner swap will be bipartisan in nature.
Then Jesse Watters was on, he had a petition signed by almost 200,000 Americans asking the Mexican government to release U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi, who headed to the Mexican consulate in New York City.
A Mexican consulate press spokesperson agreed to receive the petition, but Jesse persisted and was able to hand it directly to the Deputy Consul General, who promised she'd get the petition to the appropriate people. O'Reilly promised to stay on the story, but doesn't expect to see Tahmooressi released until mid-June at the earliest.
Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she talked about
NBC News foreign correspondent Richard Engel who reported Bergdahl's father had been tweeting, calling for his son's release and for other hostages to be released. But last week there was a bizarre tweet, which was later deleted, saying he was working to free all Guantanamo prisoners.
MacCallum also detailed the controversial statements made by the father: Several years ago, Rollin Stone published emails from Bowe Bergdahl to his father, where the sergeant says he was disenchanted with the military and ashamed to be an American, to which his father replied "obey your conscience."
O'Reilly questioned whether the father, who took on an activist role after his son went missing, ever seemed sympathetic to the captors. MacCallum said that the father figured out early on that his son's captors wanted Gitmo guys released, so he began tweeting about this.
And finally, the Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting another book about Jesus.
Shep Smith Slams People For Rush To Judgement Over Bergdahl
By: Steve - June 5, 2014 - 10:00am
And that includes you too O'Reilly, especially when you say you only deal in the facts and you never speculate. In fact, O'Reilly said he never speculates and does not allow speculation on the Factor, that he only reports facts. Then he jumps to conclusions based on partial evidence before any investigations are done.
But when Republicans are attacked for something in the media, Billy says we must not have a rush to judgement until all the facts are in, that we should not convict them in the media, and that we should wait until the investigation is over. Now when it's a Democrat or a liberal, O'Reilly does everything he says he does not do, in violation of his own rules, and in violation of the rules of ethics of journalism.
Many Fox News hosts and pundits rushed to brand recently released Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl as a deserter and a traitor, but Shepard Smith took a different line by saying he was "disgusted" by the rush to judgment, cautioning that Bergdahl is innocent until proven guilty.
On May 31, the White House announced it had secured the release of Bergdahl from the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Right-wing critics of President Obama began reporting as fact that Bergdahl had been a deserter and collaborated with the enemy, despite the fact that an investigation into the matter has not yet taken place.
On the June 3 edition of Shepard Smith Reporting, host Smith took umbrage at the reporting, saying, "If you desert or commit treason, you have to be proved to have done so. We can't just decide because some people come on television and yakety yak, and we've got a report of this and a report of that and that's what happened. As the Army said, as the Pentagon said, you bring them home. You bring them home first, and then you investigate."
Smith's pushback came after Gilliam lamented the prisoner exchange:
If you look at the way this negotiation came out, they got to hand their guys over with a hug and a handshake on the side of the road. Our warriors had to fly into a hot [landing zone] with [rocket propelled grenades] all around that could take out these helicopters at any time, and take a prisoner that they haven't seen in five years, that potentially could have deserted and even committed treason by going over and sympathizing. They don't even know if he's wearing anything.
Smith stepped back for a moment, and asked this:
Are you comfortable talking about this man in this way before an investigation is complete? Before we hear his side of the story? It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that America normally does. We usually wait to hear both sides of a story, we complete an investigation. If he’s committed treason, or he's a traitor, then handle him in a way that you handle people who are treasonous or traitors. But let's get the facts first. It just seems like putting a cart way before the horse.
"I don't disagree with you there," Gilliam replied. "But this has been going on, this isn't just something that happened."
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel attempted to tamp down any premature criticism of Bowe Bergdahl Wednesday, saying before all the facts are out and the solider gets a chance to tell his story, it's "unfair" to judge his actions. Since news broke that Bergdahl had been released by the Taliban following five years in captivity, his fellow soldiers have been publicly labeling him a "deserter."
