Democrats & Independents Stop Republicans From Passing Unfair Tax Cut Bill
By: Steve - November 30, 2014 - 11:00am

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. The first thing Republicans tried to do was pass a massive corporate tax cut, at a time when corporations are already making record profits, setting on trillions in cash, and getting off paying a lot of American taxes by moving their headquarters overseas.

Lucky for the people we still have a Democratic President and Independents who could stop it. This is what you get when you give Republicans power, one sided tax cuts to their corporate masters, and nothing for the working men and women, who are currently not getting any wage increases.

Last week a group of congressional liberals that include Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) teamed up with President Obama to kill tax cut deal that would have given hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthy and corporations.

The president, with liberal Democratic backing on the Hill, issued a veto threat and the Republican plan imploded.

"We should go back to the drawing board," said Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. Those concerns were echoed in public by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who sits on the tax-writing Finance Committee and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

A few hours after White House aides spoke with Senate Finance, Obama himself called Wyden to tell him he'd made a decision: He'd veto the deal.

Sen. Bernie Sanders called the plan to give corporations more tax breaks crazy, saying this:

"This tax cut agreement does exactly the wrong things. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, it extends huge tax cuts to the rich and large corporations while threatening programs that help low-income children. This agreement fails to eliminate tax benefits for the fossil fuel industry but phases out tax credits for wind and solar. This is pretty crazy stuff. I strongly support the president's decision to veto it."

With the red state Democrats out of the Senate, liberals are going to gain power and influence. The entire Senate Democratic caucus doesn't need to be unified to uphold a presidential veto. It's now clear that President Obama is working with the congressional liberals to fence in what the Republican congressional majority will be able to accomplish.

Obama won't have much trouble gathering up votes to sustain a veto as long as Republicans try to pass through wildly unpopular legislation. A smaller Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate does give the president more flexibility when it comes to working with his fellow Democrats.

The liberal caucus is already flexing their muscles. The blocking of the Keystone XL pipeline, and the killing of tax cuts for corporations were only the beginning.

The Republican fantasy of a congress that could challenge Obama has gone up in smoke. If the White House continues to work with congressional liberals, Boehner and McConnell will be pinched in and complaining about their inability to get anything done in a matter of weeks.

The shoe is on the other foot now as Mitch McConnell is about to get a taste of his own medicine.

O'Reilly Should Say He Is Sorry For His Ebola Fearmongering
By: Steve - November 29, 2014 - 10:00am

But he never will, because when he is wrong about something he just moves on and hopes everyone forgets about it, well I did not forget.

Addressing the international Ebola outbreak, United Nations Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon on Nov. 21 stated that if the international community can "accelerate our response, we can contain and end the outbreak by the middle of next year."

One of the keys to doing just that, remarked the official, was to place more "international responders" in remote areas of the key West African countries -- primarily Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, but also Mali -- where the virus has spread.

Another priority: "We need to avoid travel bans, discrimination against health workers and other steps that would isolate countries when they need help most."

Did you hear that, Bill O'Reilly? About a month ago, O'Reilly used his biased and dishonest show on Fox News to crusade for an impractical, hysterical and destructive ban on travelers coming from West Africa into the United States. He made these calls amid a state of panic that he himself generated, along with his peers in cable television.

As this Ebola timeline demonstrates, the push for a travel ban on "The O'Reilly Factor" stemmed from a storm of Ebola news in October, when the infected included a freelance NBC cameraman (Ashoka Mukpo), two nurses who'd cared for Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan (Nina Pham and Amber Vinson) and a doctor who'd provided assistance in West Africa (Craig Spencer).

Speculation on how they had conducted themselves and who they may have infected filled hours of air time on cable news shows. But of all the hosts, O'Reilly was almost alone in his dislike and defiance of medical opinion. Even though he is not a doctor, not an Ebola expert, and clearly not a medical expert.

