The Friday 5-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 31, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: VA Scandal Update. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama, finally admitting that the Veterans Administration is out of control, has fired General Eric Shinseki. The big picture is that President Obama is having trouble leading, he does not seem to be pro-active in problem solving. The best example is the economy, which is now contracting, and there are the scandals, one after the other.
That is right-wing BS, because O'Reilly is still ignoring the fact that the Republicans voted down a VA budget increase that would have added 27 more VA clinics and got them more doctors. So it is not all the fault of Obama as O'Reilly claims.
But the V.A. situation is a bit different because this angers everybody, Democrats and Republicans alike. You can not treat men and women who defend the nation in a dishonest way. General Shinseki is a patriot, he served his country honorably, but he was told point-blank by a number of people in Congress that vets were not being treated in a timely manner in some V.A. hospitals.
The president himself knew about the V.A. problems and did nothing. His lack of leadership on the V.A. deal reflects his overall disengagement. There's little anyone can do about the president's management style, but there is one thing voters can do, and that's show up in November in the voting booth. A statement needs to be made.
Then Geraldo was on to talk about the V.A. and General Shinseki's departure.
Geraldo said this: "You can't brush over who General Eric Shinseki is. He was wounded twice in combat and decorated in the field, this is the kind of man that we would all be honoring under normal circumstances. But this four-star general lost his way when he got to the civilian bureaucracy and he was done a terrible disservice by dishonorable bureaucrats. There is potential fraud and criminal indictments here, and the president is a terrible administrator."
Then O'Reilly talked about Hillary Clinton, who recently denounced America's "cancer of inequality," and in fact the median pay package for American CEOs has now reached $10-million. So Lou Dobbs was on to discuss it, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Dobbs said this: "CEOs are making 287 times more than the average worker, and this is inviting the left to come in and say we're going to hammer those nails back down. Businesses should be trying to empower employees with stock options like they give to the CEO. But they don't have to because there has been a reduction in jobs due to technology, and because we are watching the import of cheap labor into this country through illegal immigration. We're also outsourcing jobs to the cheapest labor markets in the world."
Then Jorge Ramos was on, he has accused America's mainstream media of being way too cozy with the powerful in Washington, and also called O'Reilly out for his right-wing bias.
Ramos said this: "Our mission is to question those in power, and I am not seeing that. When I go to Washington it feels like a club - reporters are more concerned about keeping their contacts than getting at the truth. I'm an independent and I'm not partisan, so I criticize both President Obama and Speaker Boehner."
Then O'Reilly talked about UCLA's theater arts department, who has invited far-left activist Jane Fonda to deliver its commencement address. Fox News media analyst Laura Ashburn was on to discuss it. And even she disagreed with O'Reilly.
Ashburn said this: "I am not defending Jane Fonda, who did something absolutely reprehensible. However, that does not mean we should take away her right to stand in front of a microphone and say what she thinks. You're saying this is controversial simply because she's a public figure who stated things that you didn't like, but isn't this what free speech is all about?"
O'Reilly was not buying it and laid out some reasons why Jane Fonda should not have been given this privilege, saying this: "To be invited to speak at a commencement is an honor, it's not something you're entitled to. The taxpayers of California, including a lot of Vietnam vets and families of dead Vietnam vets, pay for UCLA. This woman's past is so dubious that the taxpayers should not have to pay to be offended."
And that is a perfect example of the right-wing bias and hypocrisy from O'Reilly. Because when some college did not let Condi Rice speak O'Reilly was outraged and said the far-left wants to take away free speech from the conservatives. In this situation it's the exact same thing, except it's a liberal, but O'Reilly does not defend her like he did with Condi Rice. It's total bias and total hypocrisy from the hack O'Reilly.
Then Bernard McGuirk and Brian Kilmeade were on to select the week's stupidest and most ridiculous people.
Kilmeade named the European reporter who thought he was questioning the winner of a tennis match, when in fact he was addressing the player who lost. "This reporter missed the entire match," Kilmeade said, "and maybe he just doesn't like tennis. I think he's out of a job right now."
McGuirk ridiculed both NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and NBC's Brian Williams, who spoke with Snowden last week. "Williams interviewed a traitor like he's Leo DiCaprio," McGuirk said, "and Snowden should come home and be in federal prison." O'Reilly went with Nancy Pelosi, who actually implied that President Bush is responsible for the V.A. mess. "The issue is mismanagement of the V.A. under the Obama administration, fix it!"
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Plan Ahead for Summer Fun. Billy said this: "Avoid lots of chaos and tsuris by making your summer plans as early as possible."
Jorge Ramos Calls Out O'Reilly Over Right-Wing Bias
By: Steve - May 31, 2014 - 10:00am
O’Reilly liked what he saw from Jorge Ramos this week when the Univision and Fusion host said in an interview that journalists in the United States are too "cozy with power."
But things got tense when Ramos appeared on The O'Reilly Factor Friday night and accused Billy of having his own right-wing biases.
"We all have biases," Ramos said. "You have your own biases, I mean whenever you are covering Obamacare or Benghazi or supporting the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party."
O'Reilly cut his guest off quickly, asking, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, have you ever seen me do a softball interview with anybody?"
And the answer would be yes, I have, many times with Republicans, especially Republican celebrities, but of course O'Reilly will never admit it, and Ramos does not watch the show enough to know it. So Ramos said this:
"I have seen you tough interviews, but I've also seen you support more Republicans than Democrats," Ramos replied.
And Ramos is 100% right, but of course O'Reilly says he only does it in editorials, which is just laughable, he supports Republicans 98% of the time on everything, and that is a fact.
O'Reilly admitted that might be true in "editorials," but insisted, "I have never done a softball interview in my life."
Which is not only laughable, it's a 100% lie. O'Reilly does softball interviews all the time, but only with Republicans.
On the issue of "access," which Ramos discussed in his POLITICO interview this week, O’Reilly lamented the fact that he cannot get House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to come on his show because she "knows" he will ask her "tough questions."
Yeah, because she is a liberal. And the real reason Pelosi will not do the Factor is because she knows O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who will only ask her stupid right-wing questions about Benghazi, etc.
"But you can get Republicans, right?" Ramos asked, attempting to prove his initial point. To this, O'Reilly replied that he can get some, but not all, pointing to Dick Cheney as an example of a Republican who would not come on his show until after he was mostly out of politics.
Which is also laughable, for a long time O'Reilly would say everyone hates me and even Dick Cheney will not do my show. Okay, so one Republican will not do his show, but the other 99.9% will and most have. Just because one Republican out of a million will not do your show does not mean you are not a biased right-wing hack.
And then Cheney did his show, to promote his book. So he can not use that excuse anymore. O'Reilly is the 2nd most biased host in tv news, only behind Sean Hannity, he just refuses to admit it. And remember this, he also claims to be a fair and balanced non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to both sides, which is beyond laughable.
Later in the interview, O'Reilly brought up the immigration issue, grilling Ramos on how he entered the country "the legal way" and saying the border with Mexico needs to be more secure.
"It's more secure than ever before," Ramos said of the border, pointing out that President Obama "has deported more than two million so far."
The Thursday 5-29-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 30, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Leadership Breaking Down in America. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We are a country adrift, a people who are not being properly led. Job approval for Congress is the lowest in history and President Obama is under fire from all sides. In my upcoming book I examine some of the world's most famous leaders - FDR, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Eisenhower, and General Patton himself. Each of them made history and it's fascinating to know what they were really like.
And that is all right-wing propaganda, notice that only Republicans are calling Obama a weak leader. It's a partisan opinion put out by partisan political hacks. The country is doing fine and things are getting better. Obama has a few problems, but all Presidents do, and it does not help that the Republicans will not pass a minimum wage increase, or any jobs bills, which O'Reilly never mentions.
President Obama wanted to be a great leader, but I now believe he vastly underestimated just how difficult the job really is. The blunt truth is that Mr. Obama's leadership skills are not providing prosperity for the nation. That might be because he is a passive leader, a man who avoids confrontation and doesn't make judgments about behavior, even when that behavior is destructive to the nation.
Kathleen Sebelius is still on the job after screwing up the ObamaCare rollout, and General Eric Shinseki still has not been fired over the Veterans Affairs scandal. Congress, the president, and Shinseki have known about this for years but have done nothing. That's a failure of leadership. This Phoenix V.A. situation is so bad that the FBI should be involved. 14 V.A. medical people are making more than $300,000 a year and they may have cooked the books to protect those huge salaries.
These people knew that their direct boss and the president were not paying attention, so they thought they could get away with telling lies about how long veterans have to wait for medical care. Talking Points submits that kind of deception is going on all over the federal government. Finally, if you're a strong leader in present-day America, you can expect to be called negative names. Wishy-washy is what this country seems to want, and wishy-washy is what we have!
Then Ed Henry was on with the latest on the VA story.
Henry said this: "The president has stood behind Shinseki for a few reasons. He believes Shinseki is a patriot, someone who was wounded in Vietnam and rose to the rank of four-star general. And if you think back to the Iraq war, it was Shinseki who went after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said we needed hundreds of thousands of troops. If President Obama now has to admit that Shinseki's judgment is off, they're giving into Rumsfeld and the Bush team. And if you push Shinseki out now, all the heat would be on the president."
Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about a new reports that says tens of thousands of Mexicans under the age of 18 are sneaking into the USA.
Ingraham said this: "The president has made it clear that they are working on a plan to further decrease the number of deportations. A lot of people in Central America are hearing about this grand immigration bargain and they mistakenly think that they will benefit if their children are here. There's a collective signal from Republicans and Democrats to come in, and I there will be calamitous effects with all these unaccompanied children. If we wanted to handle this problem, we wouldn't give drivers licenses to people, and we wouldn't give them in-state tuition. We would be focusing on our work force first and foremost."
Which is a joke, because O'Reilly and Ingraham say nothing about corporations making record profits, while shipping jobs out of the country to get cheap labor, or avoiding billions in taxes by setting up bogus offshore shell headquarters. Not to mention, the Republicans blocking every jobs bill Obama and the Democrats try to pass. O'Reilly and Ingraham ignore all that because they are biased right-wing hacks.
Then Heather Nauert was on to answer emails from irate viewers such as Nebraskan Lila Lewis, who is ticked off because some prison inmates apparently get better care than military veterans.
Nauert said this: "What Lila says is absolutely true. We pay for knee replacement surgery and even sex change operations for inmates, and health care costs are $6.5 billion annually for the federal prison population."
Another angry viewer, T.A. Bell of Florida, wants Americans to steer clear of Mexico until the country gets crime under control. "The resorts are considered relatively safe," Nauert said, "but the State Department has issued a travel warning because people are at risk of carjackings and kidnappings. Just this week an American was killed just south of the border, shot execution style."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Hillary Clinton's recent claim that income inequality is a "cancer" eating away at America. Which is 100% true, but O'Reilly denies it anyway. It's crazy, a new report just came out saying the average CEO makes over $10 million a year, and the workers are not getting raises, so they are getting farther behind every year, and the insane O'Reilly denies it all, saying there is no income equality, and even Megyn Kelly said he was nuts.
Kelly said this: "It's a good issue for the Democrats, because there's no question that it exists. Both parties agree with that, the difference is what we do about it. Democrats are open about their plan to stoke resentment, they want to play to the resentment that the middle class and poor feel towards the rich. But you can't get out of this income inequality situation by saying it doesn't exist."
O'Reilly speculated that Clinton is trying to shore up her support on the far left, saying this: "The only chance she has of becoming president is to try and form a coalition of people who are getting hosed. Women are going to be 'unequal,' blacks are going to be 'unequal,' and Hispanics are going to be 'unequal.' But this is a total fraud - income inequality exists in a free marketplace, but not because of government policies."
Note: Take a look at the guest list folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, so it was all right-wing propaganda all the time. And this is from O'Reilly, who said he has a balanced guest list, even though it's 6 to 1 Republican to Democrat every show, and sometimes like this show 0 Democrats.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was ridiculous and not even worth reporting. O'Reilly said police should get tough with loons that who get physical with celebrities. How is that even a tip, it's not, it's commentary.
O'Reilly Slams Liberals Over Shooting While Ignoring Conservatives
By: Steve - May 30, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge. Wednesday night O'Reilly had a Talking Points Memo called: Exploiting Tragedy. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's really a shame that some Americans can not allow the families of the Santa Barbara victims to grieve without politics. There is a time and place to make political points, but you don't do it on the backs of innocent people who were killed in a rampage. Six Americans were murdered by Elliot Rodger last Friday, obviously a heartbreaking situation.
Then he slammed two liberals for giving their opinion about the cause of the shootings, Professor Brittney Cooper, who teaches at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Now conservatives have also gave their opinions about it, but O'Reilly ignores what they said, he only goes after the liberals as if they are the only people talking about it.
Joe The Plumber talked about it, but he is a conservative so O'Reilly ignored it. Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber.
In An Open Letter to the Parents of the Victims Murdered by Elliot Rodger, Wurzelbacher said this:
"I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But: As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."
Conservative Family Research Council scholar Ken Blackwell also discussed the recent UCSB shootings during a radio interview with FRC president Tony Perkins, and suggested that, of all things, marriage equality was responsible for Elliot Rodger's rampage last week that left seven people dead.
Blackwell, the former Republican mayor of Cincinnati, blamed the shootings on "the teaching of sexual roles and the development of human sexuality in our culture."
Not a word from O'Reilly about any of that!
So once again O'Reilly spins the truth, to imply that only liberals are speaking out about the shooting, while ignoring the crazy things conservatives are saying about it.
The Wednesday 5-28-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 29, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Exploiting Tragedy. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's really a shame that some Americans can not allow the families of the Santa Barbara victims to grieve without politics. There is a time and place to make political points, but you don't do it on the backs of innocent people who were killed in a rampage. Six Americans were murdered by Elliot Rodger last Friday, obviously a heartbreaking situation.
Now remember this, you are getting O'Reilly's opinion about this, not facts.
As Talking Points has stated, there is no way to stop mass murder. Even in countries like Norway, which is very peaceful and has little gun intrusion, a psycho murdered 77 human beings a few years ago. But for some reason, crazy ideologues feel they need to exploit these situations. Brittney Cooper, who teaches at Rutgers University in New Jersey, declared that 'white male privilege kills.'
And Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center blames the killings on Internet sites where frustrated men vent about women. The harsh truth is that we're living in a world where more and more people are becoming mentally ill. The reason is alienation, families falling apart, pervasive technology that numbs human feelings, and a culture that too often celebrates violence.
This has nothing to do with racism or bias against women, it has to do with individuals who are so sick that they want to destroy other people as well as themselves. Sometimes those people can be helped, sometimes they can't. No matter what society does, there will always be mass murder.
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it.
Williams said this: "I'm going to call you out tonight, Bill, because I know you as a guy who will object to Beyonce and her sexual lyrics. We live in a pornographic culture in Hollywood and music, and we can't close our eyes and say that's not what caused this. That's like walking around with blinders, pretending there is not a real danger in a distorted and dysfunctional culture. We can't protect our children in this country!"
And remember this, O'Reilly says the music from Beyonce is a cause of more teen sex and teens getting pregnant, he also says video game and movie violence leads to real violence. And yet, he denies that movies and tv shows can have an effect on people who kill. I actually agree with O'Reilly and his TPM on it, but he is a massive hypocrite on the issue with 2 different positions.
Ham said this: "You can have a discussion about the coarsening of culture without jumping on a political hobby horse that you are always talking about. The left is particularly good at doing this. The thread most common in these mass murders seems to be mental illness, which runs up against freedom."
Then Francisco Hernandez and Raoul Lowery Contreras were on, as reported previously, Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi has been in a Mexican jail after making a wrong turn and mistakenly entering that country with guns in his vehicle. So O'Reilly issued this proclamation: "This is completely bogus, the sergeant simply made a mistake. So we will now apply some pressure on the Mexican government. We would like you to go to BillOReilly.com and sign a petition that we will send to the Mexican ambassador in Washington."
Immigration lawyer Francisco Hernandez said this: "I think what happened, is that this got out of local control. Usually when there's an incident like this at the border, the local Mexicans will work it out and march the American up to the border and turn him over."
But Contreras implied that Sgt. Tahmooressi may be guilty, saying this: "We should do whatever it takes to get him back, but he is one of many Americans in prison based on very strict gun laws in Mexico. You don't cross into Mexico with three guns by mistake."
Then James Rosen was on to talk about the State Department, that is apologizing for inadvertently promoting the work of a man who turned out to be a jihadist.
Rosen said this: "The State Department has a counter-terrorism bureau, and a fairly junior person in the bureau tweeted out a link to a website that appeared to show a group of Islamic clerics condemning the kidnapping of the Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram. But the link took people to the official website of Sheik Abdallah Bin Bayyah, a Sunni cleric who has praised Hamas, called for eternal conflict with Israel, and endorsed a fatwa that equated the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq with the religious duty of Muslims."
Then Dennis Miller was on, and Jesse Watters after him, which I do not report on. Miller is a has-been right-wing comedian who has no news to report, and Watters simply went to a beach and asked political questions of dumb guys, and dumb girls in thongs for ratings. It was stupid and not news.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting another book.
Obama Slams Republicans For Saying America Is In Decline
By: Steve - May 29, 2014 - 10:00am
And O'Reilly says it too, so he is also slamming the biased fool Bill O'Reilly.
President Obama spoke at the commencement ceremony for the U.S. Military Academy West Point in New York Wednesday morning, during which he kicked sand in the face of the Republican idea that America is in decline due to his foreign policy.
Obama said this: "In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise (who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away) are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics."
The President elaborated on why America is not in decline due to his foreign policy making us weak, as O'Reilly and the Republicans claim it is:
OBAMA: Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War.
And btw folks, when Democrats said Bush was making America worse O'Reilly flipped out and slammed them for saying bad things about the President. But now that a Democrat is in the White House suddenly it's ok to say the President is making America worse.
Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth; our businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent. From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations. America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe.
And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.
The President also reflected upon those who sacrificed so much for our freedom and what we've accomplished. The graduating crowd cheered when the President said this: "Al Qaeda's leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more."
The President called out the failure of the Bush Doctrine indirectly by pointing out, "Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences -- without building international support and legitimacy for our action; without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required."
Flexibility is a must, but the flexibility must be limited. If only Republicans could act as loyal opposition, we could count on their zealous attempts to destroy this President as a Constitutional check on his power. But Republicans don't seem capable of putting America and national security first over their attempts to destroy Obama.
"The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance," the President said. "Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail."
Obama's careful and judicious use of alternative methods to fight terrorism, with the military as a secondary and not primary factor, is part of what makes this country a responsible leader on the global stage. We can't make a perfect world, but we can and must try to use our power wisely.
Republicans call being wise and careful "decline." I call it a positive step in humanity's evolution.
The Tuesday 5-27-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 28, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Scandals Surround the White House. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama is involved in five intense controversies and his administration is under siege. His approval rating may fall below 40% primarily because of the Veterans Affairs scandal, in which sick veterans allegedly died because they could not get treatment quickly enough.