"Until we get the facts," Hagel said during a press conference in Brussels, "it's not in the interest of anyone, and certainly I think a bit unfair to Sgt. Bergdahl's family and to him to presume anything."
"We don't do that in the United States,' he continued. "We rely on facts." Hagel said that as a former sergeant in the Army himself, it's not his place to "decide who is worthy of being a sergeant and who isn't." He called any further talk on that nature irresponsible.
Tell that to O'Reilly, who has already labeled him a traitor. Hey O'Reilly, what if the facts come in and you are wrong, and he is not a traitor. Are you going to get his good name back, of course not, you will just move on to spin out more nonsense like the right-wing hack you are.
Retired General Stanley McChrystal also weighed in on the Bowe Bergdahl controversy with Yahoo News, and urged caution for anyone jumping to conclusions about Bergdahl's character based on allegations that he's a deserter.
McChrystal also made it clear that no matter what the case, "We don't leave Americans behind. That's unequivocal."
McChrystal largely glossed over all the arguing about whether the U.S. got Bergdahl home the right way, affirming that there is an inherent responsibility we have for our men and women in uniform. When asked about the deserter question, McChrystal hesitated and urged caution for anyone drawing conclusions about his character.
He said, "We're going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story. One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it."
Haha, that's not how O'Reilly works. If he does not like you he slams you then moves on. If he is proven wrong, he just drops the story and acts like he never did anything wrong.
The Tuesday 6-3-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 4, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: More Trouble For the Obama Administration. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is growing anger in America over President Obama's swapping five Taliban war criminals for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who may have deserted his unit in Afghanistan before being captured by the Taliban in 2009. There is compelling evidence that the Sergeant violated military law and may have even collaborated with the enemy.
Said the right-wing hack who hates Obama. Remember this folks, O'Reilly is a partisan Republican and most of that is his opinion. The facts are not all in yet, and even a former Bush official said Bush would have done the same thing. Remember this too, O'Reilly said he only reports facts, then he speculates all over the place based on the so-called evidence he claims to have, those are not facts.
This is one big mess and once again the Obama administration has brought it upon itself. These Taliban killers are not soldiers, according to the U.N. in 2013 alone, 74 percent of all civilian casualties in Afghanistan were caused by the Taliban and al Qaeda. At least 2,300 civilians were killed. More than 4,000 injured. Multiply that by 13 years. And you have the level of atrocity the Taliban has committed.
This is not a prisoner of war exchange. This is a political move. And it is back firing on the President, no question about it. So last night I talked with someone who knows the inside story of the Obama White House. I have to keep the person's identity secret but he told me that the President has come to the conclusion that his administration is not, not going to accomplish its goals.
He knows the economy is not going to turn around. He knows Obamacare is not going to be popular. And he understands that his job approval rating will likely remain below 50 percent. Therefore, according to this guy, the President has concluded that public opinion really doesn't matter anymore. Thus, Mr. Obama is going to do what he wants to do and the consequences be damned. I believe that assessment is accurate.
Just think about it. Why would you swap one alleged deserter because surely President Obama knows the guy left his unit voluntarily for five, five notorious war criminals? Why would anyone do that it simply doesn't make sense because these Taliban guys will continue killing people. The war on terror remains in progress and thousands of people are dying all over the world even ardent pro-Obama supporters have got to be confused.
Susan Rice saying to the world that Sergeant Bergdahl served his country with honor? Are you kidding me? And that's on top of the Benghazi stuff? Is the Ambassador Rice a moron? Why would she say that? With all the facts point to the opposite. Especially when she herself got hammered over the Benghazi deception.
One final thing President Obama knows that at least half, half of the American public is totally disengaged from political reality. They don't know anything. And they don't care to know. Many live in a high tech bubble, lost in cyberspace. Caught up in their own selfish pursuits. Therefore, he knows the President does, that he can razzle-dazzle, make speeches and survive. That's a big change in this country when you have half of the folks not caring a whit about what our leadership does. Apathy breeds corruption and incompetence, does it not?