On Oct. 17, O'Dummy said this:
Enter the Ebola controversy. It's now been established that three black nations in Africa -- Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia -- are Ground Zero for the spread of the deadly disease. Fourteen other African nations have now banned West Africans in the Ebola zone from entering their countries, and 14 other nations have other travel restrictions.

But when The O'Reilly Factor and others suggest the U.S.A. do the same thing, we're attacked as racist by pathetic ideological loons who could not care less about protecting the folks. This is a public health issue, a safety issue. Not a racial issue. Ebola knows no color. But the fact is that a Liberian national, Thomas Duncan, started the Ebola mess in America by lying to immigration authorities. Mr. Duncan paid for that with his life, and his case has embarrassed American health officials.
On Oct. 20, O'Dummy said this:
A travel ban to America is certainly appropriate at least until American health officials get organized to contain any Ebola intrusion. But the president continues to say no. That's just one of many examples of ideology trumping practical solutions to vexing problems. Summing up, we are living in a very dangerous, complicated world and we need problem-solvers, not ideologues, in office.
On Oct. 24, O'Dummy said this:
The Obama administration simply cannot handle the Ebola situation. The airport screenings are a joke. The lack of a West African visa ban is negligence. That's the truth. But the liberal media, the Obama enablers, will not tell you the truth. Instead we have a New York Times editorial today saying, quote "Starting Monday in six states, and rolled out in other states soon after, travelers who visited the Ebola region will be required to report their temperature and any other symptoms to state or local health officials daily for 21 days -- the maximum incubation period for the disease to develop. The officials will be responsible for finding and possibly detaining anyone violating these rules."

Are you kidding me? The officials will be responsible for finding these people if they don't call in? They shouldn't be out of isolation. If you have direct contact with anyone in an Ebola region and you come back to the U.S.A., you should be in quarantine for 21 days, period.
So guess what, it turns out that O'Reilly had it all wrong. Obama did handle it and he was not telling the truth. The United States is now Ebola-free and, just as medical experts have said throughout, the pivotal consideration in keeping it that way is providing aid to the countries where the virus resides.

Just how important is free travel to the aid effort? Daniel Epstein, a Washington-based spokesman for the World Health Organization said that the organization had ferried 600 people in and out of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the virus broke out in March (some of those folks have made more than one trip).

When asked how the WHO reacted to O'Reilly's calls for a travel ban, Epstein said, "We never tried to get on his show or tried to rebut his statements but we did issue statements about our position about international travel and Ebola."

Such statements and other appeals to simple logic didn't work with O'Reilly, who showed his viewers an ugly dark-ages isolationism. Which would have been fine, if only he had been right. O'Reilly said in an August 2013 program: "When you make a mistake, admit it."

So he was wrong, but he never admitted it. I personally wrote in this blog that O'Reilly was wrong and doing nothing but partisan right-wing fearmongering, and I was 100% right. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack who does not care about the truth, all he cares about is spewing out his right-wing propaganda that he calls the truth, while slamming other people for being partisan, when he was the partisan that was wrong.

They Said People Would Die If Stop And Frisk Was Changed
By: Steve - November 28, 2014 - 10:00am

"More black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die," said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.

"The body count will start rising," wrote The New York Daily News editorial board. "Wait till you start hearing about mushrooms and learn that the word refers to children who have been struck by stray bullets."

Such would be the nightmare situation in New York City, many in the media so ominously warned, if the city dared to reform the police department's practice of aggressively stopping, questioning, and frisking hundreds of thousands New Yorkers, mostly black and Latino. People would die. New York would slip back into the scary, bad old days.

And as usual, They were wrong. This week -- as reported in the Daily News -- the city's crime rate hit a 20-year low.

And last week, NYPD Commissioner William Bratton said that there were 20 fewer murders so far this year than in the same period last year. In 2013, the city's homicide rate fell to a historic low.

It has all happened while the number of police stops in New York has also dropped dramatically.

Bill de Blasio was elected mayor in a landslide election last year, even after conservative media outlets raised alarm over his promise -- as well as the promises of other candidates -- to rein in the NYPD's use of stop and frisk.