And that is ridiculous, because none of them are real scandals, it's all scandals to Republicans that nobody else cares about. Except for the VA situation, that is not just the fault of Obama. All of it is old news that nobody cares about, which is why the media ignores it. Only O'Reilly and his right-wing friends think they are scandals. Other than the VA story, n-o-b-o-d-y cares!
No matter your ideological bent, this is awful, and since President Obama pledged to clean up the V.A. six years ago, it falls on him. Controversy number two is the IRS. The House decided to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in criminal contempt because she will not testify about her role in targeting conservative political groups. Talking Points believes Ms. Lerner will not be indicted, and without her testimony the story goes nowhere.
Controversy number three is Benghazi, where the key questions are: Where was the president on the night of the attack, why did the Obama administration tell the world the murders were inspired by a video, and why did the U.S. military not respond when the alarm sounded?
Number four is 'Fast and Furious,' the program under which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms allowed 2,000 guns to flow into Mexico. Finally, there is ObamaCare, which could be big. Costs are going up all over and nobody is happy except those who are getting 'free' health insurance. Anger is likely to grow at a furious pace as Americans see their premiums skyrocket and services decline.
Right now the White House strategy seems to be, 'let's ride it out.' They only have two-and-a-half more years in office, investigators don't work quickly, and the public's attention span is short. The media is not likely to be aggressive in pursuing these stories, although CNN did break the V.A. situation.
We here at The Factor promise that we'll stay on the case. All we want are answers to simple questions and accountability. Until President Obama leaves office, we'll continue to demand those things and hope that Mr. Obama will understand that his legacy is on the line.
Now get this, then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing hack Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, with no liberal guest for balance, so it was a biased one sided segment that violated the rules of journalism.
Krauthammer said this: "There is no question that ObamaCare will hurt Democrats in November and in 2016. It's not so much the scandalous part of it, but it's the embodiment of Obama hyper-liberalism and intrusiveness. It affects people where they live, there will be millions of Americans negatively affected. The president said people could keep their plan, but that was a deliberate lie that he knew was not true."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the mass murder committed by Elliot Rodger in California, and how Washington Post film critic Ann Hornaday has blamed the "white men" in Hollywood who promote violence and sexuality in our mass entertainment.
Goldberg said this: "This is an example of shallow and unserious thinking masquerading as thoughtful journalism. If this critic wants to write a column about mental illness and guns, be my guest. But if she's going to link movies and murder, she has no clue, she just made it up! I'm not suggesting that the popular culture doesn't affect the greater culture, but she doesn't offer a shred of evidence that those movies should be linked to those terrible murders. Millions of young men watch those very same films, so why don't we have hundreds or thousands of cases where they go out and kill people?"
Then John Stossel was on to talk about the debate over food and obesity in an upcoming special.
Stossel said this: "So much of what we think we know is not true, and the government 'fixing' our obesity problem by subsidizing and banning things doesn't work. We ought to have food freedom. Katie Couric's TV special said 95% of Americans will be overweight or obese in two decades. How does anybody know that? It's absurd! They say we're helpless addicts and our brains light up with sugar like cocaine or heroin."
O'Reilly said this: "Michelle Obama is on a kick to have schools purchase healthy foods for the urchins, and I support that. If you're giving them fried food and sugar-laden food with our tax dollars, they should try for the better stuff."
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the case of Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who has been in a Mexico jail after mistakenly entering that country with guns in his vehicle.
Wiehl said this: "This is a 25-year-old who was driving at night. There was a lot of construction and a lot of small signs that he didn't see. He didn't know the area well."
Guilfoyle said this: "It doesn't look like there was anything nefarious, this is an individual who was gainfully employed prior to the military. It was a poorly lit area and he clearly states that he mis-read the signs."
O'Reilly said this: "We believe the sergeant made an honest mistake, and we believe the Mexicans are once again over-reacting and punishing an American when they don't have to."
Then Kirsten Powers & Monica Crowley were on to talk about the justice system and America's high rate of incarceration. Which O'Reilly claimed only liberals care about.
Powers said this: "It's not just liberals who are concerned about this, and to say that the drop in violent crime is evidence that we don't have a problem doesn't make any sense. People have been thrown into jail for 15 or 20 years for selling two ounces of marijuana."
Crowley said this: "The objective is to reduce crime, cut back the recidivism rate, and save taxpayer money. I think aggressive policing and sentencing has led to this dramatic plummeting of the violent crime rate, but I do agree that states should work on educating and training non-violent offenders."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was so stupid I did not report it.
Providing The Homeless Shelter Saves Taxpayers $21,000 A Year
By: Steve - May 28, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is more proof Republican policies against the homeless are not only stupid, it actually cost taxpayers more.
Even if you don't think society has a moral obligation to care for the least among us, a new study underscores that we have a financial incentive to do so.
Last week, the Central Florida Commission on Homelessness released a new study showing that, when accounting for a variety of public expenses, Florida residents pay $31,065 per chronically homeless person every year they live on the streets.
The study, conducted by Creative Housing Solutions, an Oklahoma-based consultant group, tracked public expenses accrued by 107 chronically homeless individuals in central Florida. These ranged from criminalization and incarceration costs to medical treatment and emergency room visits that the person was unable to afford.
Andrae Bailey, CEO of the commission that released the study, noted to the Orlando Sentinel that most chronically homeless people have a physical or mental disability, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. "These are not people who are just going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job," he said. "They're never going to get off the streets on their own."
The most recent count found 1,577 chronically homeless individuals living in three central Florida counties -- Osceola, Seminole, and Orange, which includes Orlando. As a result, the region is paying nearly $50 million annually to let homeless people live on the streets.
There is a far cheaper option though: giving homeless people housing and supportive services. The study found that it would cost taxpayers just $10,051 per homeless person to give them a permanent place to live and services like job training and health care.
That figure is 68 percent less than the public currently spends by allowing homeless people to remain on the streets. If central Florida took the permanent supportive housing approach, it could save $350 million over the next decade.
This is just the latest study showing how fiscally irresponsible it is for society to allow homelessness to continue. A study in Charlotte earlier this year
found a new apartment complex oriented towards homeless people saved taxpayers $1.8 million in the first year alone.
Similarly, the Centennial State will save millions by giving homeless people in southeast Colorado a place to live. And in Osceola County, Florida, researchers earlier this year found that taxpayers had spent $5,081,680 over the past decade in incarceration expenses to repeatedly jail just 37 chronically homeless people.
Average CEO Pay Breaks $10 Million For First Time Ever
By: Steve - May 27, 2014 - 11:00am
The median CEO pay package hit $10.5 million last year, according to the Associated Press, cracking eight figures for the first time since the wire service began calculating the statistic.
The median compensation number rose by 8.8 percent from 2012 and has now climbed by more than 50 percent over the past four years.
Yes you read that right, CEO pay has increased 50 percent in the last 4 years.
By contrast, average weekly wages for working Americans rose just 1.3 percent last year. That disparity is all too typical of the modern U.S. economy. CEO compensation has increased 127 times faster than worker pay over the past three decades.
The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay now stands at 257 to 1.
That is a slightly more optimistic portrait of the relationship between earnings at the top and middle of the income distribution than other recent analyses. The real ratio of CEO to worker pay is more like 273 to 1, according to the Economic Policy Institute, and in some sectors of the economy it is as high as 1,200 to 1.
Corporations can afford to reduce the gap between top earners and frontline employees. Even after taxes, corporate profits hit a record $1.68 trillion last year. These companies are holding about $2 trillion in profit offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.
Big business icons like Walmart and McDonald's could start paying their workers enough to escape poverty with only negligible 1 to 2 percent increases in their prices.
The escalating disparity between CEO and worker pay could potentially be justified if top executives were being rewarded for excellent performance in demanding leadership positions.
But that's not how it works.
CEOs are effectively guaranteed to get their performance incentive payouts, either because the performance targets are set so low or because compensation boards will decide to make the payments even when the company misses its targets. Incompetence and malfeasance are no obstacle to massive paydays either, as more than one in three of the highest paid CEOs of the past two decades were fired, prosecuted for misconduct, or bailed out by taxpayers.
And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about any of this, because he thinks it's ok, as he complains about the growth rate of the economy. In fact, O'Reilly is opposed income equality. Earth to O'Reilly, the average worker drives the economy, and if you give all the money to the top 1 percent the average worker does not have any money to spend. So the economy suffers.
O'Reilly Ignored Republican Blocked VA Funding Increase Story
By: Steve - May 26, 2014 - 11:00am
O'Reilly and the Republicans have been crying a river of crocodile tears over how much they care about veterans, but back in February, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have expanded veterans benefits because it was, "too expensive." And O'Reilly has not said a word about it, ever.
These are the very same Senate Republicans who are now claiming to be a friend to our veterans, while shamefully blocking a bill that would have expanded and improved care for vets. The bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders contained provisions that would have restored the COLA for vets, and protected them from losing their benefits in the event of another government shutdown.
It also would have authorized the construction of 27 new VA clinics and medical facilities, and it would have provided tuition assistance to post-9/11 vets. The bill failed by a 56-41 vote as only two Republicans joined with Democrats in supporting it.
The good news is that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is working with the White House to reintroduce the bill that would expand veterans benefits and also contain new accountability measures for the VA.
The bad news is that Republicans like Marco Rubio are already complaining that the 10 year/$21 billion bill is too expensive.
Senate Republicans love our veterans so much that they block a bill that would have built dozens of new VA clinics and facilities, blame President Obama for the VA scandal, then turn around and threaten to block a second attempt at building more facilities because they think it is too expensive.
Two billion dollars a year for ten years is too much money to spend on the people who risked their lives for their country. That is what Senate Republicans really think of veterans.
Every day, that construction gets delayed more vets are at risk of dying while stuck on waiting lists. That is a real world consequence of Senate Republican obstruction. And (the so-called journalist) Bill O'Reilly never reports any of this, because he is too busy blaming it all on Obama for partisan political reasons.
Republican Congressman Praises Duct Tape Oil Leak Repair
By: Steve - May 25, 2014 - 11:00am
And btw, this is the same married Republican Congressman who was caught kissing a staffer on video. Remember Vance McAllister? Of course you do. He knows about leaks: leaked videos of him philandering, leaked texts of his guilt.
And he would like these stupid tree-huggers to stop trashing the patriotic geniuses who fixed leaking oil pipelines with your dad's station-wagon emergency kit, of duct tape and trash bags.
The kissing congressman and a conservative colleague turned those crude fixes into cool points for oil plunderers at a bizarre environmental committee hearing Tuesday.
McAllister and John Fleming, both Republicans from Louisiana, berated a Democratic witness from the Defenders of Wildlife on Tuesday for illustrating abuses in wildlife refuges with photos of oil-slicked ponds; abandoned, leaky drums; and even trash bags and duct tape used for as long as a year to stave off spills in Louisiana national wildlife refuges.
Yes, this is for real. Instead of spending money to actually fix oil leaks in wildlife refuges, they got a trash bag and some duct tape and did the repair. And this Republican idiot praised the oil company for such a great repair.
"I see those pictures, and understand how a picture is worth a thousand words," said McAllister, who worked in the oil technology and pipeline business before he won a special election to Congress last year.
"You took a picture of someone who was innovative, and rather than leaving the fluid to drip on the ground, repaired it with duct tape and a garbage bag, and yet you seem to be very upset about that," McAllister told Noah Matson, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife.
Notice he called it fluid, as if it was lemonade or iced tea, hey jerk, it's fricking crude oil leaking into a wildlife refuge. They should not be praised, they should be fined, big time.
"We're damned if we do and damned if we don't," McAllister added. "We take a garbage bag and fix it and keep it from leaking and yet you're still not happy, and come to Washington and testify before Congress and want to throw fits because some guy took initiative."
Yeah, how dare you be a patriot and take photos of bogus oil leak repairs on wildlife refuges, and then have the nerve to speak in public about it at a Congressional hearing. This right-wing Congressman McAllister should be impeached, he was put in office to represent the people and look out for them, not the fricking oil companies.
Crazy Ted Cruz Claims Democrats Want To Repeal The 1st Amendment
By: Steve - May 24, 2014 - 11:00am
This guy is nuts, and anyone who listens to him is as crazy as he is.
Speaking at a Family Research Council pastors retreat Friday, Senator Ted Cruz warned the audience that Senate Democrats want to "repeal the first amendment" with a new amendment placing more limits on campaign finance that Cruz said is meant to muzzle people's ability to speak out against bad government practices.
Which is just ridiculous, because what it is meant to do is make things have an even playing field, and keep the wealthy and the corporations from buying elections. Cruz thinks it is just fine for the wealthy and the corporations to buy elections, because he has been bought by them.
He charged that the 41 Democrats co-sponsoring the amendment want to give Congress "unlimited authority to regulate political speech," which means they have "signed onto repealing the First Amendment."
And what Cruz found most troubling is how the amendment says it protects freedom of the press, but makes no similar statements about freedoms of speech and religious liberty. He warned that if the amendment passes, politicians will have the power to "muzzle each and every one of you."
Which is a lie, and he knows it, he is just trying to scare his crazy voters into voting for him and other Republicans, it's pure nonsense.
Fox Analyst Says Where Was VA Outrage Under Bush
By: Steve - May 24, 2014 - 10:00am
Former Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News military analyst, offered a surprising defense of President Obama and VA Secretary Eric Shinseki Friday night, after previously defending Shinseki as the media's "whipping boy" over a long-troubled VA.
He told Megyn Kelly that blaming Shinseki and booting him out would be like a patient blaming the doctor for their cancer; he's just one administrator overseeing the problem, and even if he is at fault, he's hardly the first VA Secretary who hasn't done a bang-up job at the position.
Peters was bothered by how everyone calling for Shinseki's head (including a Democrat here and there) has not gone further to make any concrete suggestions or name any names for who could replace him. He said a lot of the outrage is "mock" because people have known about this for years.
American Legion National Commander Daniel Dellinger argued that Shinseki is at fault because he was supposed to be different and fix the problems, but he didn't and needs to be held accountable.
Peters agreed Shinseki hasn't been perfect, but found it remarkable how this has suddenly become a crisis.
Peters: "Where was the outrage during the Bush years? I'm not a defender of President Obama by any means, but this is a long-standing problem."
And of course the answer is that it's politics, O'Reilly and the GOP are just blaming it all on Obama to make him look bad, even though they know it's been a problem for 20 years, or longer. And if Congress does not vote a budget increase for the VA it will continue to have problems and even get worse.
Jon Stewart Points Out Republican Hypocrisy Over VA Scandal
By: Steve - May 23, 2014 - 10:00am
Thursday night Jon Stewart tore into all the self-righteous wailing from the Republicans about the VA scandal, even as he agreed there’s a genuine issue of government malfeasance here, reminding people that this isn't new; the U.S. has a proud tradition of thanking its veterans by "screwing them over" the second they return home and turn in their guns.
Stewart called out Republican hypocrites how they've messed with veterans in the past.
Stewart then went into a full-blown rant about how the U.S. has been falling on the job of helping veterans for the last 200 years, and saying that this is a "great bipartisan tradition" and not something that people can pretend is an anomaly that just magically appeared when Obama took office.
And Stewart is right, almost every President and every Congress has screwed over veterans, especially after they are done serving, it'd been done for a hundred years by Republicans and Democrats. So for O'Reilly and the right to claim it's all Obama's fault is ridiculous. Especially when Republicans in the Senate and the House have blocked bills to increase funding for the VA.
Bush had the Walter Reed VA hospital scandal, so where was O'Reilly then, he barely reported it after a week of it in the media, because he was covering for Bush. And Fox barely reported it either, they tried to ignore it. We do not take care of our veterans well enough, that is a fact, and both parties are partly to blame.
The Wednesday 5-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 22, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Latest on the VA Scandal. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 26 facilities run by the Veterans Administration are being investigated for putting wounded warriors at risk. There are charges that the V.A. in Phoenix tried to cover up delays in service for as many as 1,600 sick vets, and 40 may have died waiting for care. The situation is so intense that President Obama had to address it today, but the truth is that the president has failed to address the V.A. chaos effectively.
Then Ed Henry and Carl Cameron were on to evaluate the political fallout from the V.A. scandal.
Six years ago he said, 'I pledge to build a 21st century V.A.,' but things have gotten worse on his watch. So once again, the Obama administration finds itself facing a scandalous situation that it knew about and did little to improve. President Obama is at the tipping point, it is one thing after another with his administration. He gives power to incompetent people and keeps them in place when things fall apart.
We see a moribund economy, a chaotic foreign policy, and scandal after scandal at home. It is long past time to stop the political gamesmanship, both parties should be working together to solve problems like the V.A. This is personal for us, we here at the Factor know the V.A. is incompetent and callous.
Factor viewers have donated an astounding $25 million to get high tech wheelchairs for severely wounded vets, but not once did we hear from Shinseki or the V.A. To be fair, President Obama has helped us in getting the high tech wheelchairs and I believe he does care about the vets. But again, it is all about competence, is it not?
Henry said this: "This is an unmitigated disaster for this president. If there were deaths and mismanagement, that's a stain on his legacy. Secondly, how in the world could the president go 23 days without addressing this? It's shocking that he didn't reassure the country or veterans."
Cameron said this: "Congress spent a good part of today debating a V.A. management bill that would give Shinseki broader authority to fire as many as 400 or so V.A. employees. But there's a long line of lawmakers who say the one who should be fired is Shinseki."
Said the 2 Republicans who hate Obama and have a bias against him.
Then Karl Rove was on, O'Reilly said that even some Republicans admit that the problems in the V.A. existed during the Bush administration, so O'Reilly asked former Bush advisor Karl Rove to react.
Rove said this: "When Bush came into office,there was an unbelievably long time between the time someone applied for coverage from the V.A. until a determination was made. We also found the V.A. to be terribly underfunded, so Bush nearly doubled the size of the budget over his two terms. The V.A. has been broken for decades, but it is more broken today than it was in the past."
O'Reilly told Rove that his former boss is far from blameless, saying this: "When President Bush left office after eight years, the V.A. issued a report that said the problems of waiting times were 'systemic.' So the problems existed on the day President Bush left office. The bottom line is that veterans have not been well treated for twelve years!"
Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she talked about a rapper named Macklemore who recently came on stage wearing a fake nose and a costume that seemed to employ Jewish stereotypes.
MacCallum said this: "He claims he just grabbed a wig and a nose. He made an effusive apology and says he had no intention of being anti-Semitic. You didn't see a lot of coverage of this - he's a progressive darling who wrote a song that became a theme song for same sex marriage."
MacCallum also talked about the controversy involving the newly-opened 9/11 museum, which includes a gift shop that sells memorabilia, saying this: "They need to raise money to run this museum, but the families of victims wanted the human remains that are in the base of this museum to be outside with an eternal flame. Most people don't begrudge the museum for selling things, the problem is that these remains are in the building, making it a sacred place."
Then Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the V.A. scandal.
Krauthammer said this: "This is a reflection of the president. Cool will get you elected, 'cool' will get you fawning profiles from upscale New York magazines, but 'cool' will not connect you with the American people when there are allegations that wounded warriors are dying of neglect and corruption. This is a man who came to office never having run so much as a candy store, and now he has all these departments and he professes utter ignorance of the corruption and incompetence under his nose."