Then Bob Woodward was on to discuss it. Woodward, who served in the Navy, targeted his criticism at the management of this prisoner swap. He implied the Obama administration genuinely wanted to get the soldier released, but instead of informing Congress, went out on their own. He referred to the "unfortunate bubble in the White House where they are too often isolated on things like this."
Woodward also said it's all about isolation. He acknowledged that in writing two books on Obama, there are some definite strengths there. In this particular case, he conceded that, in a rush to act, nobody in the administration thought through the arguments against the prisoner exchange.
Then Monica Crowley & Kirsten Powers was on to discuss it. Kirsten agreed that it's extremely tragic what happened to Pfc. Martinek. However, she pointed out that the Pentagon has specifically said people didn't die searching for Bergdahl. While she's inclined to believe the men on the ground, this certainly adds confusion to the situation, in her opinion.
Crowley described it as heartbreaking to watch Pfc. Martinek's parents. She wondered if these parents were ever invited to the White House, as Bergdahl's parents were for a big Rose Garden ceremony.
Kirsten reminded them that Bergdahl's son has been missing for five years, and he has said he grew the beard as part of an attempt to understand his son's captors. Rather than questioning his conduct, she expressed sympathy for him.
Crowley called into question the emails that went back and forth between father and son, where Sgt. Bergdahl called America disgusting and said he hated being a soldier, to which his father replied "obey your conscience."
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about a story in Memphis where more than $1 million was paid in bonus money to VA officials there, yet a therapeutic pool used to rehab veterans was shut down due to lack of funding.
According to Wiehl, no laws were broken because money is specifically allocated to bonuses and technically can't be used for operational costs. She reported that one of the whistleblowers told her the pool is drained and filled with file cabinets. Guilfoyle affirmed this was gross mismanagement by the VA, but that nobody will be brought up on charges.
O'Reilly voiced frustration, saying Gen. Shinseki should have killed the bonuses and dealt with the pool instead. He said one way or another, we're going to get that pool filled.
At Duke University, two students went out on a date. Afterwards, the girl claimed she was assaulted - the male student was expelled, but a judge has ordered him re-instated. Guilfoyle explained that the male student was never criminally charged after police investigated. When the girl complained to Duke, they decided to expel him.
Wiehl analyzed the case, saying this is a breach of contract situation - the male student is saying he did everything he was supposed to do and thus can't be deprived of diploma. Both lawyers think he'll prevail in the case.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on with his opinion on the prisoner exchange. He said this latest Obama scandal is not a management problem; it's an intrinsic problem with hostage swaps. He declared a country has two obligations: 1) get a soldier being held back, and 2) subject deserters to military discipline.
In this instance, the only path forward was to free Bergdahl and try him. In Krauthammer's estimation, the mistake Obama made was to celebrate the release at that press conference. He proclaimed that when you make the swap, you know the terms are uneven - this is a somber and solemn thing that you do with regret.
O'Reilly disagreed, insisting he would not have made the swap. He insists he understands the code not to leave anyone behind, but wouldn't put more people in danger with this particular deal. He would have tried to work something else out.
Krauthammer then disagreed with O'Reilly, saying a better deal could not have been done. He maintained the West always gets the raw end of hostage swaps because we put a premium on individual lives, while the enemy does not.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day. Which was not a tip, it was just O'Reilly using the tip of the day segment to promote a right-wing book.
Former Bush Official Slams GOP Over Bergdahl Prisoner Exchange
By: Steve - June 4, 2014 - 10:00am
A former Bush administration official broke with Republicans on Tuesday to defend President Obama's prisoner exchange, arguing that since "the war in Afghanistan is winding down," the United States would be required to return prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay back to Afghanistan.