The tactic involves stopping and questioning people on the street, and in some instances, searching them. In 2011, 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino, and about the same percentage were innocent of any crime, according to data from the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The city is on pace to have about 50,000 police stops this year, a 75 percent drop from the number of stops last year and a still more precipitous decline from the nearly 700,000 police stops in 2011.

"Under the liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio, it was supposed to go back to Sodom and Gomorrah -- a return to the days of mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins," Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at media watchdog group Media Matters, told The Huffington Post of the media predictions.

So Media Matters took a look back this week at the hysteria surrounding the debate over stop and frisk in New York City. "If you look at the numbers, none of that true, in fact the opposite is true," he said.

Many employed the argument that de Blasio and his liberal counterparts wanted to end stop and frisk altogether. One Fox News host, for example, said this: "If a suspect someone is up to criminal activity, and is armed and dangerous, you bet I want them to go ahead and pat them down! It's not that intrusive!"

However, neither de Blasio nor critics of the program were calling for an end to cops stopping suspects. Instead, they wanted to end what they said were the thousands of unconstitutional stops of people who weren't suspects, most of whom were black or Latino.

Last year, a federal judge ruled that the NYPD's use of stop and frisk was unconstitutional because cops were stopping people without reasonable suspicion. She said the practice amounted to a "policy of indirect racial profiling."

"Stats aside, it's a fact that if you take stop and frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die," said Bill O'Reilly. It was the same argument made by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his NYPD commissioner, Ray Kelly.

However, there has not been a proven correlation between curbing police stops and a higher murder rate. Over the last two years, for example, the number of police stops in New York City has dropped off significantly, while homicide rates have fallen.

While the number of stops decreased from 2012 to 2011, the percentage of minorities murdered also dropped. Additionally, cities across the country without aggressive stop-and-frisk programs have also experienced big drops in their murder rates over the last 20 years.

Boehlert said that some conservative media outlets "don't care about trends and statistics." Concern over stop and frisk "plays into stereotypes that their viewers like,” he said.

Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, The New York Post, and The New York Daily News did not respond to requests for comment. Andrea Peyser, the New York Post columnist, said she had "no comment."

"When the fear-mongers try to drive public policy to rationalize the disregard and violation of fundamental rights, no one wins," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told HuffPost.

"The good news is that their dire predictions have not only proven to be irresponsible, but wrong, and the decline in stop-and-frisk policy that routinely subjected people of color to constitutional violations has been accompanied, as predicted, with a decline in crime rates to historic lows."

Priscilla Gonzalez of Communities United for Police Reform (CPR), an advocacy group that spearheaded the stop-and-frisk reform campaign, told HuffPost in a statement, "We knew all along that fear-mongering to justify stop-and-frisk abuses and other discriminatory policing was a tactic that would backfire, and it clearly did."

"Increased public safety and constitutional policing go together," she added. "When police officers and local residents communicate more effectively, and all New Yorkers are treated with dignity and respect, our city is safer and better off."

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about this on his show, because he was wrong. He was simply spewing out right-wing talking points on the issue, talking points that were lies, and the very same GOP talking points he claims to never use.

Nancy Grace Goes Off on Darren Wilson: 'It Doesn't Add Up!'
By: Steve - November 27, 2014 - 10:00am

And Nancy Grace always supports cops, so you can not say she is some far-left cop hater, she is a die-hard conservative who never slams a cop for anything, until now. And she is a former prosecutor, so she knows how these grand jury deals work, the prosecutor basically rigs them to get whatever decision he wants.

What's worse is O'Reilly never tells you any of this, he acts like it's all on the up and up, when he knows the prosecutor only presents what he wants to the grand jury and he can get an indictment if he wants to, but they never seem to want to when cops are involved. I have said this before but just look at the Rodney King beating, no cops were prosecuted, even though we saw 10 cops beating an unarmed black man with billy clubs, who was on the ground, and it was on video.