Said the biased far-right Republican who hates Obama and would never say anything good about him, even if he cured cancer.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Do Not Believe What You Read on the Internet. Billy said this: "Even seemingly reputable Internet sites often contain a plethora of misinformation, so always, always take web-based information with an oversized grain of salt."
Now remember this too, do not believe what you see on tv either, everyone has a bias, including O'Reilly and everyone at Fox, so you can not believe everything they say either.
Another Republican Unemployment Benefit Myth Busted
By: Steve - May 22, 2014 - 10:00am
When 1.3 million long-term unemployed people lost benefits because the Republicans in Congress let the program lapse, some Republicans claimed that taking away the checks would encourage people to go out and get a job.
Well that isn't panning out for the 74,000 people who are no longer getting checks in Illinois.
In January, one month after they lost benefits, 64,000 of them, or 86 percent, were still unemployed, according to an analysis of wage records by the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES).
February was similar: 61,300 people were still unemployed, or 82.7 percent of the original group. That means two months later, four out of five people who were cut off from benefits still weren't bringing in wages.
"This nonsense that temporary unemployment benefits provide people a reason not to return to work really needs to end because it is not supported by the data," IDES Director Jay Rowell said.
Other experiments have shown that, rather than spurring a flurry of hiring, cutting off benefits can have disastrous consequences. North Carolina was ahead of the pack, making such drastic cuts to its benefits system that it was dropped entirely from the federal long-term compensation program.
The number of state residents receiving benefits dropped by 40 percent to 45,000 by December. Since then, the unemployment rate has dropped, but not likely because people are finding work but because they're giving up altogether.
More than 22,000 found a job after the loss of benefits, but the state's labor force is experiencing the largest contraction in history, with 77,0000 fewer people working or looking for a job in October compared to the previous year.
And other research has come to similar conclusions. The job search requirements have been found to incentivize people to spend more time job hunting. Other research has found that receiving the checks doesn't discourage people from getting work.
So what does happen when people lose their benefits? A 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office found that their poverty rate spikes by 5 percent, a third turn to government programs, and 90 percent turn to family members or money from retirement or savings accounts.
Today, more than 2 million people across the country are now going without benefits. By the beginning of April, that had meant the lost of $5.4 billion in support, which also means a loss in spending for their local communities.
In Illinois, IDES notes, the loss of benefits has meant the loss of $23.7 million in purchasing power every week. And as expected O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, because he does not want you to know the truth, he wants you to believe the lies about it from Republicans because he is one of them.
The Tuesday 5-20-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 21, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Is President Obama Losing Grip? The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to the Washington Times, the Obama administration was told in 2008 that there were big problems with the V.A. The V.A. scandal has now broken big and White House spokesman Jay Carney says the administration learned about the problems through media reports. That's troubling!
Now remember this, the Washington Times is a biased right-wing newspaper, and Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing tv host, so you can not trust either one of them to be telling the truth. And Powers is a moderate Democrat who works for Fox, so you know she is going to cover for them and agree with them sometimes. It's a ridiculous attack, because no President can control every agency in Government, he has to trust the people he puts in charge.
The Republican Party put out an email today listing all of the times the president learned of important events through the media; it seems the president and his advisors are the last to know about major problems. This V.A. thing is huge, we can't have wounded warriors dying from a lack of medical care. The Obama administration did very little to hold the V.A. accountable, so the question becomes, is the president even paying attention?
He keeps incompetent administrators like Kathleen Sebelius and Eric Shinseki in their positions far too long, and surely the American people have not been given clear answers. All the polls show that there's an erosion of confidence in the federal government. The American people believe the competency of the federal government is underwhelming, and it is.
Then Kirsten Powers was on to assess the V.A. scandal and the larger question of government competence. And notice that no liberal or anyone who does not work for Fox was on to talk about it, because O'Reilly is a biased hack who only wants to give you one side of the story.
Powers said this: "There is a well-founded lack of confidence in our government, and I don't think Obama is stepping up when these crises come up. Information about the V.A. was given to their transition team in 2008, and Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Biden made veterans their signature issue, so this should have gotten the attention of the president, who has talked about how important veterans are to him."
Powers also said this: "It's clear that he is disengaged and you can go back to the ObamaCare website - if he's not interested in that, he's not interested in anything. He showed little curiosity about whether the website was even going to function. I'm extremely disappointed in him."
So much for Powers being a real Democrat, she sounds more like a moderate Republican than a Democrat.
Then Senator Marco Rubio, a prospective Republican presidential candidate was on, he expressed doubt about man-induced climate change.
Rubio said this: "I've never denied that the climate is changing, but the left goes around saying is that there's a 'consensus.' There is no consensus on the sensitivity of the climate, how much it is changing, and how much of that is directly attributable to human carbon emissions. Despite 17 years of dramatic increases in carbon production, the earth's surface temperature has stabilized."
Which is a lie, there is a consensus, and the only people who doubt man made climate change is real are far-right Republicans and the 5% of corrupt right-wing scientists the gas and oil companies pay them to deny.
Then John Stossel was on, who insists there is actually some good news regarding poverty, he also said O'Reilly does not report enough good news, and for once he is right.
Stossel said this: "Only 5% of the world is now living on a dollar a day, and it used to be much more, so millions of people have lifted themselves out of poverty. We're living longer, we have Google and email and wonderful new things, our lives are better! Even poor people have gotten a little richer if you include everything."
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on for is it legal.
Actor Michael Jace, long-time co-star of The Shield, has been arrested in California for allegedly killing his wife. They reported the latest on the killing.
Wiehl said this: "The neighbors called the police and said they heard a shooting, and Jace himself called 9-1-1 and said 'I shot my wife.' When the police arrived she was dead and there were two young sons in the house."
Guilfoyle said this: "She is his second wife, and right now we don't know if there was a domestic abuse. We do know that Mr. Jace has been cooperative and the two children are in protective custody. We're learning that he had some financial difficulties."
Guilfoyle also reported that former NFL star Aaron Hernandez, already charged with murder, now faces two more counts of homicide. "Two men were brutally murdered in a drive-by shooting in 2012 and Hernandez has now been connected to that homicide. He allegedly followed these men from a club and they were then gunned down."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing With Idiocy. Billy said this: "When and if you are confronted with absolute nonsense, the best response can sometimes be to generate a phony smile and then walk away... quickly."
D'Souza Pleads Guilty And Of Course O'Reilly Is Silent
By: Steve - May 21, 2014 - 10:00am
Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing media darling who O'Reilly and his conservative friends at Fox had claimed was targeted for prosecution because he is a critic of the Obama administration, has pleaded guilty to charges of campaign finance fraud.
D'Souza, famous for producing an anti-Barack Obama film rife with lies and outlandish claims, was indicted by the FBI in January and accused of violating campaign finance laws by "arranging excessive campaign contributions to a candidate for the U.S. Senate," and reimbursing "people who he had directed to contribute $20,000" to the unnamed candidate.
On May 20 D'Souza pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws and making false statements. He will be sentenced in September and likely faces imprisonment of 10 to 16 months.
Right-wing media figures -- many of whom went to bat for D'Souza's dishonest film -- rallied to the filmmaker's defense following his initial indictment, claiming he was being prosecuted for his political beliefs.
Fox News host Sean Hannity labeled D'Souza "the latest victim to be targeted by the Obama White House."
Matt Drudge accused Attorney General Eric Holder of "unleashing the dog" on "Obama critics," and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones responded to the charges, saying, "This is like Nazi Germany ... once they're done with these guys, they're coming after you and I."
Radio host Laura Ingraham (and Factor fill-in host) characterized the indictment as being "more about stifling political dissent" than any serious allegations of wrongdoing, and Rush Limbaugh described it as an effort to "criminalize" conservatives.
Bill O'Reilly and Fox News repeatedly hosted D'Souza, providing a platform for the filmmaker to defend himself against the charges and issue baseless accusations at the Obama administration.
During one such interview in February, Fox host Megyn Kelly said the charges "raised red flags for some because D'Souza, who has pleaded not guilty, is behind the box office hit 2016: Obama's America, a film that is very critical of the president."
D'Souza responded that he couldn't speak about the case specifically, but that he knows "for a fact" that Obama was personally unnerved by his film and said, "I am a public critic of the president, and I do recognize this has made me, to some degree, vulnerable to some forms of counter-attack."
This right-wing media defense was reportedly part of a deliberate plan by D'Souza. The New York Times reported in April that, in a conversation with one of his alleged straw donors, D'Souza said that if he were charged "he might plead guilty, but would initially plead not guilty because that 'gives him a window of opportunity to get his story out there.'"
Conservative pundits were more than happy to oblige this desire. Now will those who championed D'Souza's virtuousness finally condemn his crimes?
And of course they will not, they will either ignore the story or say he was railroaded by liberals who work for the Obama Justice Department.
Ingraham will not for sure. She responded immediately to news of the plea by downplaying the seriousness of the crime and doubling down on her claim that D'Souza was prosecuted for political reasons.
The Monday 5-19-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 20, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Climate Change. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It looks like Hell in California as the fire season has started early. Governor Jerry Brown says 'climate change' is the reason and 'there is no scientific question' about that. He is aggressively supporting policies that would limit carbon dioxide emissions in his state, but that will not stop climate change or the drought. From the very beginning this has been a political issue fueled by Al Gore, who has made a fortune scaring folks about climate.
Then Mark Hannah and Simon Rosenberg were on to discuss it.
Liberals are crazed over man-made climate change, demanding immediate action and pounding the table to preserve the icebergs. Talking Points urges you to read a column by Peter Morici, which is posted at FoxNews.com. He points out that China is driving pollution and, no matter what the USA does, China is not going to cooperate on limiting CO2 emissions. China emits almost twice as much CO2 as the USA, whose carbon footprint is receding.
So imposing strict environmental standards on U.S. corporations will not do very much as long as China continues to pollute. But it is foolish not to do anything - some corporations pollute to make money and they have to be held to account. Reasonable clean air and water standards should be imposed by the feds, but those standards should not be punishing.
The government should encourage alternative energy, but if you think hammering U.S. corporations will stop the fires in California or storms like Sandy, you're nuts! Governor Brown should fly over to Shanghai and get a clue.
Hannah said this: "I like where you stand, because you acknowledge that we have a problem. But conservatives have failed to acknowledge the problem and I am disappointed that the president wasn't able to bring Congress along on a cap-and-trade policy."
Rosenberg said this: "This is one of the most important issues facing the country, the current energy environment is unsustainable for us. It's expensive, it's dirty, and too many bad people control our energy destiny. It should be our priority to get clean energy and I think the president has done a good job."
But of course O'Reilly scoffed at the notion that President Obama has been effective on energy, saying this: "He's been in office for five years and I don't know of any environmental issue he has passed that has advanced the cause of a cleaner planet."
Then Brit Hume was on to talk about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who pounced on President Obama over the weekend, describing his foreign policy as weak and ineffectual.
Hume said this about Christie: "He still has a chance to run for president, and some of it will depend on the inquires into the famous bridge-clogging scandal. If that ends up not sticking to him, it will liberate him from one burden. And some of it may depend on who else runs - if Jeb Bush enters the race he occupies somewhat the same space on the center-right spectrum that Christie occupies."
O'Reilly (who claims he never speculates) speculated that Chris Christie would be formidibale in a general election, saying this: "If you're going to run against Hillary Clinton, you have to have charisma, and Christie has that."
After Karl Rove questioned Hillary Clinton's health, Rove and Juan Williams got into a verbal sparring match on Fox News Sunday. Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it.
Williams said this: "The right is generating sympathy for Mrs. Clinton, Rush Limbaugh asks who wants to watch a woman get older in the White House and Rand Paul says she enabled Bill's cheating. These guys are so crazy and upset about the prospect of going up against Hillary in 2016, they're reacting out of fear and they're flailing."
Mary K. Ham of course defended Karl Rove's right to bring up the subject of Mrs. Clinton's health, saying this: "If concussions and blood clots on the brain are no big deal and we can ask no questions about them, then the NFL can rest easy. But that is not the case. Just the other day Bill Clinton said it took her six months to recuperate. She should be frank about this but the left wants to declare it off limits."
Which is nonsense, it's ok to ask about her health, it's a whole different story to say she has brain damage with no proof. O'Reilly and Ham both covered for Rove because they are Republicans and they like him speculating that Hillary has brain damage.
Then Bernard Goldberg was on to talk about various universities that have rejected commencement speakers whose views were deemed unacceptable for the tender ears of newly minted graduates. With no Democratic guest for balance.
Goldberg said this: "The lunatics are taking over the asylum, and what makes this breathtakingly repulsive is that these are the same people who are always lecturing us about 'diversity.' Obviously, they're not talking about diversity of opinion, these are left-wing authoritarians, liberals who have forgotten how to be liberal. The far left on college campuses loves America, but just not the America that we happen to be living in today."
Then Jesse Watters was on, he stopped by a Lady Gaga concert and spoke with some of the Lady's famously rabid fans. Here are some of their comments: "She's my second mom" ... "She shows me so many life lessons that no one teaches you" ... "She stands for equality of all the gays" ... "Gaga's been doing whatever she wanted since the very beginning."
Back in the studio to discuss Lady Gaga with O'Reilly, Watters reported that her once-immense popularity has plummeted. "Her album sales went from 4.5 million in 2008 to only about 700,000 last year. The shock value is wearing off and Miley Cyrus has outpaced her in terms of that."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Retail is for Suckers. Billy said this: "If you're looking to save some dough, and who isn't, check out a website called RetailMeNot.com, which has a plethora of discount coupons for goods and services."
More Good Obamacare News O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - May 20, 2014 - 10:00am
Preliminary survey results from Arkansas show a significant drop in the number of uninsured since the implementation of the state's so-called private option, a compromise hammered out between Gov. Mike Beebe (D), Republican state lawmakers, and the Obama administration to provide health care coverage to low-income residents.
Data released on Thursday from 42 hospitals show that emergency room visits dropped by 2 percent, "while the number of uninsured patients in those emergency rooms dropped by 24 percent," the Associated Press notes.
Erik Dorey, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), said that the survey results indicated that the state's implementation of health care reform is successfully providing insurance coverage to Arkansas families. "Because of Arkansas private option, 150,000 working families already know the security of quality coverage, and its successful implementation is a credit to Republicans and Democrats in Arkansas coming together to pass it into law," Dorey said in a statement.
Indeed, hospitals are already seeing impressive results. "With the private option, we have literally seen a 50 percent reduction in uninsured patients coming through our emergency room," chief executive officer Ray Montgomery of The White County Medical Center said.
The program has removed "a financial barrier for individuals who have needed care and needed service use, so they are not waiting later to have more complicated, less effective, more costly outcomes," Arkansas Surgeon General Joe Thompson added.
The "private option" allows Arkansas to use federal Obamacare dollars to help residents earning up to 1.38 times the poverty level to buy private plans through Arkansas health care marketplace.
Last week, a handful of publicly traded hospitals also reported a decrease in self-pay admissions in the states that have expanded their Medicaid programs and predicted that the law would lower those kind of admissions from 8 percent to 4 percent over a three-year period.
Rep. Tom Cotton (R), who is challenging Pryor, did not respond to a request for comment.
O'Reilly Speculates That Eleanor Clift Is Senile
By: Steve - May 19, 2014 - 10:00am
Even though he claims to have a no speculation rule, he still speculates all the time, and also does personal attacks, that he also never claims to do.
In case you missed it, liberal pundit Eleanor Clift, a former Fox News contributor, is in hot water with conservatives for saying that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not murdered in Benghazi.
Friday night, The O'Reilly Factor discussed this made up outrage with the kind of compassion Karl Rove could have scripted for him: by saying, "This isn't personal... She's elderly, alright? I don't know if she has a full grasp any more of what she's actually saying."
Which is really funny, because I could say the same thing about O'Reilly, who is only 9 years younger than Clift. Sometimes I wonder if O'Reilly is senile, he will contradict himself in the very same segment, as if he forgot his position from one minute to the next.
You have to wonder if O'Reilly had a touch of Rove envy. After all, this remark came on the heels of Rove's successfully devious medical speculation about Hillary Clinton's health earlier in the week.
Or maybe O'Reilly got his "medical training" from Fox News psychiatrist Keith Ablow. Ablow doesn't need an examination to come up with diagnoses of public figures. Why should O'Reilly need a degree?
For the record, what Clift meant was that Stevens died of smoke inhalation while he was holed up in the safe room of the CIA compound. She wanted to distinguish what she called, an opportunistic terrorist attack from an act of murder.
After the right went nuts, (that O'Reilly claims to not be a part of) Clift elaborated in a Daily Beast column:
My information came from a former ambassador who lamented that complex and chaotic events in Benghazi are being way oversimplified. He pointed out that Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation in the safe room of a CIA outpost, that he wasn't murdered in the sense that word is normally used. I thought this was an appropriate observation and still do, despite the hysteria my saying so has ignited on the right.
Now, one can argue with Clift's opinion but the so-called "No Spin Zone" was pretty much all spin. O'Reilly played a brief clip of Clift - offered none of her later explanation - and started the attack, along with his two conservative guests and no Democrat for balance.
There is shared blame for the fact that Stevens wasn't properly guarded and defended, but the chaos of that night and the days following stemmed from herculean efforts to keep the CIA's involvement secret. Stevens was a very brave and assertive ambassador. He knew the language and the people, and he took risks he shouldn't have.
The former ambassador whose views I relied on believes that Stevens was in Benghazi to confront the CIA about prisoners they were holding and interrogating at the outpost. He speculates the attack on the facility was to free the prisoners.
So basically, O'Reilly partially quoted her out of context, which is the same thing he complains that people do to him.
He even admitted his guests were there to "disparage that incredibly boneheaded statement." Guest Bernard McGuirk called it "very offensive."
Even though the actual evidence shows it is a true statement.
He went on to joke that the last he heard of Clift was back during the Monica Lewinsky days, when she (Clift) "applied to be a White House intern."
O'Reilly said that, one of his producers said Clift "is one of the nicest people he's ever dealt with... so this isn't personal." Nothing personal except for suggesting she's suffering from dementia.
Because O'Reilly then said this: "She's elderly, alright? And I don't know if she has a full grasp any more of what she's actually saying...Everyone knows that (Stevens was murdered) except for Eleanor Clift."
Take note that Bill O'Reilly is also elderly, he is 63 and Clift is 74, so she is only 9 years older than he is.
And who are you going to believe, a former ambassador or the biased hack Bill O'Reilly.
By the way, Clift is a former paid contributor to Fox News. It's nice to know this is how they treat one of their former colleagues.
Also, remember how just one night before, O'Reilly and the Fox host Shannon Bream suggested she thinks that, "We're getting to a place where, if your opinion does not agree with other people, you can't share it?"
O'Reilly was talking about conservatives (including himself) being called out for racist statements, and Bream was talking about her conservative guest not being able to share her disgust at Michael Sam's televised gay kiss. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that we won't hear O'Reilly or Bream expressing the same concern for Clift's comments about Stevens dying from smoke inhalation.