A fact that O'Reilly never once mentioned in his attacks on Obama Monday and Tuesday night.
"I don't see how these particular Taliban officials could ever have been tried in the southern district of New York," John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush explained during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday.
"They're certainly some Al Qaeda detainees who committed actual terrorist acts against Americans who perhaps could have been tried in a federal court because they committed federal crimes, but these particular Taliban detainees I think could never have been tried in federal court."
Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, most of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.
Republicans (including Bill O'Reilly and former Vice President Dick Cheney) have blasted the administration for swapping five Taliban-linked prisoners to secure U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's freedom. They argue that the trade endangers Americans stationed overseas by sending top Taliban officials back into the battlefield and could inspire other terrorist groups to capture American service members in order to extract concessions from the United States.
GOP lawmakers also claim that the administration circumvented a law requiring Congress to be notified 30 days before prisoners are transferred from Guantanamo Bay.
Asked about reports that Bergdahl deserted his unit, Bellinger added that the former hostage "will have to face justice, military justice. We don't leave soldiers on the battlefield under any circumstance unless they have actually joined the enemy army," he said.
"He was a young 20-year-old. Young 20-year-olds make stupid decisions. I don't think we'll say if you make a stupid decision we'll leave you in the hands of the Taliban."
Though Cheney told Fox News on Monday that he would not have agreed to the deal, Bellinger stressed that the Bush administration "returned something like 500 detainees from Guantanamo."
Statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show that only 6 percent (5 in total) of Guantanamo detainees released during the Obama administration have potentially engaged in militant activities. That compares with a rate of nearly 30 percent under the Bush administration.
"I'm not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican, a president of either party, Republican or Democratic confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl, who is apparently in failing health, would have taken this opportunity to do this," he added. "I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration."
But of course O'Reilly has not reported any of this, and as usual he did a biased one sided report on the story.
President Obama also defended the trade in similar terms Tuesday, saying this: "The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind. Regardless of the circumstances, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop."
Boehner Busted For Lying About Obama New Carbon Rules
By: Steve - June 3, 2014 - 10:00am
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took to his website to fearmonger Monday about President Obama's climate change policy and PolitiFact was not impressed.
The Republican Speaker of the House said this: "The president's plan would indeed cause a surge in electricity bills -- costs stand to go up $17 billion every year. But it would also shut down plants and potentially put an average of 224,000 more people out of work every year."
For this dishonest claim, the Ohio Republican earned a big, fat "false rating" from PolitiFact.
The President unveiled new EPA guidelines to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants Monday and of course, John Boehner freaked out because Republicans believe regulations are for women's bodies, not for big industry.
PolitiFact wondered how Republicans could have already read the 645 pages long plan, but of course, Republicans don't bother with things like reading directly. They leave that for the Chamber of Commerce and other lobbyists.
The factfinders at Politifact realized that yes, these accusations came straight from a U.S. Chamber of Commerce study that was released in late May, which was based on predictions about the proposals Obama released Monday.
The Chamber got their predictions wrong and the dishonest Boehner repeated inaccurate accusations based on flawed predictions.
And since Republicans don't bother to read for themselves and are just in Congress to do as the Chamber tells them, Boehner felt free to pontificate and accuse based on the second hand failed mind reading of the Chamber.
Making public statements based on the predictions of a group with monied interest in finding fault isn't the smartest thing to do if you value your credibility. And it earned Boehner a big false rating:
POLITIFACT: Boehner said the EPA's plan to regulate carbon emissions in existing power plants will increase electric bills by "$17 billion every year" and "potentially put an average of 224,000 more people out of work every year."
Those numbers are based on a U.S. Chamber of Commerce study that came out before the EPA announced the regulations on existing power plants.
That study wrongly assumed the administration would set a benchmark of reducing carbon emissions by 42 percent before 2030. The regulations released June 2 actually put forward a 30 percent reduction within that time frame.