Nancy Grace joined CNN's Brooke Baldwin to discuss the Ferguson grand jury decision Wednesday afternoon and she had a lot to say about Officer Darren Wilson's version of the story, which has finally come out through his testimony and interviews.

According to her, the whole thing "doesn't add up."

"When people say, it does not add up, I will tell you what doesn't add up, these photos," Grace said, holding up copies pictures of Wilson's face after the shooting. "I've looked at a them, I've studied them, and I was expecting to see his face mangled."

She added, "He doesn't even have a bruise. right? It's red. He's got a red mark!"

"Look, do you know how many times I have sided against a cop?" Grace asked. "Never. But to me, this is bigger than a badge. And I don't like speaking out against a cop, but this doesn't add up."

And notice something else, O'Reilly does not have Nancy Grace on his show to discuss it, he only has right-wing stooges who agree with him on, because he does not want people to see what she is saying, as a conservative.

Later, when Baldwin asked Grace if the grand jurors should have questioned Wilson's story more, she said it was the prosecutor who failed, not the jurors.

"The grand jurors are like sheep, they're babes in the woods. The prosecutor's duty is to seek the truth," she said. "I am telling you that the prosecutors, if they want an indictment, they will get an indictment."

Finally, Grace questioned Wilson's claim that all he wanted to do in the moment of the shooting was "live."

She said, "If you wanted to live, then put the pedal to the metal and drive when the guy is trying to jump in your car and grab your gun!"

And here is something else O'Reilly never reports, Wilson was from a police department that was disbanded by the authorities, because they were all racist and corrupt. They fired them all, and hired all new cops.

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

And yet, O'Reilly has never once reported these facts, never, not one time.

Experts Blast Ferguson Prosecutor's Press Conference & Legal Strategy
By: Steve - November 27, 2014 - 9:00am

Hours after revealing the grand jury had reached a decision and months after police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced late Monday night that Wilson would not be indicted. As communities around the country and across the world reacted to the decision, legal experts said how unusual -- and in some cases troubling -- the process was that brought about this outcome.

Both supporters of McColloch and those demanding his ouster stressed the uniqueness of the case and the national media attention it garnered. But law professors and legal experts questioned whether the presentation of the non-indictment and legal procedures were followed appropriately, adequately or fairly.

A long, late night announcement

McCulloch has been widely criticized for burying the long-awaited announcement in a lengthy press conference, revealing the outcome only after he criticized the role the media and social media played in the public perception of the case. "The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and the sensational appetite for something to talk about, following closely behind with the rumors on social media," he said.

Ben Trachtenberg, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, said the entire announcement "read like a closing argument for the defense," while Susan McGraugh, an associate professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, said she was furious when she watched it.

"Bob McCulloch took a very defensive posture," McGraugh said. "It was a poor choice to be so confrontational in presenting a grand jury verdict that he had to know would upset a large number of people. He should have left out the editorializing."

Marjorie Cohn, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said the way McCulloch presented the facts to the public was unlike anything she had ever seen. "In 98 percent of cases, the prosecutor would just announce the grand jury decision and that's it," she said. "He would not characterize the evidence defensively, or attack the media."

A desired outcome

The astonishing rarity of a grand jury declining to indict a suspect has led many to believe that McCulloch did not make a sincere effort to prove probable cause.

"The prosecutor did not want an indictment, and he passed the buck to the grand jury to make that decision," said Cohn, who is also a former president of the National Lawyers' Guild. "It was clear the prosecutor was partisan in this case, and not partisan in the way prosecutors usually are, which is to get people indicted."

Which is a very good point, normally a prosecutor has a partisan bias to get an indictment, but in this case his bias was the other way, to avoid an indictment, that is the opposite of what they usually do.

McGraugh agreed and said that McCullouch's presentation of the evidence was in stark opposition to his assigned role. "His duty is not to be a defense attorney. His duty is to prosecute people who break Missouri law," she said. She then wondered whether the grand jury "consciously or unconsciously got a message about what he wanted."