Instead they will imply she is senile, with no proof, just like Rove implied Hillary has brain damage. Even though she was just reporting what a former ambassador said to her, and it could be true. Not to mention O'Reilly also being elderly, so as the saying goes, people in glsss houses should not throw stones.
10 People Showed Up For 10 Million Man Right-Wing Protest
By: Steve - May 18, 2014 - 11:00am
When the far-right nut Col. Harry Riley announced his plan for an Operation American Spring, he sought to evoke the same kind of populist uprising that toppled regimes in the Middle East, protests that were collectively given the name Arab Spring.
And while the photos that poured in from Tahrir Square were incredible, depicting tens of thousands of people in the streets, the pictures from American Spring in Washington Friday were a little different. In other words, nobody showed up.
The so-called "second American revolution" got off to a slow start in Washington, DC on Friday, falling roughly 9,999,990 people short of their goal of 10 million angry, constitution-wielding participants. (And that was the low-end estimate. They were prepared for as many as 30 million).
The few who did make it to Washington, D.C came with a laundry list of grievances, ranging from Benghazi, to Obamacare, to President Obama's birth certificate, to general lawlessness.
"Our main goal is to return our government to the constitutional government," said Marty Church, a protestor who traveled to Washington, D.C from the Maryland suburbs. "The whole administration is based on lies," added Fred Lachance, another protester from Maryland.
"Benghazi's a lie and a cover-up," said Church. "And if you're lying about something as stupid as that, what else are you lying about?"
Wiley Drake, a pastor and talk radio host from California, claims he knows the truth behind the Benghazi coverup.
"What caused Benghazi was a kidnapping gone awry from Barry Soetoro," he said, referencing the name Birthers have ascribed to Obama based on a widely-circulated (and photoshopped) bogus Columbia University student ID. "He was going to kidnap Mr. Stevens, and he got killed in the process. That's what really happened, that's the truth."
When pressed to cite other breaches of the constitution, one protestor referred us back to Operation American Spring's website, which offers little more than an outline of the group's three-phased mission (Phase 2 calls for 1 million of the 10 million (That never showed up) to camp out in Washington, D.C. until their demands are met).
Those demands are: Removing Obama, Biden and Nancy Pelosi from the federal government, which are not achievable goals, even according to many of the attendees. "It's a good goal, but it's not a realistic goal," said Lachance. Others, though, were more optimistic.
"The Obama administration is lawless, and we want him out," said Carrie Beth Koncar, who led a small group up from Georgia. "And basically that is the goal here, for the resignation of Obama, Biden, Pelosi. The Lord God is behind this, the Lord is the breath in this. He puts kings and kingdoms in their places, and he takes them down."
As for the low turnout, several attendees could barely contain their dismay at the low-key affair. "I took a day off from work to come down," said Art Skillman. "Where they are, I don't know."
O'Reilly Said He's Exempt From White Privilege Because He Was Poor
By: Steve - May 18, 2014 - 10:00am
Which is just laughable, and he was not poor. His Father was an oil company accountant, and they had so much money he sent Bill and his sister to high priced private schools and college.
Let it be known: Bill O'Reilly is exempt from white privilege.
Yes, O'Reilly actually said that Wednesday night that the term, which he claimed is just a "code" for white supremacy, does not apply to him.
"I'm going to have to exempt myself under that white privilege banner," he said.
O'Reilly denied that white privilege exists in America and cited his past experiences of growing up on Long Island and working at an ice cream shop as reasons for why he is not privileged.
But O'Reilly's guests, as well as other viewers, all seemed to agree -- someone needs to fill O'Reilly in on the definition of white privilege.
"I'm a really white guy -- when I was in Hawaii last week I couldn't go in the sun," O'Reilly said. "My parents didn't have a lot of money ... I didn't experience white privilege when I worked in Carvel, painted houses, cut lawns."
And now the facts: A few years ago Michael Kinsley infuriated O'Reilly by suggesting the Fox host's background was less proletarian than he lets on. O'Reilly makes much of his "working class" upbringing in Levittown, Long Island.
His book's dust-jacket bio begins: "Bill O'Reilly rose from humble beginnings to become a nationally known broadcast journalist," and O'Reilly says his father, who retired in 1978, "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life."
O'Reilly practically fetishizes his "working-class background." He grew up, he often says, in Levittown, N.Y., the famed postwar tract suburb on Long Island. He recalls a childhood of secondhand cars, a small home with one bathroom, summer vacations to Miami aboard a Greyhound bus, a father "who never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life."
He frequently tells the story of how, in high school, the better-off kids scorned him for his "two sports coats," bought at the unfashionable Modell's.
Time out Bill. Let's try that "no spin" thing out here. An Oil Company accountant is NOT working class.
Working class is what my dad was, he worked on a shipping dock for a union printing company in 1980. He made about $10,000 a year and had a wife and 2 kids.
THAT'S WORKING CLASS !
He could barely afford to make the house payment and the car payment and pay his living expenses, let alone send two kids to college with no financial aid. The only reason Bill O'Reilly thought he was working class, is the fact that he went to a private school where all the other kids parents were multi-millionaires.
O'Reilly actually grew up in Westbury, Long Island, according to his mother Angela, who still lives in the Levitt-built house Bill grew up in. Westbury Long Island is an "upper middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown," where he attended a private school.
His late father, William O'Reilly Sr., was a currency accountant with Caltex, an oil company; Angela "Ann" O'Reilly was a homemaker who also worked as a physical therapist.
The O'Reillys - Mom, Dad, Bill Jr. and his younger sister, Janet - weren't exactly deprived. Both children attended private school, and the family sent Bill to Marist College, a private college in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., as well as the University of London for a year, without financial aid.
O'Reilly's father was a frugal man and a wise investor. Bill even acknowledges in his book that his father bequeathed "a very nice chunk of change" to his mother upon his death in 1986. As for Dad never earning more than $35,000, what O'Reilly doesn't mention is that Dad retired in 1978, when a $35,000 yearly income was the equivalent of $95,000 in today's dollars.
That would put his dad in the top 10% of income earners in 1980. That is not working class !
And btw, I worked at International Paper in 1978 doing back breaking work in a 110 degree factory, it was a union company and I made $5.20 an hour. Which is $9.600 a year, that's working class. Someone making $35,000 a year in 1978 doing accountant work for an oil company was 4 times what I was making and rich in my world. Oil company accounts are not working class, they are upper class and they work in an office that is air conditioned.
In fact, 17 years later in 1995 I was only making $24,000 a year at the same company as a top paid Journeyman Cutter running a computerized label cutting machine. So his dad was making $11,000 more a year than me in 1978 than I was making 17 years later in 1995. I was working class, his dad was not.
The Friday 5-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 17, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Is the Politically Correct Movement Hurting the Country? The biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is hard to believe how out of control this politically correct madness is. Last night we reported that a school district in North Dakota stopped children from singing the song 'YMCA' because one of The Village People dressed as a Native American.
Wow, it's official. Bill O'Reilly is a total idiot. What's hurting the country are the racists and the bigots, not the people who call them out for their racism and bigotry. The truth is that O'Reilly is just mad that him and his right-wing friends are getting called out for their bias, racism, and bigotry. It makes them look bad so he does not like it. Some of it is ridiculous, but most of it is valid, and O'Reilly hates it because it makes them look like jerks.
In Minnesota, a college has stopped a student event where a camel would come on campus to symbolize 'hump day,' a diversion from exams. But some students said that a camel disparages Middle Eastern people. Sometimes I feel like I'm on Saturday Night Live reporting this stuff, but it's true.
There is a very serious undertone to the politically correct mandates. First, it wipes out dissent - if you criticize a minority, you're evil, even if the minority is doing something bad. Second, politically correct garbage gives left wing America a point of attack.
It's long past time for Americans to stop accepting p.c. nonsense. You can't sing 'YMCA,' you can't have a camel on a college campus, it's all bull! In fact, if I could get a camel in here I'd put him right on the set.
Then Andrea Tantaros and Rich Benjamin were on to discuss it, and as usual it was a 2 on 1 debate with 1 liberal to 2 conservatives. So even when O'Reilly does have a liberal on, they are paired with a conservative to make it look like the liberal is wrong.
Benjamin said this: "We live in a different America, and I think a lot of conservative white people complain when minorities are giving valid pushback. What people are calling 'political correctness' is, in most cases, valid pushback."
But of course the conservative Tantaros disagreed, saying this: "It's insane, and because of this hyper-sensitivity you have identity politics pitting progressive groups against each other. The Village People are an original celebration of gay culture in New York, and now they're being stifled."
Then Geraldo was on to talk about some Veterans Administration hospitals that are being accused of gross malfeasance after revelations that many vets died while awaiting treatment.
Geraldo said this: "He's the guy who presided over the standard of care when a half a dozen vets died from a hospital-borne infection. He's also the guy who presided over these cumbersome and possibly deadly waits. But does his resignation today take pressure off Secretary Eric Shinseki, or will there be further probes? I suspect that Shinseki's fate is still not determined."
Then O'Reilly predicted that Shinseki will be allowed to exit gracefully: "Like Kathleen Sebelius, he will go. He has to because they don't have any credibility left."
Then Gretchen Carlson and Bernard McGuirk were on. They talked about liberal columnist Eleanor Clift, who said Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not murdered in Benghazi, but "died of smoke inhalation."
McGuirk said this: "Who knew Eleanor Clift was still in the game. The last I heard from her was back in the 90s during the Lewinsky scandal when she applied to be a White House intern. This was like saying some of the 9/11 victims committed suicide by jumping out of the building, that's how stupid this is."
In the wake of the physical attack on Jay Z by his sister-in-law, Whoopi Goldberg suggested that a man should be able to strike a woman if she hits first.
Carlson said this: "I do not believe you should encourage violence, and I think Jay Z did the right thing. However, what if that video showed Jay Z hitting her? There's a double standard."
McGuirk concluded that Whoopi Goldberg is handing out lousy advice, saying this: "Any time any guy hits a woman and a cop shows up, the guy is going to be in handcuffs."
Then Carlson and McGuirk returned to name the week's most ridiculous people.
Carlson nominated the talk show hosts in Texas who grew irate when a guest objected to football player Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on TV. "It always happens, that when a woman has a conservative opinion she's not to be heard. As a parent, I knew my son would be watching the Michael Sam clip and I would have wanted to be with him."
McGuirk blasted CNN for airing an interview with disgraced Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. "He is a racist old skunk, but he may be demented and yet CNN put him on. The only thing they didn't do is ask him if he knows where the plane is."
O'Reilly singled out Vice President Biden, who once again gave almost nothing to charity last year. "Joe, what are you giving? Buy a track chair!"
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Telling the Truth. Billy said this: "When someone asks a question, answer from the heart. But if you believe your answer will get you attacked or do damage, it's sometimes best to not say anything."
My God these tips are worthless, we already know what you are saying, end the lame tip of the day segment.
O'Reilly Ignores Fast Food Worker Strike Thursday
By: Steve - May 17, 2014 - 10:00am
O'Reilly claims to support raising the minimum wage, he also claims to be looking out for the little guy, he also said he wants lower paid people to make more money so it would help the economy, which is all talk from him. Because he rarely ever talks about minimum wage workers, or what they are doing. And he ignored the one day fast food worker strike story on the Thursday night Factor show.
NEW YORK -- Hundreds of fast food workers walked off their jobs in dozens of U.S. cities on Thursday -- reportedly forcing at least a few locations to temporarily close or re-staff while mostly managers filled-in -- as sympathetic protesters in several dozen countries joined in a united call for wages of $15 an hour and the right to form a union.
No violence was reported early Thursday. Restaurants such as McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC are being targeted. The strike, targeting the $200 billion fast-food industry at a time of intense competition, is aimed at directing consumer attention to the low wages of most fast-food workers. The one-day campaign continues protests launched 18 months ago.
Strikers claim that managers opted to close down a Burger King in Dorchester, Mass, where a half dozen workers were striking, but Burger King officials could not immediately confirm that. "During this time, customer service and quality will remain a top priority in Burger King restaurants," company spokesman Alix Salyers said, in a statement. While McDonald's officials insist that no McDonald's restaurants have been closed anywhere due to the strike, protesters insist that several have.
In New York City, dozens of workers stood outside a McDonald's nearby Penn Station demanding higher wages and the right to form a union. Protesters partially blocked some entrances to the restaurant where they stalled, but did not halt, sales.
The Wednesday 5-15-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 16, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Money, Women & Politics. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The New York Times has fired its top editor Jill Abramson, and some say it's because she thought she wasn't paid the same wage as men in her position. The New York Times is a very liberal newspaper that has bought into the 'war on women' political pose. Last month the Times editorialized about the claim that women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, a claim we have debunked here.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you did not debunk anything, it is a fact that women make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. Just because you say that is a bogus claim does not make it true, the facts prove you wrong. And there is a war on women by the Republican party, that is also a fact.
The editorial said the pay gap 'reflects overt discrimination ... there is no doubt that the pay gap is real.' Apparently Jill Abramson hired a lawyer to investigate why she was not receiving the same compensation that men in her position received in the past, and if that's true the Times could be in legal trouble. This comes on the heels of the White House paying women 12% less than men, a revelation that embarrassed the president.
So the two leading gender equality promoters are now involved in pay controversies concerning women. I think this is karma - the phony 'war on women' and the attempt to divide Americans along gender and race lines is appalling. Talking Points will say once again that you will never have equality in a free marketplace.
Talents vary, experiences vary, circumstances are all different. Intelligent Americans know that when they hear the word 'equality' it's being used to push a social agenda. If the majority of American voters buy into the inequality scenario, bad things are going to happen. What has made this country great and strong is free competition and the individual drive to succeed, not a 'nanny state' that seeks to level all playing fields.
Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the New York Times situation. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance with her.
Ingraham said this: "We don't know all the dynamics, but I do know that when we raise issues like experience and other factors when trying to combat the 'equal pay' mantra, they never want to consider that. There's a lot of hypocrisy on the left and this is egg on the face of the New York Times. Jill Abramson's departure was really bloody, she didn't even show up at the announcement. This was really humiliating and ugly, so I wouldn't be surprised if she sues."
In other words, you do not know all the facts so you should not even be commenting on it, it's called speculation, the speculation that O'Reilly claims to not allow.
O'Reilly predicted that Abramson won't sue her former employers: "This was a negotiated package, when a person leaves a position like that they get a big check. But they have to sign a paper saying they won't disparage or sue the company."
Then James Carville & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about a story about an elementary school talent show, some North Dakota kids wanted to mimic The Village People singing 'YMCA,' but one mom objected because a member of The Village People dressed as an American Indian.
Obenshain said this: "This is political correctness at its finest. There is a code set up by leftists and academics where you can't offend people, this is ridiculous. These first-graders weren't allowed to perform in a talent show because one of them was dressed up as an Indian!"
Which is a ridiculous argument by Obenshain, because even most liberals think it was a stupid objection, including me and James Carville.
Carville agreed that the offended mom is out of bounds, saying this: "I'm at a loss, I guess the school board didn't want controversy. It seems a bit extreme to me, but I do think the Redskins name is hideous, they should get rid of it."
Then Heather Nauert was on to field emails from angry viewers such as Pennsylvanian Bill Walsh, who is ticked off at Shaquille O'Neal's insensitivity. "O'Neal put up a picture, of himself and a 23-year-old man with a genetic disorder. He really sort of mocked him, but he has come out since and apologized. People like Shaq, he's gregarious and he seems to be a nice guy."
Another viewer, Paul Singelyn of Illinois, got on a roll and complained that toilet paper is getting narrower. "This is true, and it's called 'product shrinkage.' 20 years ago toilet paper was 4.5" by 4.5", but now it's 4.1" by 3.7". And it's also thinner."
Then Charles Krauthammer was on, he theorized that a Republican may well be elected president in 2016.
Krauthammer said this: "Looking at it from more than two years away, I think the slight likelihood is that the Republicans will win. Since 1953, with one exception, every time one party has held the White House for two terms they get thrown out on their ear. The country is tired of Obama, the country is in a semi-depressed mood, they are not in the mood to reelect a Democrat. And I think the Democrats grossly overestimate how popular Hillary Clinton is."
Krauthammer advised Republicans to nominate a candidate who can put forth conservative principles in a cogent way, saying this: "If you argue the issues, you win if you're a conservative. We need to find someone who can make the case and has an acceptable personality. That's not impossible to find."
Haha, good luck with that one. If Hillary runs you guys will lose. And we will have the first woman President, bet on it fool.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Pets Are Good For Children. Billy said this: "Generally speaking, having a pet is a good thing for kids because they teach the urchins loyalty and provide eternal affection."
Thank you Mr. Obvious.
The Facts O'Reilly Ignored In the Rove/Clinton Brain Damage Story
By: Steve - May 16, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is all the stuff O'Reilly ignored when he reported on the Rove/Clinton brain damage story, as in the facts.
Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested last week that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sustained brain damage after suffering a blood clot in her skull.
Clinton was admitted to the hospital in late December 2012, where doctors discovered a blood clot related to a concussion she had earlier in the month. She was released from the hospital several days later.
Rove, however, apparently thinks her stint in the hospital left some questions unanswered.
ROVE: "Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that."
Clinton's doctors, however, debunked Rove's theory long ago. Prior to her release from the hospital in January 2013, Clinton's physicians at a New York hospital said the clot did not cause Clinton to suffer a stroke, and did not result in any neurological damage.
"Please assure Dr. Rove she’s 100 percent," a Clinton representative told the Post's Emily Smith.
Former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, who worked with Rove in the George W. Bush administration, called Rove's comments "off the wall."
"I worked with Karl for a long time. This was a deliberate strategy on his part to raise her health as an issue and, I think in his view, a legitimate line of questioning ahead of the next campaign," Wallace said on MSNBC Tuesday.
She added that Rove's "attack seemed out of place, out of time and some of the basic facts seemed to be wrong."
Rove said that the status of Clinton's health is also a personal issue that should be addressed by the presumptive presidential candidate.
"When you go through a health incident like this, any presidential candidate has to ask themselves, 'Am I willing to do this for eight years of my life, to serve, to run for two years and then serve for eight?'"
Rove has been accused of using smear tactics in past campaigns. A 1994 Alabama judicial campaign under Rove's stewardship was behind a whisper campaign claiming that the rival candidate was a pedophile. And ahead of the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary, Rove used a push poll to suggest Bush rival John McCain had fathered "an illegitimate black child."
In other words, Rove is a dishonest political hack who will do anything to make a Democrat look bad, including lie and make stuff up, so nothing he says can be trusted.
While Clinton insists she hasn't made a decision on whether to run for president in 2016, Republicans like Rove began campaigning against her as early as last year. In May 2013, the Rove-led American Crossroads super PAC released an ad questioning Clinton's handling of the 2012 attack in Benghazi.
Even Chris Wallace from Fox news reported it right, he said Rove "Knew Exactly What He Was Doing" And Is "Laughing Himself To Sleep" Over The Clinton Health Attack.