The chamber itself told PolitiFact its estimates are not based on the goals as announced. But despite these serious flaws, Boehner used the numbers anyway. We rate his statement False.
And if anyone is putting people out of work, it's the Speaker of the House whose own caucus has ensured they work less than any recent congress, while also making sure to never pass any of Obama's jobs bills.
Remember this the next time Republicans weigh in on legislative matters, or any matters for that point. When they aren't complaining about the length of a bill that they were given more than a year to read, they're letting ALEC and the Chamber dictate policy to them -- often times not even based on reality, as we see here.
So Boehner hates Obama's new regulations and has lots of scary stories to share about them, except he's not basing his critique on Obama's actual new guidelines. Boehner based his criticism on the Chamber's flawed prediction of Obama's new EPA guidelines.
This is sort of like claiming you read the Benghazi emails and they implicate Obama and Clinton, and then being busted for having never even seen them directly, but rather having them interpreted for you by an interested partisan party and passing that along as the truth.
And of course the (so-called) Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly never reports any of this, because he does not care about the truth, he just wants to help Republicans make Obama look bad, even when it's done dishonestly.
The Impact Of Aging Viewership On Bill O'Reilly & Fox News
By: Steve - June 2, 2014 - 11:00am
For Fox News and its month of May, the hits just keep on coming.
As was reported Wednesday, Fox News viewership is down 27% this month thanks largely to the network's insistence upon beating the dead horse that is known as Benghazi.
In fact, the number was so low that it actually marked the network's lowest monthly ratings since before 9/11, 2001. As disheartening as this is for Fox News at the moment, what might be even more depressing for the network concerns the demographics of their current audience.
Take, for example, the network's top show The O'Reilly Factor. For the past month it averaged 1.8 million viewers. This was the lowest amount in over twelve years.
But the interesting stats involve who exactly was watching The O'Reilly Factor. According to the numbers, less than fifteen percent of O'Reilly's audience fell within the key 25-54 demographic, and the average age of O'Reilly audience was 72 years old.
For Fox News, this represents a huge challenge moving forward. They now face the time honored question: Do we want to make money now or in the future? Because as of now, The O'Reilly Factor remains the network's #1 breadwinner as it has been for well over a decade.
Fox News knows it has a faithful audience for the program and it caters the program to that audience. It's the reason that Bill O'Reilly can say things on his program Thursday like "income inequality doesn't exist" and not get absolutely laughed off the stage.
Because O'Reilly knows his older, right-wing white audience actually believes the things he tells them. They are so gullible and set in their ways that when O'Reilly says something absurd like he did that night, his audience won't bother to question him.
This strategy works great for the advertising dollars for Fox News. However, a problem arises in that 25-54 demographic where only 15% of O'Reilly's audience lies. The lower end of this demographic are your millennials and they are the ones who are at an age where they are starting to have families of their own.
If only 3 out of every 20 viewers of The O'Reilly Factor are in this age bracket, that means that even less than that are millennials. It is more than likely that the percentage of millennials that watch the program might very well be close to 5% of the entire viewing audience. That 5% will not be enough to help Fox News spread its conservative message to independents as election season approaches.
Murdoch and Ailes built Fox News to establish a Conservative mouthpiece for the Republican Party during the presidency of Bill Clinton. It’s no coincidence that the network was launched a month before Clinton was re-elected. Murdoch and Ailes knew that Clinton was turning around the economy from a recession and how, up until that point, had kept the United States out of any major foreign entanglements.
When Clinton beat Bob Dole handily to win a second term, Murdoch and Ailes knew they needed the network to help stem the tide of a popular Democratic president, presiding over what would become an efficient and robust economy.
However, since that time, the network has continued to push its conservative agenda on the rest of the country.