Trachtenberg agreed that McCulloch had no choice but to treat the case differently than most prosecutors.

"Traditionally the saying is if a prosecutor doesn't get an indictment, it's because he doesn't want to get an indictment," he said.

Grand jury as a trial jury

One common critique of McCulloch's prosecution of Wilson was his use of the grand jury process. Typically, grand juries exist to determine if there is probable cause to charge a suspect with a crime, a fairly low legal threshold that allows for some uncertainty. But McCulloch, attorneys said, treated the grand jury proceedings as a criminal jury trial by presenting them with all available evidence both for and against charging Wilson.

But the presentation of all of the evidence to the grand jury struck legal experts as inappropriate.

"McCulloch put the grand jury in the role of being a trier of fact, which is not its role," Cohn said. "The grand jury was put in the position of basically being a jury, but in a one-sided, closed proceeding. The only people inside the grand jury room are the grand jury and prosecutors."

In contrast, she said, "In a trial, there are lawyers on both sides, witnesses, and the evidence is presented in an adversarial way."

Making the grand jury weigh evidence and question witnesses also shrouded that process in secrecy, a factor that led to the "rampant speculation" McCulloch criticized in Monday's night press conference, McGraugh said.

"People could do nothing but speculate because he was using a secret grand jury proceeding," she said. "He didn't acknowledge that people had to speculate as a result of his own actions."

She added that even within the realm of grand jury proceedings, the case spoke to a lack of "equal treatment under law."

"The law was not applied to Officer Wilson the same way it would be applied to someone who wasn't a police officer," said McGraugh, who previously worked as a trial attorney and spent eight years at the Missouri State Public Defender's Office.

"If my client killed someone tomorrow and claimed it was in self-defense, he would be arrested and required to post bond while awaiting a grand jury decision. Then, the prosecutor would not be allowed to bring both sides of the story into the building."

Ferguson Aftermath: McCulloch Got What He Wanted, "A Rigged Game"
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 11:50am

YOU CAN say one thing about President Obama's remarks after the Ferguson grand jury decision was announced. It matched the sheer mind-numbing words of St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch earlier in the evening. Neither man conjuring up any heart or emotion in a moment you would think would make a public leader rise to at least acknowledge the absolute farce we watched unfold that evening.

Obama got lost in his head, while McCulloch lost his soul trying to salvage his credibility by blaming everyone else and letting Darren Wilson walk free.

The only honest words with real emotion that fitted the fiasco in Ferguson were on Twitter, contrary to St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch's sniveling whines.

So, like him or not, Mark Geragos did what he always does. Delivers exactly what you don't want to hear, but when you do makes you want to scream because it's very likely true. On CNN he said this:
"This is a parody of the criminal justice system. This is a prosecutor who punted this case to the grand jury. I'll bet you his two assistants did not ask for an indictment. He showed exactly what his predisposition was. This was a foregone conclusion. This was a rigged game. This was exactly the result he wanted. That's how he did it."
Of course a St. Louis, Missouri grand jury will not indict a policeman. That doesn't mean, especially given the statement by Bob McCulloch, there shouldn't have been a trial.

It's a reality TV world chronicled on social media in the aftermath of another shooting. This time because a prosecutor didn't want to indict or proceed to trial and didn't care to provide witness to the world on why a black teen lay dead, while the cop who killed him barely had a scratch on him.

A trial may have acquitted Darren Wilson, but at least we would have understood why.

Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes & Holes In Investigation
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 11:30am

Soon after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, law enforcement's handling of the case was already being criticized as callous and sloppy. Residents of Ferguson, Missouri, looked on in horror as police officials failed to cover and later to remove Brown's body from the street for hours.