Wallace also said this: "I'm Not Sure That It's Particularly Legitimate" But It's "Pretty Smart Politics"
O'Reilly put a spin on it that Rove just questioned her health, while never once saying that Rove said she had brain damage. It was done to make the American people think Hillary Clinton has brain damage so you should not vote for her, you know it and everybody knows it. And if a Democrat said that about a Republican O'Reilly would be otraged and report the truth about what was said and why, but when Rove does it he helps him by covering for him because he likes what Rove said and he hates Hillary.
The Wednesday 5-14-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 15, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Hillary Clinton vs. Karl Rove. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Speaking in Los Angeles last week, Karl Rove questioned Hillary Clinton's physical health, saying she had 'a serious health episode' while secretary of state. Mr. Rove's opinion is not going down well with the Clintons or the Democratic Party, which is counting heavily on Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016.
And as usual O'Reilly left out part of the story and covered for Rove, he said nothing about Rove saying she has brain damage, with no proof, it's total speculation, and Clinton denies it. Rove also said she was too old, even though she is the same age as Reagan when he was President. And btw, Rove defended Reagan over his age, but now that it's the Democrat Clinton he says she is too old. O'Reilly never reported any of that, proving he is a right-wing stooge, not a real journalist.
A catfight between a political big shot like Rove and the most powerful woman in the country is always great theater, but Talking Points believes Republicans should lay off Hillary Clinton. The GOP should be convincing American voters of two things: First, that President Obama's 'social justice' policies have strangled the economy, which is the key issue of this year's midterm issues and the presidential election of 2016.
The secondary issue is that through Mr. Obama's policies, America is becoming a nation of grievances. The mentality is shifting away from 'I'm going to make it' to 'you're going to give it.' The president has promoted income inequality, gender inequality, everything inequality! Getting folks to understand just how the entitlement society is strangling the economy is a big winner for the Republican Party. Hillary-bashing pales next to that.
Then the biased right-wing Obama hating fool Col. Ralph Peters was on to slam Obama, with no Democratic guest for balance.
Peters said this: "The most dangerous thing is the collapse of America's strategic capability under the Obama regime. Long-term I worry most about China, mid-term we should worry about Iran's continuing nuclear program, and short-term there is Syria. Over 160,000 people have died there and President Obama's empty threats have encouraged bad actors around the world, including Vladimir Putin. Our strategic position is in an absolute shambles - we are not trusted by our allies, we are not trusted by neutrals, and we are not feared by our enemies. Thank you, President Obama!"
Now get this, O'Reilly puts this fool on with no Democratic guest, and he does that on purpose, so Peters can get a cheap shot in on Obama and O'Reilly will not get blamed for it. But you know he loves it, otherwise he would not have Peters on alone to say that insulting nonsense with nobody to counter it. And O'Reilly would never let anyone do that on his show to a Republican President, under Bush if a liberal said something like that O'Reilly would cut their mic and ban them from the show.
Then Stuart Varney & Jacques Degraff were on to discuss white privilege, that O'Reilly said he did not benefit from, which is just laughable.
O'Reilly said the notion of "white privilege" is being promoted on campuses and even in some businesses. So Degraff said this: "White privilege speaks to the benefits some enjoy based on their race in this society. It isn't about your skin pigmentation or how much money you have in the bank, it is about you being a beneficiary of years of whites having an advantage in this country."
Varney admitted there is white privilege, then argued that the white privilege movement is actually exacerbating racial tension, saying this: "White privilege existed in the past, but I don't think you right historical wrongs by guilting the present. This 'white privilege' idea is divisive - teach a class in that and you are dividing that class and dividing America."
Then the gay Republican Congressional candidate Carl Demaio was on, who is under attack from liberals who say conservatism and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. And btw, he is also under attack from Republicans who do not like him simply because he is gay, so it is just not liberals going after him.
Demaio said this: "I'm trying to focus on the economy, the national debt, and the problems at the VA, but the other side has been engaging in some shameful tactics. Last week my opponent promoted on his campaign website a blog post that used a gay slur to refer to me. He didn't have the courtesy to apologize, he blamed it on his staff. I support gay marriage, but people in San Diego don't think of me as the 'gay politician,' they think of me as a reformer who gets results."
O'Reilly reminded DeMaio this: "The people in California decided they didn't want gay marriage, but it was overturned by judicial fiat."
Yeah jerk it was ruled unconstitutional. And at one time the majority also supported slavery, which was also made illegal at some point. So just because the majority support something does not make it right. Of course O'Reilly supported the anti-gay marriage law, while claiming to support gay rights, which is just laughable.
Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she talked about a proposal in California that would allow dogs to eat alongside their owners at outdoor restaurants.
MacCallum said this: "First we had to have everything be kid-friendly, and now the California legislature has decided that you should be able to dine with your dog outside. There has to be a separate entrance for the dog so he doesn't have to go through the restaurant to get to the outside area, and you have to bring your own disposable containers of dog food and put them on the ground. But what if I want to bring my cat or my ferret or my snake?"
O'Reilly said this: "What if the dog wants to pick up the check?"
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Handling Criticism. Billy said this: "When you face unwarranted opprobrium from co-workers, acquaintances, or even family members, a logical and cogent response is far more effective than anger."
O'Reilly Goes Nuts Over White Privilege Course At Harvard
By: Steve - May 15, 2014 - 10:00am
And get this, O'Reilly did not even think he had any White Privilege in his life, which is just laughable, because every white person has the benefit of white privilege. Later in the segment Varney and O'Reilly even admitted it was true.
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that a new required freshman orientation session at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government would be a required course on white privilege. Despite the fact that the session doesn't focus exclusively on race, O'Reilly used it as an excuse to attack the concept of white privilege.
On May 14, O'Reilly hosted Fox contributors Rev. Jacques Degraff and Stuart Varney to discuss what he falsely claimed would be a "required course" on white privilege at Harvard. After Degraff outlined what the term meant, O'Reilly said "I'm going to have to exempt myself" from having white privilege. Which is insane, and he knows it.
He also attacked the orientation program as "inherently racist" for focusing on skin color. Which is not only wrong, it's ridiculous. Teaching people about white privilege is not racist, and it's not even close to being racist.
The course is not exclusively about white privilege. HKS Speak Out, the organization which pushed for the orientation session, asked for a "mandatory power and privilege training that examines components of race, gender, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability, religion, international status, and power differentials for every incoming HKS student starting August 2014."
New York magazine, which reported on this, defines privilege as "a catchall term for the perks an individual enjoys in society because of his race, gender, or class." It also explained that the course O'Reilly attacks is actually an orientation program whose structure has yet to be decided upon.
"We're at one of the most powerful institutions in the world, yet we never critically examine power and privilege and what it means to have access to this power," says Reetu Mody, a first-year masters student in public policy and a campus activist. "We're excited to have the administration on board for training all Harvard Kennedy School first years."
In fact, HKS Speak Out is still deciding what the content of the orientation program will be. "The substance of the training, while still under discussion, is to prepare students to understand the broad impact of identity on their decision-making and to engage them in constructive tools for dialogue," Mody says.
O'Reilly himself said this: "they want to tear down the white Christian power structure," this inane statement left his lips. His very show is a representation of "white privilege." Billy throws a fit every year because some department stores say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Not only privileged, but entitled.
The Tuesday 5-13-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 14, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Racism and Witch Hunts. The biased and dishonest conservative Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Writing in Time magazine, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar says this: 'The best way to combat racism ... is to seek it out every minute of every day and expose every instance we find. And not just racism, but also sexism, homophobia, and every other kind of injustice.'
In other words, O'Reilly thinks everybody should just ignore the racism they see because he does not want to hear or report on it. Which is just laughable, because if everyone reported all the racism they see (or are the victim of) it would mostly stop. The reason it keeps going is because most of the time people keep it a secret.
If his vision were to come true we'd be a nation of witch hunters. Who exactly would be in charge of defining and exposing every instance of racism? Do we set up a tribunal in Salem, Massachusetts?
Sadly, this kind of thinking is now permeating the country. Americans are being punished for donating money to causes some people don't like, speakers are being canceled on college campuses if they don't uphold liberal orthodoxy, and race hustlers are branding people with the 'r' label.
If you want a divided nation, let's keep this up! Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was asked to write a column on racism because of Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers who has been banned from the NBA. As Talking Points said when this story broke, Sterling is just one person, he doesn't reflect anything.
A call for all Americans to seek and expose racism is a vigilante situation, which is dangerous. That's what totalitarian regimes do - seek out opinions they don't like and punish them. Political correctness has taken deep root; conservative and Republican students are targets on some campuses and in the media it's more of the same.
I think Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a good man, but his call to expose racism, homophobia, and every other form of injustice would only lead to more injustice. Most Americans are good and fair people and the flawed among us will eventually expose themselves. We don't need witch hunters!
O'Reilly is just an old right-wing fool that does not want to admit a lot of Republicans are racist, and he sure does not want to report on it. And one last thing, it's not a witch hunt to call people out for their racism.
Then he had Deneen Borelli and Richard Fowler on to discuss it. And of course the liberal disagreed with him, while the conservative agreed with O'Reilly.
Fowler said this: "I wouldn't say it's a witch hunt, but what can we do to put an end to remarks like those made by Donald Sterling or Cliven Bundy or anybody like that? We have to call them out, we have to have to have a societal shift."
Borelli said this: "I think Jabbar is being attacked by his liberal friends for appearing on the Factor and for writing an earlier piece for Time. Now he's doing an about face where everything is about race and everyone is racist. His comments are ridiculous and harmful for the country. He doesn't go after the NAACP for taking Donald Sterling's money and giving him a trophy. Abdul-Jabbar's comments are psycho-babble, Americans succeed with hard work and personal responsibility and overcoming challenges."
And I will say this, both O'Reilly and Borelli are right-wing idiots.
Then Monica Crowley & Kirsten Powers were on to talk about a New York Times writer who is reporting that most Americans "will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network." And of course O'Reilly blamed it on Obamacare, which is just ridiculous.
Powers said this: "This article wasn't just about ObamaCare, it was about health care in general. They were quoting major insurers who are saying there will be narrower pools of doctors to lower costs. This has been on the horizon for a long time, ObamaCare did not create this!"
Crowley said this: "At some point they had to start reporting the truth. What precipitated this was the enactment of ObamaCare - in order to contain costs, the insurers have to restrict options, which means fewer doctors and hospitals and cancer centers."
O'Reilly accused the administration of pushing ObamaCare under false pretenses, saying this: "As we've said from the very beginning, the law will mean fewer doctors and hospitals and higher costs. But it was sold in a fraudulent manner."
And remember this, nothing O'Reilly and Crowley said about Obamacare in the past has turned out to be true, they were dead wrong about everything, so you can not trust anything they say about it now. In other words, they are biased liars with a political agenda.
Then John Stossel was on to talk about Republican Senator Rob Portman, who is advocating more treatment and less incarceration for drug users.
Stossel said this: "Legalized drugs would be unbelievably cheap, and they might be sold at the 7-Eleven. Most stores have a separate section for cigarettes and alcohol, the free market can do this however it wants. The war on drugs is worse - the legalizers are right and you are wrong!"
O'Reilly insisted that legalizing drugs would create havoc, saying this: "The people who get stoned and high don't bother you at all? Did you see what happened to Amsterdam when they went wide open with pot and hash? I don't think your vision is good for the country in any way."
Stossel is right for once, and O'Reilly is so wrong it's laughable. People who want to do drugs are already doing them, they do not care if it's legal or not, and the moron O'Reilly just does not seem to understand that. And btw, it can not be enforced anyway, the war on drugs has been a total failure and a waste of billions of tax dollars.
Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle examined the argument that selling drugs is a non-violent crime.
Wiehl said this: "It's a violent offense, because dealers sell to users, who then need money to buy more. They assault or rob to get the drugs, so it absolutely is a violent crime."
Guilfoyle backed that up with hard facts, saying this: "Half of state and federal prisoners reported using drugs in the months leading up to the crime."
And they are all 3 idiots, because selling drugs is not a violent crime, that is what they law says, they just made it up in their biased right-wing world on the Factor. The courts say it is a non-violent crime, case closed.
Then O'Reilly had the insane Glenn Beck on to talk about the government's Common Core initiative that lays out what students should know as they progress through school. With no education expert on for balance, just the crazy right-wing nut Glenn Beck.
Beck, who expressed his disdain for the curriculum said this: "You always talk about a culture war, and that's what Common Core is all about. It is about taking our kids and molding them so we can have 'good little citizens' and 'good little drone workers.' I want my kids to have a breadth of knowledge and let them decide, but that's not what's happening in our schools."
O'Reilly reminded Beck that Common Core is also championed by some on the right, saying this: "Jeb Bush and Chris Christie support the Common Core because they say children will be smarter and better able to compete."
Proving once again that Beck is an idiot who should not even be put on the show, he is not an expert on anything, let alone education, he is just a biased right-wing stooge with a fringe following.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Our 50th State. Billy said this: "Yes, it's a long trip, but taking a vacation in Hawaii is always worth the time."
Boehner Caught Lying About Fundraising Off Benghazi
By: Steve - May 14, 2014 - 10:00am
One day after John Boehner claimed that he had nothing to do with fundraising off of Benghazi, the NRCC sent out a letter signed by Boehner that is raising money off of Benghazi.
John Boehner claimed that he has nothing to do with fundraising off of Benghazi. Speaker Boehner said, "Listen, I'm involved in this investigation, I'm not involved in what goes on at the campaign committee...All I know is that we're trying to get the truth here. And I've got to believe the Democrats are probably fundraising off of Benghazi just like we are...I don’t know what the fundraising arm is doing. All I know is that it's time to get to the truth."
Then Sam Stein busted Speaker Boehner for claiming he has nothing to do with the what goes on at the National Republican Congressional Committee, after they fundraised off of the dead in Benghazi.
Boehner claimed he had nothing to do with this, while the NRCC is sending out fundraising letters in his name. The idea that the Speaker of the House would have nothing to do with fundraising for House Republican candidates is even more absurd when one considers that Boehner has given the NRCC $22 million since 2005.
Boehner gave the NRCC $10.5 million in 2012, and he has given them $5.3 million so far this year.
One of Boehner's primary duties as the Republican leader of the House is to raise money. Boehner knew about the Benghazi fundraising emails, because for Republicans raising money off of a tragedy is business as usual. The years of Republican fundraising off of 9/11 during the Bush presidency are unforgettable.
John Boehner is flat out lying. This is not a matter of politics. Fundraising off of the dead is flat out wrong. It demonstrates a callous disregard for the loss of human life that undercuts their claims of wanting the truth for the deceased.
The Benghazi special investigation has already turned into a political disaster for the Republican Party. And of course his buddy Bill O'Reilly does not say a word about any of this, but if the Democrats were doing it O'Reilly would be outraged and do half his show on it for a week.
The Monday 5-12-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 13, 2014 - 11:00am
Most of the O'Reilly TPM was about Benghazi, which I do not report on, but the biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly had this to say about the 300 kidnapped girls in Nigeria, and the Michael Sam gay kiss on tv:
O'REILLY: In other matters, a Muslim terrorist group kidnapped 300 girls in Nigeria and once again the world is shocked by the actions of fanatical Muslim terrorists. There are scores of Islamic groups terrorizing civilians all over the world, but what are the Muslim nations doing about it? Very little. How much more trouble can one group cause? Most Muslims are good people, but a substantial minority cause trouble.
Then Brit Hume was on to talk Benghazi, which I did not report on. Then Juan Willams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the abductions in Nigeria and the silence of the broader Muslim world.
Finally, there is a very interesting social situation here in the USA, with gay football player Michael Sam drafted to play for the St. Louis Rams. Talking Points says this: "Let Mr. Sam play football, but the gay thing is way overplayed. It's annoying."
Williams said this: "Where is the Nigerian government. This is an oil-rich country but so rife with corruption and indifference that they are closing their eyes to this Islamic group that wants to establish its own caliphate in Nigeria. They are making these girls into sex slaves!"
Williams also told O'Reilly the straight NFL guys also kiss women at the draft, but he also said he does not really want to see the gay guys do it.
Ham reacted to the widespread ridicule of "hashtag activism," in which people express their outrage on Twitter, saying this: "Some people have picked on the '#BringBackOurGirls,' and hashtag activism can be a problem when it's a substitute for action. But when it spurs action it can be important, and in this case governments are failing women. I don't know if it will rescue these girls, but it may form a framework where you can build a community of women."
Then the right-wing idiot Adam Carolla was on to promote his new book where he says what he would do if he was the President. Here is how stupid the book is, Carolla said he would put coin slots on all health care equipment, so your family has to feed nickels into it to keep you alive.
He also said the voter ID law is great, and that the so-called voter suppression the left talks about is bogus. And of course O'Reilly agreed, saying this: "The 'war on women' and 'voter suppression' are the two most bogus political issues."
Proving they are both right-wing idiots, and I thank God neither one of them have any power to run the States or the Federal Government. They would both just let sick people who can not pay for health insurance die, let the Republicans block the poor and minorities from voting, and let them ramp up their war on women.
Then the biased right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about a new survey that shows only 7% of journalists identify themselves as Republicans, while 28% claim to be Democrats and 50% independent. Which is the free market in action, and if more Republicans went into journalism there would not be so much of a difference. Somehow O'Reilly and Goldberg have a problem with it, even though they claim to support the free market.
And btw, no Democratic guest was on for balance, just 2 right-wingers to spin it.
Goldberg said this: "The poll is ridiculous, I'll buy the fact that 7% identify themselves as Republicans, but only 28% say they're Democrats? Impossible! They know people think they're liberal, so when pollsters come around they say they're independent. If you inject these people with truth serum, about 85% would admit that they voted for Barack Obama twice. We need affirmative action for conservatives in the media."
O'Reilly (who says he never speculates) theorized why media outlets are so dominated by one world view, saying this: "The reason behind the liberalism in reporting is that the people who hire are liberals. If you walk into the New York Times or NBC and you have a pro-life point of view, you're ostracized and you can't exist there."
Which is not really true, The NY Times and NBC have conservatives working for them, and there are a ton of conservative news sources. You have Fox and a million right-wing news websites and think tanks who have there people on all the news shows.
From MRC to the Heritage Foundation to Newsbusters to townhall.com to Human Events, etc. They are everywhere. And conservatives dominate talk radio, from Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck, to Laura Ingraham to Mark Levin to Michael Savage to Sean Hannity and on and on, but O'Reilly and Goldberg have no problem with that.
They have selective outrage, if conservatives do it they are fine with it and never report it or complain. But if liberals do it they scream bloody murder and claim it's going to cause the country to fail. Even though it's almost an equal balance when you add it all up.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Plane Truth. Billy said this: "A tip for dealing with incompetent and/or lackadaisical airline management: If a plane is more than two hours late for no good reason, let's give a 10% refund to all passengers, and if it's four hours late that refund goes up to 25%."
O'Reilly Thinks The Michael Sam Gay Kiss Was Wrong
By: Steve - May 13, 2014 - 10:00am
Now remember this, O'Reilly says he thinks being gay is ok, but only as long as you stay in the closet and he does not have to see any gay men kissing. Notice he never says anything is wrong with seeing gay women kissing, hmmmm.