It has worked wonders for ratings, but it now reaches a breaking point of what to do moving forward. The Fox News audience continues to get older and older. However, is it that audience that tunes in religiously and helps the network keep raking in its advertising dollars. Meanwhile, it is the younger audience that doesn't tune in as often and yet it is they who represent the next generation.
They are the ones who Fox News most needs and yet they are the ones that don't seem interested in what Fox News has to say.
As America continues to become more and more progressive, Fox News has painted itself into a corner. For nearly twenty years, they have been giving the Republican Party a platform to campaign and to give a voice to their Conservative worldview.
They have catered to their audience, but now their audience no longer represents traditional America. People in this country realize things like income inequality exist, and for every time that O'Reilly says it doesn't, it just makes the average independent voter shake his or her head in disbelief.
Views like that may play great for the over 70 right-wing white guy crowd, but for the vast majority of educated voters today, that kind of disconnected worldview only serves to illustrate just how out of touch O'Reilly and the Republicans are with major problems in the country today.
For Fox News, it is a situation that offers no easy solution.
Racist Phil Robertson Featured Speaker At GOP Event
By: Steve - June 1, 2014 - 11:00am
And this will help them get the blacks, the gays, and minorities to vote for them how?
"I guess the GOP may be more desperate than I thought to call somebody like me," said Phil Robertson, the controversial star of Duck Dynasty, during his speech at the annual Republican Leadership Conference Friday in New Orleans.
Speaking alongside political figures like Bobby Jindal, Reince Priebus, and Sarah Palin, Robertson called on the GOP to move the party in a "Godly" direction, in a speech the Washington Post described as meandering.
"GOP, you can't be right for America if you're wrong with God," Robertson said. "You want to turn the Republican Party around? Get Godly."
Which is an insult to everyone who is not a bible thumping right-wing God nut. Because he implies that if you are wrong with God you are not good Americans.
He also quoted George Washington and John Adams, but mostly the religious parts: "Separation of church and state? I'm telling you right here what the founding fathers said. Does it sound to you like separating God almighty from the United States of America?"
And btw, nobody thinks we should separate God from America, we just think your religion should be done in church or in private, not in the schools or in Government. And it should not be forced on anyone.
There's also the railing against evolution (which was, apparently, proved wrong by the existence of DNA), the lack of the Bible in education ("Education is useless without the bible"), and also, true to form, racism. "There is one race on this planet it's called the human race. Therefore you have no right to color-code anyone."
Which is what racists say in speeches after getting caught saying racist things.
But it all came back to God in politics, which needed to be a priority when the GOP chose their presidential candidate: "You can't be right for America if you're wrong with God," he said. Which received a standing ovation.
And btw, during the speech the biggest reaction came when Robertson said he is never more than 5 feet from his guns, and of course the God and Guns crowd went wild.
Bill O'Reilly: Income Inequality "Is A Fabricated, Political Thing"
By: Steve - June 1, 2014 - 10:00am
And here is yet more proof that Bill O'Reilly is an out of touch, biased, rich, old, right-wing white guy.
From the May 30th, 2014 O'Reilly Factor:
Here is a reality check for O'Reilly. Billy sees the super rich as "generating" wealth, but in reality they are collecting wealth. For example, Microsoft's near monopoly. And all the 1% who took their tax breaks and kept the money, or bought another house, most of them did not create jobs, they just added to their wealth. It's a myth that the wealthy take tax breaks and create jobs, they just keep the money or invest it and make more money with that money.
I also laugh when O'Dummy complains the lack of jobs, while supporting the Republicans who lost 6 million jobs through their most recent recessions.
Income equality is real, especially in the last 10 years. Most of the added income and wealth has went to the top 1 percent and that is a fact. It happened because Bush gave big tax cuts to the rich, because corporations are making record profits and not giving their workers big enough raises, and because Republicans refuse to vote for a raise in the minimum wage.
These are facts, but O'Reilly refuses to believe them. Because he is a Republican and because he is one of the 1 percent.