He also lied when he said you never see straight men as he called it "making out on tv at the draft" when of course you do. Straight men kiss their girlfriends and wives all the time at the NFL draft when they are drafted, so O'Reilly was caught lying about that, Juan Williams even called him out on it.
Here is what happened, O'Reilly returned from a week-long vacation Monday night and spent the opening segment of his Fox News show reviewing some of the stories he missed while he was away. He touched on Benghazi, the IRS and Boko Haram, but saved the best for last. At the very end of his "Talking Points Memo," O’Reilly shared his thoughts on the social situation regarding the kiss Michael Sam shared with his partner on live TV after learning he had been drafted by the St. Louis Rams.
According to O'Reilly, "the gay football player" Michael Sam took some heat on Twitter from pro-players who "objected to the dog and pony show," players who were "immediately trashed" and fined by the NFL btw.
O'Reilly also said this: "Let Mr. Sam play football. If he makes the Rams, great. But the gay thing? Way overplayed. It's annoying. It really is."
Said the old right-wing straight guy who claims to support gay rights and have no problem with gays. Now think about this, O'Reilly never complains when straight people kiss on tv, but when a gay man does it he says it's annoying.
Proving once again that O'Reilly does not really support gay people, he just says he does to make it look good. In reality, he is just like most Republicans, he hates gay people.
He even had to lie that straight guys do not kiss women at the draft, to justify his anger for the gay guy doing it at the NFL draft. Juan Williams said he watches the NBA and the NFL draft and straight guys kiss women all the time. To which O'Reilly had no answer, he just ignored it and moved on.
Extreme Right Plans To Boycott NFL Over Openly Gay Player
By: Steve - May 12, 2014 - 10:00am
One right-wing extremist in the Christian movement has set his sights on the sporting world because as a fine upstanding evangelical Christian K-Street lobbyist, Jack Burkman said "if the NFL doesn't have any morals, and people like (Commissioner) Roger Goodell just want to appease advertisers, appease corporate America and all that stuff...I figured, well, it is time for conservatives in Congress to step in and define morality for them."
The GOP lobbyist is Jack Burkman, who two months ago was pushing hard for Congressional legislation to ban openly gay athletes from the National Football League after news that Missouri defensive lineman Michael Sam announced he was gay. At the time Burkman said "conservatives really hate imposing policy on private business," but that all went out the window because of the "reason of great urgency and necessity of forcing the NFL's moral standing."
Now that Michael Sam has been drafted by the St. Louis Rams because of his football skills and not because he is gay, they will have to look forward to dealing with Burkman who intends to include as part of his campaign to pass legislation banning gay football players from playing in the NFL, "unleashing a relentless boycott against the team that drafted him."
Burkman warned NFL teams that he has "a coalition of extremist Christian leaders from across the nation" ready to unleash Hell on the Rams to teach the entire NFL a Christ-like lesson that when Christians are not allowed to enforce their definition of morality on the public "there will be a terrible financial price to pay."
Burkman said he is already mobilizing "powerful grassroots organizations in 27 of the 50 states," as well as a "coalition of Evangelical Christian leaders from across the nation to take part in a protest if Sam is drafted.We shall exercise our First Amendment rights and shall not stop until the drafting NFL franchise cannot sell a single ticket, jersey or autographed football. In short, we shall be relentless. The NFL, like most of the rest of American business, is about to learn that when you trample the Christian community and Christian values there will be a terrible financial price to pay."
First, the last thing on the NFL's, or any particular team's, agenda is trampling the Christian community or their values, and evangelicals likely never entered their collective minds. NFL teams are only concerned with winning, and if they believed fielding an entire team of openly gay players would carry them to victory in the Super Bowl, Michael Sam would not be the only "openly" gay player in the league.
It is another persecuted Christian extremist claiming they and their perverse Christian values are being trampled because they cannot force their ungodly biblical morality on the population in general, and the NFL in particular. It is unclear exactly who gave Christian extremists the idea they own the right to impose their moral will on the entire nation, or from under what authority they dare threaten any American or a multi-billion dollar industry like the National Football League with "a terrible financial price to pay," or attempt to pass legislation banning openly gay players from the league.
It is noteworthy that Burkman,the morally superior follower of Christ and lobbyist who worked for James Dobson's Family Research Council, espouses conservative Christian family values, and enlists Christians in Congress to define morality for the NFL is also the MySpace creep who propositioned girls and offered them money if they would come to the Mayflower Hotel and have sex with him.
He was also exposed as being on the notorious DC Madam's phone list; two pieces of information he conveniently omitted from his evangelical Christian threats about the great urgency and necessity of forcing the NFL's moral standing to comply with his "coalition of evangelical Christian leaders across the nation" to monitor and regulate the sexual orientation of NFL draftees or veteran players.
It is not as if a gay football player is going to romp naked with their lover up and down the gridiron, any more than heterosexual players and their wives or girlfriends, but for evangelicals it has nothing to do with an athlete's on-field performance and everything to do with their private lives.
I hope Michael Sam has a long and successful career in the NFL and not because he was courageous in coming out as openly gay, but because he achieved a personal goal and appears to be a genuinely good human being as well as a great defensive end.
As for Burkman and his far-right extremist crowd, I hope they choke on their religious hatred that this country is witnessing on a daily basis and driving more and more Americans away from the Christian religion. A religion that is about as close to Christ's teaching of love and acceptance as Burkman's evangelical morality to seek out girls on MySpace to have sex with him for money.
Dairy Queen CEO Supports Raising The Minimum Wage
By: Steve - May 11, 2014 - 10:00am
For the second time this week, a CEO of a major fast food company came out in support of raising the minimum wage. Dairy Queen's CEO John Gainor made a simple case for why Congress should raise the minimum wage from $7.25, in an interview CNN aired on Thursday: "It takes a lot of time to train people," he said. "You want to make sure you're paying a very good wage, otherwise you have a lot of turnover."
"People need to be paid a fair wage," Gainor said.
Dariy Queen has 4,800 locations, and the company did not have data on what the average hourly worker makes. Wages reported on Glassdoor average $8 per hour. Noting that Dairy Queen hires "a lot of teenage and part-time employees," Gainor estimated many people must be earning the bare minimum at the chain's franchisees.
Subway CEO Fred DeLuca also said Wednesday that he's "not concerned" about a proposed minimum wage hike. "Over the years, I've seen so many of these wage increases. I think it's normal. It won't have a negative impact, and that's what I tell my workers."
Even though DeLuca acknowledged raises should be normal, the federal minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation, increasing only slightly in 2008.
Not only would a $10.10 minimum wage lift 4.6 million people out of poverty, but the chains that have tried it have benefited, too. Shake Shack has noted that a $10.70 wage helps the company to retain more of their employees, reducing turnover and growing them into managers.
And Subway and Dairy Queen aren't the only new supporters of a wage hike: Rick Santorum, Bill O'Reilly, and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney joined the chorus on Thursday.
In an interview on Morning Joe Thursday, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that Republicans should support raising the minimum wage.
"I, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it," he said. "Because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay."
Which is just laughable, how can Republicans be about more jobs and better pay when they vote down every jobs bill Obama and the Democrats try to pass, and block every vote on raising the minimum wage. It's ridiculous, Republicans are against jobs and against raising the minimum wage, it's all propaganda talk from Romney and Santorum to try and fool the American people.
The Friday 5-9-14 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review
By: Steve - May 10, 2014 - 11:00am
The far-right dishonest hack Eric Bolling filled in for O'Reilly, and he did not have a TPM, instead he went to his top story called: Celebrity Activism.
Bolling began Friday's show with the horror story in Nigeria, where 300 schoolgirls were kidnapped by the Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram. He was joined by columnist James Hirsen, who has ridiculed the celebrities who are suddenly interested in Islamist terror.
Hirsen said this: "Hollywood is a place of trends and fashion, and now this has become a fashionable cause. They're all jumping on the bandwagon, they all want to show that they are compassionate. But terrorists aren't going to be intimidated by Kim Kardashian tweeting a selfie. These are hardened thugs and the only way these girls will come back is with military intervention. This is a case for satellites, drones, and special forces, which these celebrities protested against during the Bush administration."
But Democratic strategist Marjorie Clifton defended Hollywood's social media activism, saying this: "Celebrities can move the court of global opinion, they move people's hearts and minds. The objective here is to create more awareness around the plight of women and girls internationally, and to put international pressure on the powers that can go in and do something."
What a joke, only the right-wing idiots at Fox News could use this story to attack Hollywood celebs, for simply trying to help get the story worldwide coverage. Bolling and every right-wing idiot who is slamming them is a fool and a partisan hack. They should be praising the celebs for taking the time to try and help get the story more publicity.
Then the biased Bolling talked about the biased Mitt Romney, who has described Hillary Clinton's performance as secretary of state as ineffective and incompetent. So Bolling invited Democratic strategist Jennice Fuentes to react.
Fuentes said this: "That's a lot of baloney. During her tenure, she restored the leadership and the good name of the United States across the world in extremely challenging times. Hillary Clinton made things better, she helped build and maintain a coalition on Iran. Do you think that was easy, or that it was easy avoid an all-out war in Gaza?"
Bolling reminded Fuentes that many areas of the world are filled with tension, saying this: "Iran was a massive foreign policy failure, US-Russia relations are as strained as they've been in decades, and what has she done to help us with China?"
And how is all that Hillary Clintons fault? Bolling is ridiculous, for 8 years Bush was in charge of foreign policy and things got worse in foreign countries then too, but nobody blames him, they are nuts over there and we can not control them no matter what we do, nobody is to blame here, not Bush or Hillary.
Then of course Bolling talked about the twin brothers David and Jason Benham, who were scheduled to star in a new show about real estate on the House and Garden Network, but it all came crashing down when activist groups complained that the Benhams have taken part in an anti-gay marriage rally. In other words, they are far-right pro-life bible thumpers who oppose gay people having the same rights as straight people, and they were at a hate rally.
David said this: "Jesus loves all people, but he does not love all ideas, and there's a difference between the gay community and the gay agenda. The gay agenda seeks to silence those who disagree with it, and it begins with Christians who hold to traditional values."
Now here is what I do not get, how does this guy David know what Jesus loves or not loves, maybe Jesus also loved gay people, he sure don't know and neither do I, nobody knows, they are just speculating.
Jason said this: "We're living testimonies of what an agenda will do. We built a real estate company that has served many gay individuals and we love them just like anyone else, but we have a problem when an idea seeks to silence another idea. That's what happened in our case, so we are now show-less. HGTV got bullied and our hearts go out to them for that."
Then Bolling talked about a Veterans Affairs hospital in Phoenix that stands accused of allowing as many as 40 veterans to die while awaiting treatment. So Geraldo Rivera was on with the latest on the scandal.
Geraldo said this: "There was a 'secret' waiting list, that showed the waiting times were much more onerous and unreasonable than the 'official' list. A whistleblower says 40 people died because of that excessive waiting time."
Then Geraldo defended VA boss Gen. Eric Shinseki, who is facing calls for his resignation, saying this: "He is a twice-wounded and decorated Vietnam veteran, a 4-star general, and a man who cautioned us against getting involved in Iraq. He's a concerned military officer and we need to give him the dignity of finding out what happened."
Then Bolling showed a tape of O'Reilly doing an interview with former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, a long-time advocate of redistribution.
Nader said this: "You start out with raising the minimum wage, which would give a raise to 30-million workers. The next step is to get rid of tax shelters for big multi-nationals - companies like General Electric and Verizon have made billions of dollars without paying federal income tax. We should also stop these very expensive wars overseas, take that money and create millions of jobs rebuilding America. And we have to revise these job-destroying, sovereignty-shredding trade agreements, which allow corporations to ship American jobs and industries to communist and fascist regimes."
Bill praised Nader as a patriot, but warned that his prescriptions could have unintended consequences, saying this: "You can't suck corporations dry and think they'll provide jobs and expand. We need business expansion, we need a robust marketplace to come back here."
And as usual O'Reilly is an idiot, Nader is not saying we should suck corporations dry, he is just saying they should get rid of some of the tax loopholes and make them pay their fair share of taxes. And he is also saying they should raise the minimum wage, and he is right. And btw, Bush cut taxes to the wealthy and the corporations and they did not use those cuts to create more jobs, it's a right-wing lie that tax cuts lead to more jobs.
Hypocrite McConnell Slams Out Of State Donations
By: Steve - May 10, 2014 - 10:00am
While he is also raising millions of dollars out of state. And of course his friends Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham never say a word about it.
McConnell is looking at a real test in the general election. Presumptive Democratic nominee, and rising star of the party, Alison Lundergan Grimes is a formidable foe who has been able to connect with voters of the deep-red state of Kentucky.
Recent polls show her in a virtual tie with McConnell. At the same time, McConnell’s approval rating in the state is terrible.
Seeing the momentum building for Grimes, McConnell's team has tried to paint her as a Hollywood liberal whose values are all wrong for Kentucky. When it was revealed that Grimes raised more money ($2.7 million) in the first quarter of 2014 than McConnell, the Minority Leader's campaign spokesperson, Allison Moore, went on the attack calling out Grimes for raising money outside of Kentucky.
MOORE: "The very same ultra rich liberal elite who bankrolled Barack Obama into the White House are pulling out all the stops for Alison Lundergan Grimes. Kentuckians know darn well her entire campaign is funded by those who seek to destroy Kentucky values and our way of life and the only way they can accomplish that is by getting rid of the man responsible for stopping them, Mitch McConnell."
The clear implication here was that Grimes campaign was getting money mostly from Hollywood celebrities and rich New York elites. Essentially, Moore was painting Grimes as a 'liberal elite,' unable to relate the average Kentuckian.
At the same time, Moore was presenting McConnell as someone who spends all of his time and energy in Kentucky when he isn't in Washington battling the evil Barack Obama.
While it is true that Grimes has attended fundraising events outside of the state, and received money from wealthy donors, the majority of the donations she's received are from average Kentucky voters.
Her campaign pointed out in April that it has received over 45,000 individual donations with a median contribution amount of $25. Therefore, it appears that voters are sending in small amounts to do their part to help Grimes win in November.
Recently, it has been revealed that McConnell is a massive hypocrite. While either saying it himself, or allowing his staff to do so, McConnell has presented Grimes as a candidate who spends a large amount of her time outside the state courting big-money donors.
Meanwhile, the Senator made six trips to New York over the first 3 months of 2014. During those trips, he held at least eight fundraisers where he took in over $1 million in donations from executives at large companies and firms, as well as from New York bankers. In fact, over 80% of the money he's raised this election cycle has come from outside the state of Kentucky.
And this is just more bad news for McConnell. He recently told voters at a campaign event in April that it isn't his job to bring jobs to Kentucky. He mistakenly, and hilariously, used footage of the Duke University men's basketball team winning the national title when he thought it was of Kentucky.
He also tried to appeal to gun owners by showing up at CPAC and waving a musket over his head on stage. It was later revealed that McConnell doesn't even own a gun. Now, he's given Democrats, and the Grimes campaign, this little gift.
The Thursday 5-8-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 9, 2014 - 11:00am
The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, her TPM was called: Outrage in Nigeria. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Nearly a month ago more than 300 Nigerian girls were kidnapped from their school by Islamists from the group Boko Haram. As their plight became more widely known, politicians and celebrities began speaking out about the need to rescue them.
Then Ingraham explored the prospect of U.S. intervention in Nigeria with Katherine Mangu-Ward, an editor at libertarian Reason magazine.
Hillary Clinton called it an 'act of terrorism,' but the Daily Beast reported today, 'The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing Boko Haram on its official list of terrorist organizations.'
Terror experts are now saying that decision may have hurt our ability to confront this vicious Muslim terror outfit. This past February the group burned 59 young boys to death in Nigeria. There were no loud calls to intervene then, but now suddenly political elites want U.S. action.
Ward said this: "This is a terrible story, but one thing weird about this political moment we're having right now is the pretense that this is somehow special. Unfortunately and horribly, it isn't - these kinds of things happen all the time and the U.S. can't police every single bad thing around the world."
But Michael Rubin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute argued that the USA can help alleviate the suffering.
Rubin said this: "I oppose putting boots on the ground in Nigeria, which is a corrupt country. But if we had the intelligence assets to find these girls, for example from the drone base in Niger, that could be a major issue. This attack could really reverse the attractiveness of jihadism because people are really horrified about this."
Then James Carville was on, he commented on Monica Lewinsky's new piece about her affair with Bill Clinton and the attempts to discredit her, saying this: "If there's somebody that doesn't know what happened, it may hurt Hillary Clinton, but I think this thing is about at saturation. Monica Lewinsky has the right to write a piece, I hope she has a fine life, but this is all baked in the cake."
Then Ingraham talked about James Kilgore, a convicted murderer who was a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army terror group, who landed a job teaching at the University of Illinois in 2012. But the school's recent decision to not renew his contract has outraged his supporters in the student body and faculty.
Illinois State Senator Chapin Rose was on, and he said this: "This is just crazy, and my constituents are beyond angry. The state of Illinois has all kinds of budget problems but there's apparently money for this. This guy has a Ph.D. in African Studies that he earned under an assumed name and the most recent thing he was doing was teaching art. He's entitled to live his life, he's served his sentence, but that doesn't mean we have to put him on the payroll."
Then Ingraham discussed the danger in the Middle East with analyst Walid Phares.
Phares said this: "The Obama administration has ignored the fact that there is this ideology, and Boko Haram is the result of this ideology. Everybody is excited to go after Boko Haram, but where were we two years ago and five years ago? The other side knows that this administration is afraid of engaging their ideology, afraid of recognizing that we have a growing problem. The Obama administration decided to partner with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia and it failed."
Ingraham said this: "The administration thought new leaders would emerge and there would be pluralism and respect for religious minorities, but Christians are being murdered or terrorized or forced to convert to Islam."
And finally, Ingraham had a best of Jesse Watters segment that was not worht reporting on.
Hey O'Reilly: Read This Jerk
By: Steve - May 9, 2014 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly claims there is no widespread racism in the Republican party, and that racism is almost dead today in America, that there are just a few racists left.
Former Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said he left the Republican party mostly because of the racism. Crist told Fusion's Jorge Ramos the GOP is now seen as "anti-women, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-education, and anti-environment," saying he left the Republican Party because leadership "went off a cliff."
When Ramos suggested "the moment" Crist decided to leave the Republican party was when he realized he'd lose to now-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in the 2010 Senate race, Crist denied the claim, blaming the GOP's attitude toward working with President Barack Obama instead.
"I couldn't be consistent with myself, and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president. I'll just go there," Crist said, saying anti-Obama "activists" were "intolerable."
"I couldn't take it anymore," Crist added.
So there you have it, a former Republicans saying flat out the main reason he left the Republican party is because of all the racism against President Obama. The very same racism O'Reilly says is almost gone. Proving that O'Reilly does not report the facts, he reports what he wants you to hear, and when there is claims of racism in the Republican party he just denies it.
The Wednesday 5-7-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 8, 2014 - 11:00am
The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was about Benghazi so I am not reporting on it.
Then Alan Colmes & Chris Plante were on to talk more nonsense about Monica Lewinsky. Lynne Cheney speculated that Vanity Fair's new piece on Monica Lewinsky could have been engineered by the Clintons as a way to get the story out of the way early in the election cycle. So Ingraham ran that ridiculous theory past Fox News analyst Alan Colmes, who reacted with ridicule.
Colmes said this: "They all got into a room to plot 2016, They plotted how to do a story in Vanity Fair at this particular moment to get Monica Lewinsky out of the way. And she's obviously on the Clinton payroll trying to help elect Hillary in 2016! Is that what you're trying to tell me? I'm just shaking my head at this whole thing."
Conservative radio talk show host Chris Plante said this: "The reality is that with the Clintons it is impossible to be too cynical. If they're looking at Hillary launching a presidential campaign, there's this thing hanging out there that could become an issue. Well, they pulled her out by the hair, they threw her into Vanity Fair, and she has been eviscerated ever since in the New York Times, the New York Post, and the Washington Post."
Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to talk more about Hillary, which is ridiculous because she has not even said if she is running or not.
Hillary has begun speaking about substantive issues, including the need for some limitations on gun possession. Powers said this: "I don't think her presidential campaign is going to be about gun control, and I think this was a boilerplate Democratic applause line on guns. She's just taking about some limitations, it's not an article of faith that every American should be walking around packing heat."
But Obenshain contended that Clinton is trying to excite the left wing of the Democratic Party, saying this: "We know Hillary needs to move to the left and nothing she says is by mistake. She wants to portray Tea Partiers and those who believe in the Second Amendment as 'crazy right wingers.'"
Which is not only ridiculous, it's a lie, because Democrats do not think people who believe in the Second Amendment are crazy, they only think far-right loons who want guns in churches, bars, and schools are crazy. I am as liberal as it gets and I believe in the 2nd amendment, but it does not say people should be able to own machine guns or bazookas, and have the right to take them into a church or a school.
And finally Lou Dobbs was on to talk about 25-year-old Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who was jailed in Mexico last month after he allegedly made a wrong turn and inadvertently brought guns across the border.
Dobbs said this: "This is insanity and it's outrageous, Why doesn't the Obama administration insist on the release of the sergeant with all of his belongings, including his three guns, which were legally purchased in this country. It's typical of the passivity of this administration in the face of a gross insult."
Ingraham urged leaders of both parties to stand up for Sgt. Tahmooressi, saying this: "We have all these politicians saying it's 'brave' for illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows, and it would be nice if they showed the same concern and empathy for a young Marine who served this country in battle."
Santorum: GOP Opposing Minimum Wage Increase Makes No Sense
By: Steve - May 8, 2014 - 10:00am
Former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum minced no words in calling out his own party for its poor record of fighting for working class Americans.
In an interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown, Santorum described Republicans as hostile to the working class. In particular, he went after them for their steadfast opposition to raising the minimum wage.
Santorum appeared on the show to promote his book. In the interview Santorum forcefully argued that his party is not fighting for the working class. In blasting his party's anti-minimum wage dogmatism, Santorum stated bluntly:
Let's not make this argument that we're for the blue collar guy but we're against any minimum wage hike ever. It just makes no sense.
The former White House hopeful made his remarks less than a week after Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have raised the minimum wage gradually from 7.25 to 10.10 an hour over the next thirty months and then index it to inflation.
Santorum's legislative record as a Senator could hardly be characterized as worker friendly, although the Senator did support minimum wage increases on some roll call votes while opposing them at other times. Based on his mixed voting record, Santorum should not earn the trust of low-wage workers as a candidate, should he decide to seek office again.
However, his criticisms of his political party's anti-worker platform are nevertheless refreshing coming from a candidate with such a reputation for conservatism.
Santorum's conservative credentials are mostly burnished by his right-wing positions on social rather than economic issues. Nevertheless, by calling out his own party for its anti-minimum wage intransigence, Santorum at least makes one prominent GOP politician who is showing some flexibility in reassessing the party's stance on opposing a minimum wage increase.
Hopefully, the idea will take hold inside the Republican Party, because it is right for America and Democrats and Independents are already on board.
The Tuesday 5-6-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 7, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Return of Monica Lewinsky. The biased and dishonest right-wing Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and she said this:
INGRAHAM: In a new essay in Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky acknowledges deep regret over her sexual relationship with Bill Clinton. Although she say the relationship was consensual, she also admits, 'My boss took advantage of me ... I was made a scapegoat to protect his powerful position.'
And every Republican who was in office and went through a sex scandal would have done the very same thing. Nobody cares about this story except Republicans, it's tabloid garbage and I will not report it again.
Basically, this woman's life was ruined. Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton went on to become one of the most powerful and admired couples in the world. So why does this matter today? Well, in the midst of the scandal, Hillary referred to Lewinsky as 'a narcissistic loony toon.'
A young woman was being manipulated by the most powerful man on the planet, and Mrs. Clinton's reaction was to write her off as a nut case. Democrats claim to champion women's rights, but the instinct here was to duck, cover, and blame the young intern.
Monica Lewinsky was used and tossed aside, then demeaned and discredited by the press and Clinton protectors, including Hillary herself. War on women? You bet! In the 1990s the Clintons pioneered it.
Then Democratic strategist Jessica Ehrlich and FNC's Monica Crowley were on to discuss it.
Ehrlich said this: "In terms of the 'war on women,'" Democrats have been out there championing legislation that has helped women. I think Hillary's had a natural human reaction - everyone I know who has been that situation tends to blame the other person. This has no bearing on her ability to be a national leader."
Crowley said this: "Kathleen Willey, another one of Bill Clinton's victims, came forward and said, 'Hillary Clinton is the war on women.' I thought that was a really apt description because Hillary is the one who came up with the 'nuts and sluts' attack to go after all of Bill's women who came forward. For all the talk that Hillary Clinton is some kind of feminist pioneer, the truth is that she was always about protecting her political meal ticket."
This has nothing to do with the war on women the Republicans are involved in, so that is ridiculous. The war on women is by Republicans in the political positions they take that hurt women, it has nothing to do with sex scandals.
Then Simon Rosenberg & Brad Blakeman were on to talk about the White House, that has released a new report warning of the dire consequences of climate change.
Rosenberg said this: "The weather events of recent years have spurred a lot of people to try to do more, and the president has also allowed investment in domestic energy construction. So the time is right to focus on the complete picture - we can do more to combat climate change while also increasing domestic energy production."
The conservative Blakeman said this: "This is climate diversion. The president needs to pander to his base because they have had enough of Obama themselves. The president has not made good on his promises to his liberal base, whether on immigration or taxation or climate change. This is the biggest scam in history!"
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Texas Judge Jeanine Howard, who has given a 45-day sentence to a man who was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.
Wiehl said this: "The judge blamed the victim, by saying the girl 'wasn't quite the victim she portrayed herself to be.' But the victim said no repeatedly, and that is rape whether she was a virgin or not. The rapist could have gotten 20 years, but he gets 45 days!"
Guilfoyle blasted Judge Howard for suggesting that the 14-year-old girl had prior sexual experience, saying this: "It's impermissible in Texas to even bring up any past sexual history of a victim in a sexual assault, and the victim strongly denies ever having sexual intercourse before the rape. The judge should never have made these statements that were irrelevant and immaterial."
Then immigration activist and professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, who endorses a path to citizenship for illegal aliens was on to discuss it.
Ojeda said this: "The Obama administration has been diligently enforcing the law, so we have had an increase of up to about 400,000 deportations a year. He is doing this thinking that he'll have a rational discourse with Republicans to create comprehensive immigration reform, but the Republican Party is too divided to come to grips with that. There's wide consensus that the current immigration system is broken, and now we're continuing to build a detention system that is increasingly costly and is breaking families apart."
Then Ingraham asked Fox News media analyst Howard Kurtz to talk about Monica Lewinsky's just-published revelations.
Kurtz said this: "I think this is about image rehab for Monica, and it's a job application. She's saying she's not just a 'narcissistic loony tune,' as Hillary called her. You have to feel some sympathy for Monica Lewinsky - Bill Clinton trots around the world while she's verb and a punch line. She's had trouble finding a job and she wants to have a second act. But by raising her head now she has exposed herself to more media ridicule from people who didn't follow this 20 years ago because they were too young."
And I say this: Do not give her any air time or publicity, she knew Bill Clinton was married and she let him have sex with her anyway, so she is not a victim, she is just a woman who had sex with a married man. And I am not going to report on her again.
Millionaires Say Inequality A Problem: Support Higher Taxes
By: Steve - May 7, 2014 - 10:00am
A majority of U.S. millionaires think rising income inequality is a "major problem" and almost two-thirds favor increasing taxes on the wealthy and raising the minimum wage to reverse the trend, according to a new survey.
However, the views of the wealthy on these hot-bottom topics vary significantly by political affiliation, suggesting millionaires are as split as the rest of the country between Democratic and Republican beliefs, according to the poll by the conservative financial news channel CNBC.
For example, 51% of all millionaires surveyed believe inequality is a problem. While 86% of Democrats are worried about the nation's sizable income gap, only 1 in 5 Republicans share their concern.
Two-thirds of Republicans say anyone who works hard can become wealthy, according to the poll. Only one quarter of Democrats think that's true.
Nearly 4 in 5 Democrats support higher taxes for the wealthy and a boost in the minimum wage. Barely 3 in 10 Republicans favor higher taxes and less than 4 in 10 approve of a wage hike.
And btw, a Gallup poll shows that 71% of all Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.00 an hour, which puts the Republicans in the minority and out of touch with mainstream Americans.
The Monday 5-5-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 6, 2014 - 11:00am
The first half of the show was all Benghazi all the time, so I am not reporting it. After all the Benghazi propaganda was over Ingraham had Carmelo Cintron on to talk about former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who bowed out as commencement speaker.
Cintron said this: "She clearly violated international war conventions, and she clearly authorized torture and enhanced interrogation. We are not against her free speech, we are not against her gender, we are not against her race, we are against her actions."
Ingraham then cried that many campuses have become the exclusive province of liberals, saying this: "I had to sit through tons of left-wing commencement speakers, it's very rare to have a staunch conservative speaker. You're depriving the entire student body of an opportunity to hear someone who is really accomplished and a really nice woman."
Then Deneen Borelli & Andell Brown were on to talk about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the NBA's all-time leading scorer, who said that racism remains a major barrier to black Americans.
Brown said this: "He wanted to make sure that we know there is a problem with racism in this country, and that we can't ignore it, we have to address it. But I don't believe Kareem's statements are somehow directing us away from personal responsibility. He's saying we have a race issue in America."
The conservative Borelli, while portraying America as a beacon of opportunity, contended that Abdul-Jabbar was way off base, saying this: "His comments are very divisive, and it's the same rhetoric we hear from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and desperate politicians. They play the race card, but the fact remains that America is an exceptional country. I would never say they aren't racists in America, but it's a small number, and that small number can not prevent black individuals from striving and achieving."
Then Ayesha Khan was on to talk about the Supreme Court ruling that said beginning town hall meetings with a prayer is fully within the Constitution.
Khan said this: "We're disappointed in the ruling. The court got it wrong because this allows local governmental bodies to condition citizens participation in meetings. Put yourself in the position of a Jewish child who comes to receive an award at a town board meeting - you're asked to stand and bow your head in recognition of the divinity of Jesus Christ."
Ingraham reminded Khan that any prayers are totally voluntary, saying this: "No one is coerced into prayer. George Washington led his troops in prayer, President Obama prayed at his inauguration, Abraham Lincoln prayed. All of that would violate your understanding of the First Amendment."
Rutgers Student Calls Condi Rice A War Criminal
By: Steve - May 6, 2014 - 10:00am
Last week, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew as the Rutgers University 2014 commencement speaker following student and faculty protests over her role in the 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq.
While the successful pressuring to remove Rice from the event has garnered some heavy criticism from Republicans, one student activist told Democracy Now that it comes down to a simple question of whether a university should honor a "war criminal."
Rutgers student and "No Rice Campaign" activist Carmelo Cintron Vivas appeared on the progressive media network and told host Amy Goodman the reasons for protesting:
We felt that war criminals shouldn't be honored by our university. Someone who has such a tainted record as a public servant in this country should not go to our university, speak for 15 minutes, get an honorary law degree for trying to circumvent the law, and receive $35,000.
Asked to address concerns about free speech, Vivas responded with this:
We believe that that is wrongful, and that's not fair to any student graduating or not graduating at Rutgers University.
We have always, we have been receiving since the beginning our main backlash, if we can say it's that, is that, "Well, she's a minority. It's a woman. Why are you protesting this? This is supposed to be something that you're always for. And she has free speech."
And regarding the arguments that her academic achievements should outweigh her political positions:
We think that those are a really valid questions, but you have to go beyond that. You have to go beyond reducing a person to their race or to their gender and looking into their actions. Just because I am a minority, because I am, I'm Puerto Rican, I've only been here in the United States for two-and-a-half years, doesn't mean that I'm not to be held to the same standards as everyone else and that I can break the law whenever I want to.
That's just ludicrous. If we look into a lot of criminals and we look into a lot of international criminals and just bad people in history, a lot of them had great academic careers or great medical careers or great, your career is one thing, and the way you act as a person, as a human being, is another one. And that's why you make this an issue about human rights.
Vivas is right, Condi Rice should be in jail for war crimes, along with Bush and Cheney right next to her. And no schools should be giving any of them money to give a speech.
Unemployment Drops To 6.3% & O'Reilly Ignored It
By: Steve - May 5, 2014 - 10:00am
More good news for Obama and the country, unemployment dropped to 6.3% and of course the biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly ignored it. Because he is too busy talking about the 2 year old Benghazi non-story that nobody cares about except right-wing fools.
On Friday it was reported that the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since September 2008.
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 288,000, and the unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage points to 6.3 percent in April, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment gains were widespread, led by job growth in professional and business services, retail trade, food services and drinking places, and construction.
In April, the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 6.3 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 9.8 million, decreased by 733,000. Both measures had shown little movement over the prior 4 months. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons declined by 1.2 percentage points and 1.9 million, respectively.
Analysts also suggested that the data revealed that the Republican refusal to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is causing those people to leave the labor market. This report is a double whammy for Republicans. Despite their best efforts people are still finding jobs, and their ideological belief that taking away unemployment benefits forces people to find jobs is being proven false.
With the unemployment rate at its lowest level since September 2008, Democrats are focusing on an agenda that both helps the long term unemployed find new jobs, and the economy as a whole grow. While Republicans block minimum wage bills for a vote, and waste taxpayer money holding more hearings on the 2 year old Benghazi story nobody cares about.
According to the White House, The employment data can fluctuate from month-to-month, and while this month’s report happens to be above expectations, it is still broadly consistent with the recent trends we have been seeing in the labor market.
The President continues to emphasize that more can and should be done to support the recovery, including acting on his own executive authority to expand economic opportunity, as well as pushing Congress for additional investments in infrastructure, education and research, an increase in the minimum wage, and a reinstatement of extended unemployment insurance benefits.
Republicans thought the political environment was working in their favor, but the one-two punch of huge Obamacare participation and a rapidly declining unemployment rate could be setting a better than expected landscape for Democrats. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats have something to campaign on, and every Democratic voter has a reason to get out and vote.
In other words, if you are a Democrat you better get out and vote this year, otherwise the Republicans will continue to control the House and maybe even take the Senate. Then nothing will get done to help the economy, because the Republicans plan is to block everything that will help the economy or create jobs because Obama would be able to take credit for it.
13 Benghazis Happened Under Bush and Fox News Said Nothing
By: Steve - May 4, 2014 - 11:00am
The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there are renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.
Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation.
So I thought I'd revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher -- especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they're so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."
The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
And btw, that list does not include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war -- a war that was vocally supported by Bill O'Reilly, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and the entire Fox News Channel.
Speaking of O'Reilly and Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name "Bill O'Reilly" and "Lindsey Graham" in the hopes of discovering that they had commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the Bush administration didn't prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course.
So one thing's for sure: neither O'Reilly or Graham, or any of their cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases. And btw, no Democrats tried to use it for political reasons, they never said anything about those 13 embassy attacks under Bush.
This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by O'Reilly, the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times.
Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security?
Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana'a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn't even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes?
Just once I'd like to hear Bill O'Reilly, David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once.
Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).
And then the Republicans even voted to cut the funding for embassy security before the Benghazi attacks, which O'Reilly also never mentions.
So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex.
Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth.
Ultimately, they don't even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value -- not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of "truth" proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear.
And so they'll keep repeating "Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!" without any regard for history or reality. Like they always do.
O'Reilly Lied About Benghazi With Two Fox Military Analysts
By: Steve - May 4, 2014 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly discounted well-established facts when pushing the right-wing lie that President Obama did not order the military to help during the Benghazi attack.
On May 1st, O'Reilly hosted the biased and dishonest Fox military analysts Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt to discuss new testimony about Benghazi that has been distorted by the network. After O'Reilly noted that military forces couldn't mobilize without an order from the president, Hunt said that "the president never gave the order" to deploy.
Which was a 100% lie, and yet O'Reilly agreed and let the liars keep saying it, when it is not true.
Hunt later said "we had forces close enough to affect the battle, where they were ordered not to." Peters said that "the White House would have said stand down, that will still come out," to which O'Reilly responded, "that will be huge."
And that is also a 100% lie, it's also speculation, the very speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow on his show.
O'Reilly even echoed the lying Fox military analysts, saying this: "There wasn't anybody who said do something. That had to come from President Obama, through Leon Panetta ... it didn't happen."
And one more thing, there were no Democratic military analysts on to discuss it. So it was not a balanced segment, and it violated the rules of journalism. Not to mention, both Peters and Hunt are Republicans who hate Obama so they are biased and partisan. Peters even said Obama hates the military, which is just insane and laughable.
Let's look at the facts: Testimony from military leadership who were there. In his congressional testimony on February 7, 2013, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that after he informed the president about the attack in Benghazi, Obama "directed both myself and General Dempsey to do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives there."
The Associated Press also reported that Panetta ordered Marine anti-terrorism teams in Europe to prepare to deploy to Libya, and ordered other special forces teams to prepare to deploy to a European staging base.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey also testified that the military "reacted quickly once notified of the attacks" and "deployed an Antiterrorism Security Team to Tripoli while a second team prepared to deploy."
But the units were unable to reach Libya until well after the attack ended due to time and distance constraints.
Peters claim that there was a "stand down" order sent to American forces stationed in Tripoli during the attack has been debunked repeatedly, even by Fox News itself.
The Pentagon explained in May 2013 that there "was never any kind of stand down order to anybody." That June, Dempsey testified before Congress that the team wasn't "told to stand down. A stand down means don't do anything."
He continued to explain that the team was ordered to assist in Tripoli. Fox finally admitted that the "stand down" order didn't happen on June 26, 2013, after the leader of that special forces team told Congress that he was never ordered to "stand down."
O'Reilly then ended the segment by using the lies from Peters and Hunt as justification to call for a new congressional hearing, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: So now, so everybody is clear, I want everybody to be clear about this -- you have to pull in Dempsey and Panetta and say to them, "Did someone tell you not to get a rescue mission up and running?" That is a simple question these two men have to answer. Is that correct, is that where we are? ... That's where we are. I want everybody to be clear we take it step by step.
And it's all lies, not to mention Dempsey and Panetta have already testified about it. There was no stand down order, ever, we already know what happened. There has been 15 hearings on it and we know what happened. Did the White House spin it after it happened, of course they did, just as any White House would have done during a re-election campaign.
This story is over, and if this were happening to a Republican President O'Reilly and Fox would ignore it all and complain about the other networks reporting it so much. And btw, once you are caught lying about a story nobody will ever believe anything you say about it again. So O'Reilly has lost any credibility he had on this, which was not much to begin with.
The Friday 5-2-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 3, 2014 - 11:00am
The far-right biased and dishonest Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and she spent most of the show talking Benghazi, so I am not reporting on it.
Then radio talk show host Richard Fowler and professor Christopher Metzler were on to talk about the racist Clippers owner and the NAACP.
Fowler said this: "There was never clear proof that Sterling was a racist, but now we see he is clearly a racist. That doesn't take away from the fact that the Clippers organization and the players have given to charities and have given tickets to inner city young people."
Metzler reported that Sterling had previously been given a similar award by the NAACP, saying this: "Usually I think a lifetime achievement award is given once in a lifetime, but this happened twice. And the first time he was given the award he was involved in litigation relative to blacks and Latinos at his apartment complex. The biggest problem for me is that the NAACP is 'pay-for-play,' no question about it."
Ingraham also accused the NAACP of blatantly chasing Sterling's silver, saying this: "This guy was well known to be insensitive on racial issues and this doesn't look good for the NAACP. It looks like money talks."
Then Ingraham talked about some major Republican donors who are reportedly urging former Florida Jeb Bush to follow in the presidential footsteps of his dad and brother. Mercedes Schlapp, former spokesperson for George W. Bush was on to discuss it.
Schlapp said this: "Chris Christie was the flavor of the month for some time, but now Jeb is saying he'll make a decision by the end of the year, which gives donors the opportunity to step back and see what's going to happen. They believe he is one of the stronger general election candidates, but the question is whether he can unify the Tea Partiers and the Republican establishment."
Ingraham theorized that Jeb Bush may be too moderate for many in the GOP, saying this: "The Republican establishment flopped on a whole bunch of issues, they failed economically in the second Bush term. My listeners are saying it's nothing personal, but they don't want Jeb Bush."
Then Ingraham had Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes on to examine the country's contentious cultural and religious landscape.
Starnes said this: "I have documented a number of instances where Christianity has come under attack, and I've had high ranking officers tell me that they've been told to hide their faith. Soldiers have even been given training seminars in which they're told that evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are examples of religious extremism. There is an all-out assault, under this president they have turned the military into a social engineering Petri dish."
Starnes added that Christianity is also under siege in many schools, saying this: "In our public school system we have seen young Christian students come under fierce attack. I grew up in the South and I feel like a Duck Dynasty guy living in a Miley Cyrus world."
Notice that no Democratic guest was on for balance, and that religion should be kept out of the military and schools, only right-wing loons want it there. Religion is for church, and in private worship, it should not be forced on people in the military or kids in school. But of course Ingraham never reports any of that information.
Obamacare Enrollment Hits 17.8 Million: GOP Talks Benghazi
By: Steve - May 3, 2014 - 10:00am
The stock market also hit a new record high, nothing from O'Reilly. A federal judge struck down the Wisconsin voter ID law, nothing from O'Reilly. And the Republicans blocked a vote on raising the minimum wage, even though when Democrats had control of the House they said everything should at least get an up or down vote, nothing from O'Reilly.
So what is O'Reilly doing, spending half the show every night reporting on the 2 year old Benghazi story that we already know about and nobody cares about, while ignoring all these current important news stories, as he complains that the rest of the media is biased by ignoring Benghazi. Which is total hypocrisy and bias, from O'Reilly.
Republicans are so crushed by the news that total Obamacare enrollment has reached 17.8 million that they are immediately trying to forget Obamacare, and are changing the subject to Benghazi. Including O'Reilly who is now wasting the first half hour of his show every night talking Benghazi.
More importantly, 2.2 million (28 percent) of those who selected a Marketplace plan were young adults ages 18 to 34 -- a number that grows to 2.7 million when counting ages 0 to 34, the report found. The report also shows, for the first time, the race and ethnicity of the 69 percent of enrollees in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces who voluntarily reported this information.
HHS also announced today that more than 4.8 million additional individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP through the end of March 2014, compared to enrollment before the Marketplace opened last October.
And it would be a lot more, but some Republican Governors are refusing to take federal money to give more people in their states medicaid. Which Obama and the Democrats called an outrage.
"More than eight million Americans signed up through the Marketplace, exceeding expectations and demonstrating brisk demand for quality, affordable coverage," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"In addition, over 4.8 million more people have been covered by states through Medicaid and CHIP programs, around 3 million more Americans under 26 are covered under their parents plans, and recent estimates show that an additional 5 million people have purchased coverage outside of the Marketplace in Affordable Care Act-compliant plans."
Together we are ensuring that health coverage is more accessible than ever before, which is important for families, for businesses and for the nation's health and wellbeing.
If we exempt the three million kids who stayed on their parents plan, because they didn't enroll, the total number of people who now have coverage thanks to the ACA is 17.8 million. The majority of ACA enrollees are white (62.3%) and female (54%). Thirty-four percent of those who enrolled are under age 35, and 28% are age 18-34.
Republicans have reacted to the fact that they were completely wrong about the ACA, by changing the subject to Benghazi.
All Speaker Boehner wants to talk about is Benghazi emails.
And it isn't just John Boehner and the Republican Party. From Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, nobody is talking about their crushing defeat on the ACA. The word is Benghazi. The news is so bad that Republicans aren't even trying to spin it. They have resorted to pretending that it doesn't exist.
A couple months ago O'Reilly said Obamacare was in chaos and a total failure, he reported on it every night, but now he will not even mention it. Showing that he is nothing but a dishonest right-wing hack, who when he is proven wrong he drops the story and reports on 2 year old fake Benghazi scandals.
Reality can't be allowed to touch the Republican masses. They must be distracted with another bogus scandal before they realize that the Republican Party has completely failed to destroy Obamacare.
O'Reilly and his friends in the Republican Party look like they are in the middle of a full blown nervous breakdown, as they are incapable of handling the success of the ACA.
So they ignore real news and bring back Benghazi, it's pathetic and just laughable. And O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent journalist who does not use Republican talking points, when that is exactly what he is doing.
The Thursday 5-1-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 2, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM and the first 2 segment were more Benghazi nonsense so I am not reporting it, but I will say this. O'Reilly did a biased and partisan TPM about the Benghazi memo, then he had 2 Republicans on to discuss it with 0 Democrats. Proving my point, it's a non-story with the country, except for the Republicans, O'Reilly, and Fox News.
This has been reported over and over a hundred times, the story is over, except with right-wing political hacks who want to use it to hurt Obama and Hillary Clinton. And I refuse to report it, because it is not news anymore, as one guy put it, it's a 2 year old story.
Then James Carville & Andrea Tantaros were on to talk about voter ID laws. While many conservatives want citizens to display photo IDs before voting, some on the left consider that an onerous restriction that harms the poor.
Carville said this: "Voter fraud is an infinitesimal problem. The Bush Justice Department made this a priority, but out of 197-million votes cast they were only able to secure 26 voter fraud convictions."
But of course the conservative Tantaros disagreed, saying this: "James and his buddies are nervous, so they have to gin up the base by creating an issue about voter suppression. We know voter fraud exists and liberals are defending fraud, they're defending a crime!"
And now the facts: Carville is exactly right and Tantaros is a flat out liar. The truth is the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote among the poor and minorities because they mostly vote Democrat, which is why the federal judge struck down the Republican passed voter ID law in Wisconsin. They can not win elections fairly, so they are trying to cheat by suppressing the vote, the judge even ruled it would suppress the vote among the poor.
Then Heather Nauert was on to talk about emails from angry viewers. One of them, Pennsylvanian James Dugan, is mad at former basketball star Charles Barkley, who called the NBA a "black league." "Barkley is correct that 76% of the players in the league are black," Nauert reported, "but what bothers people is that this is divisive. Barkley goes after Fox, he has a big mouth, and he defends the use of the 'n' word."
Another viewer, Rev. George Jachimczyk, quarreled with the suggestion that disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law was given a "cushy job" at the Vatican. "From the Vatican's point of view," Nauert said, "he did not get a 'cushy job,' it was a demotion. But to lay people like you and me, he is on one of the seven hills of Rome and it is a cushy job."
During the segment O'Reilly said he fears nobody and never avoids anyone. Which is a 100% lie, because he fears me. He will not have me on the show, he never mentions this website, and he refuses to debate me, so he is a liar.
Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the black Congressman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, who called Justice Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" who doesn't care about black people. With no Democratic guest on to discuss it and make it a balanced segment. And it's not a racial issue, because they are both black.
The biased and crazy Ingraham said this: "Some people have a worldview, that minorities have a lot of grievances and the system is rigged against them. So a conservative like Justice Thomas doesn't make sense to them. They don't know much about his jurisprudence, but they do know that the man himself represents a rejection of much of what they believe. They can't debate him because his life stands in contrast to many of the things that they espouse. What Thompson said was personal invective and he should be censured."
O'Reilly pointed out that Thompson's comments were generally ignored, saying, "Obviously what the man said is terrible, but it didn't receive nearly the attention that Donald Sterling got for his comments."
Because Sterling is a white man who made racist comments about blacks, there is no comparison. The Congressman is black and so is Justice Thomas, so there is no racism involved. In fact, he is right, so it was just one black man telling the truth about another black man. To even call it a race story is ridiculous.
And btw folks, the white Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said people in the White House are scumbags fro lying about Benghazi, and O'Reilly never said a word about that. But if a black Congressman calls the black Justice Thomas an Uncle Tom he reports that, which is total one sided bias.
Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she watched tape of Senator Harry Reid equating Donald Sterling's racism with the Washington Redskins' nickname.
MacCallum said this: "I find it bizarre that Harry Reid is using this much time and energy on this, when the latest GDP number shows one-tenth-of-one-percent of economic growth. But this is what Harry Reid has decided he wants to focus on. Some Native Americans in upstate New York are upset about the nickname, but other Native American groups have come out and said they don't have a problem with it. In fact, the Redskins were named for a coach who was Native American."
O'Reilly described the situation as totally absurd, saying this: "It's almost impossible to believe that the Senate majority leader is equating the Redskins name to what Sterling did."
And let's not forget that MacCallum and O'Reilly are both Republicans who hate Harry Reid, so they are not impartial, they have a bias.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Outbreak of Media Honesty. Billy said this: "When the entertainment network TMZ conducted a poll asking its viewers about Beyoncé's latest video, most of them agreed with Bill's contention that it is overly sexualized and sends the wrong message."
Except O'Reilly never reported a couple things, the TMZ poll is not a scientific poll, and all it proves is that 68% of the people who visit the TMZ website and vote in the poll agree with O'Reilly. It's not like a Gallup poll (that is scientific) and samples random Americans from all over the country by phone. It's basically a worthless poll, done by a tabloid news outlet on their personal website.
Senate Republicans Block Minimum Wage Bill
By: Steve - May 2, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly ignored it, just like he ignored the story about the federal judge striking down the Wisconsin voter ID law, and the story about the stock market setting a new record high, and on and on. While he complains the media is ignoring the Benghazi story, that's a year and a half old. As he ignores real news, which is just total hypocrisy.
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats could not advance their bill to raise the minimum wage on Wednesday, failing by a vote of 54-42 to clear the filibuster threshold.
The vote was an early hurdle for legislation that Democrats have put at the top of their economic agenda for the year. Even if the measure eventually garners the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate, it still faces long odds in the GOP-controlled House, where Republicans have shown no interest in bringing it to the floor.
Now remember this folks, over 60% of the American people support raising the minimum wage, O'Reilly even supports it. And yet, 42 Republicans in the Senate and all the Republicans in the House are blocking it from even getting a vote. This is going against the will of the vast majority, but O'Reilly never says a word about the Republicans blocking it.
Senate Republicans were expected to block the bill, which would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour and tie it to inflation so that it rises with the cost of living. Democrats are hoping the issue will play well for them in this midterm election year given the overwhelming support among the general public for hiking the minimum wage.
"They don't even want us to have a proper debate on the bill, let alone pass it," Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said ahead of the vote. "What is so radical about what we're trying to do?"
Discussion on the measure fell along familiar ideological lines on Wednesday. Democrats pointed out how the wage floor has eroded in recent years, leaving more low-income workers below the poverty line. Republicans argued that a wage hike would hurt the very workers it was meant to benefit.
The federal minimum wage was last raised in 2009, as part of a package of increases that had been signed into law by President George W. Bush. Absent action from Congress, cities and states around the country have opted to raise their own minimum wages well above the federal level.
The idea of hiking the minimum wage generally polls very well, with more than 60 percent of Americans tending to back it, including a large share of Republicans.
In addition to tying the wage floor to an inflation index, the Democrats bill would also raise the so-called tipped minimum wage for restaurant servers to 70 percent of the standard minimum wage. The tipped minimum wage is now $2.13 per hour before tips and hasn't been raised since 1991.
The Senate bill was introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the House bill by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).
Insane O'Reilly Asked Kareem If He Loves His Country
By: Steve - May 1, 2014 - 11:30am
If I was Kareem I would have said what a stupid question, of course I love my country, do you?
He was on to talk about the Clippers owner and racism in America, and O'Reilly turned that into do you love your country, what an ass.
Here is a partial transcript and the video:
O'REILLY: I want to ask you a personal question. Do you feel America has treated you fairly, you and your family?
ABDUL-JABBAR: For the most part -- there's pluses and minuses, being a black American, sometimes means that you have to deal with some things that you shouldn't. But I don't think there's any ethnic group in this country that hasn't had a similar experience. It's just that the whole issue of the slave trade made it different for people from Africa.
O'REILLY: Do you respect your country? Do you love your country?
ABDUL-JABBAR: Yeah. I feel patriotic. This is the greatest country in the world because we have the ability here to make it better. And we are constantly trying to do that. And I think that sets us apart and I think we have to continually remember that when we try to get things done.
The Wednesday 4-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 1, 2014 - 11:00am
The Factor review will be a little different today, because O'Reilly spent the first half of the show crying about how the media is not reporting the new Benghazi memo that came out, I will skip it all. It's not news and nobody cares. We know what happened and it's not a shock to anyone that the Obama people would spin it during a re-election campaign. All Presidents would do the same thing.
After Rove and the rest were on to talk Benghazi nonsense Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was on to talk about the NBA who has handed down a lifetime ban on Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
Abdul-Jabbar said this: "We don't want Mr. Sterling to be the face of the NBA. The NBA feels that intolerance has no place in what it's trying to do, and they came down hard on Mr. Sterling, who also discriminated against blacks and Hispanics trying to rent some of his properties."
Then for some crazy reason O'Reilly asked Abdul-Jabbar if he and his family have been treated fairly in America, and if he loves his country.
Abdul-Jabbar said this: "Being a black American sometimes means that you have to deal with things that you shouldn't, but I don't think there is any ethnic group in this country that hasn't had a similar experience. This is the greatest country in the world because we have the ability to make it better and we are constantly trying to do that."
I would have told O'Reilly that of course I love my country and called him a jerk for even asking such an idiotic question. I guess Kareem is just a nicer guy than I am.
Then James Rosen & Carl Cameron were on to talk more Benghazi, and I skipped it. Dennis Miller was also on to talk about it, and I skipped it.
Then Jesse Watters was on, he took the A Train up to Harlem, where he asked some residents about Donald Sterling and racism. Here are some of their responses: "It's a reflection of the general sense of what the country has been built on" ... "If I say I don't like a cracker, that's not racism" ... "The whole of America is racist" ... "A lot of people still think like that" ... "Farrakhan tells the truth."
Back in the studio, Watters summarized his visit saying this: "I was struck by how many people thought the NAACP is a joke. Almost everybody I talked to said they're not representative of us, they're after money, and they always talk down to people."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Making You Healthier. Billy said this: "As we age, the less wheat and sugar we consume, the better off we'll be."
Thank you Mr. obvious, now tell us something we do not already know, moron.
Ryan Won't Let Poor Testify At Hearing About Poverty
By: Steve - May 1, 2014 - 10:00am
On Wednesday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) will hold a hearing on poverty called "A Progress Report on the War on Poverty: Lessons from the Frontlines." While it will feature three experts, none of them are actual poor Americans who struggle to get by.
But that's not for lack of trying from some poor people themselves. Witnesses to Hunger, an advocacy project that shares the stories of low-income Americans, has tried and failed twice to have some of their members who live in poverty speak at Ryan's poverty hearings.
"When Ryan had his first hearing last July," Director Mariana Chilton told ThinkProgress, "we wrote to his office to see if we could testify, but they weren't interested."
While Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) tried to get one of their low-income members to speak, it was too late. They were asked to submit written testimony instead.
Chilton's organization stayed in touch with his office and immediately called his press team when they saw the announcement for Wednesday's hearing. "They said, 'It's too late, we've already chosen our people.'"
There was one slot left to be filled by Democrats, but that went to Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund. "I think Marian Wright Edelman is a great choice," Chilton said. But "they had a stronger interest in having a more well-known person to testify."
That means that once again, the hearing will not feature anyone who really is on the frontlines of poverty. "None of the people who are testifying today are currently living in poverty and it's unclear if they really know what's going on from the perspective of people living in it," she said.
And the written testimonies they submitted will probably do little to impact the conversation. "They're submitted and they disappear," Chilton said. "Asking for formal written testimony is a way to let Paul Ryan's office off the hook," she said.
It's also worth remembering that one of the three people who will testify has some controversial opinions about anti-poverty programs. Bishop Shirley Holloway, founder of the House of Help City of Hope, said, "You don't dream when you've got food stamps."
Ryan's office did not reply to a request for comment.
Those who wanted to testify aren't happy about being excluded. "I think that's just another poor excuse," Gaines-Turner, married mother of three struggling to make ends meet, said. "You say you want to speak to someone who's experienced frontline poverty, but you have no one there who's actually experienced poverty first hand."
She said that she's grateful for the opportunity to submit written testimony, but she said, "On the panel you have experts on hunger and poverty, but I'm the true expert. I'm the one who lives these daily struggles every day, who runs out of money at the end of the month every month, has faced homelessness, hunger, poverty."
Izquierdo, who was the first mother to join Witnesses to Hunger, regretted she wouldn't be at the hearing. "Speaking is one of the most important things you can do," she said. "You can write something, but there's something different when you're telling your story and they're seeing your face and attaching your emotions to the written word."
For Chilton, these experiences are why it's important to have low-income people testify. "They can talk about the shortcomings of federal programs," while experts "cannot get it across as well as people who are low-income and actually living it," she said. Poor Americans "have a vested interest."
This Tea Party Spending Graphic Will Shock You
By: Steve - May 1, 2014 - 9:00am
Remember when the Tea Party claimed they were all about ending wasteful spending?