Now that the grand jury evidence, including forensic records and testimony from Wilson and those investigating the fatal shooting, has been released, it's clear that other mistakes were made in attempting to figure out what happened on that August afternoon. The best physical evidence and testimony might not have been as ironclad in Wilson's favor as prosecutor Robert McCulloch characterized it on Monday night.

From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony).

1) In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson's testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. "I think it was his blood," Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

2) The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, did not take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he had not been equipped with a recorder and had not tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn't write up any notes soon after the fact. "I didn't take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me," the officer stated.

The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson's first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.

3) An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared "self-explanatory."

"Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there," the examiner told the jury.

The examiner also noted that he or she hadn't been able to take pictures at the scene -- as is standard -- because the camera's batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown's body.

The batteries were dead? Yeah right, I have a hard time buying that one, and the grand jury just ignored it.

4) Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. "I was not in control of the gun," Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson's testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown's fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson "never lost control of his gun."

5) A detective with the St. Louis County Police Department, who conducted the first official interview of Wilson, testified to the grand jury that Wilson had packaged his own service weapon into an evidence envelope following his arrival at the police station in the wake of the shooting. The detective said the practice was not normal for his department, though he was unclear on the protocol of the Ferguson Police Department. He said he didn't explore that aspect further at the time.

According to the detective's testimony, standard practice for the St. Louis County Police Department would be for an officer involved in a shooting to keep his or her weapon holstered until it can be turned over to a supervisor and a crime scene unit detective. While that clearly didn't take place in Wilson's case, the detective also testified that he believed the firearm was handled in a way that preserved the chain of custody.

6) The same St. Louis County Police Department detective also testified that while he had intended to conduct his initial interview with Wilson at the Ferguson police station, a lieutenant colonel with the Ferguson Police Department decided that Wilson first needed to go to the hospital for medical treatment. The detective said that while it is common practice to defer to any medical decision of this nature, Wilson appeared to be in good health and didn't have any notable injuries that would have prevented an interview from being conducted at the station. Wilson would also testify that he didn't believe he needed to go to the hospital.

But that day, Wilson got into a vehicle with the lieutenant colonel and another Ferguson police official and went to the hospital, while the St. Louis County detective traveled in another vehicle.

And yet, O'Reilly and Fox went wild with un-proven rumors that Wilson had a broken eye socket, which turned out to not be true, and O'Reilly never once admitted he was wrong or said he was sorry for the bad and biased reporting. O'Reilly even mentioned at the time the story can not be proven, and yet he reported it anyway, even after telling us for 15 years that he only reports the facts and never speculates.

7) In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown's death, Wilson did not claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn't know what the item was, referring to it only as "something." In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown's hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.

So basically, the grand jury discounted all of what the actual witnesses said, ignored the video and sound recordings, and all the other evidence, what little the police recovered, and believed everything the police and the prosecutor said. This case should have gone to trial and we should have had it on tv so everyone could see the evidence, then there would not have been any riots.

More On Officer Wilson Shooting The Unarmed Teen
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 11:00am

Someone asked me if I was a cop and a big unarmed teen was attacking me or coming at me what I would do. And here is my answer, not shoot and kill him.

I would do what I was trained to do, either stay in my car and call for back up, or restrain him with non-lethal force, like a billy club or a stun gun, taser, etc. That is what they are trained to do, but some cops are trigger happy, most cops are good and do not shoot and kill unarmed teens.

But some cops are bad, some are racist, and some should not be cops. I am clearly not saying all cops are bad, because most of them are good and do a great job. But ask yourself this, and btw, I am a 54 year old white man who has had some contact with the police when I was in my teens, and not once did I get shot.

Now look at how many white cops shoot unarmed blacks, it's a lot. And you almost never hear of white cops shooting unarmed white teens. With the training the police get today, there is no reason to shoot and kill anyone who is unarmed, black or white.

So if I were a policeman I would only use deadly force if someone had a knife or a gun and I thought my life was in danger. If you see a big guy and you do not think you can handle him, call for back up.

I sure can not prove it but it is likely that Officer wilson was trigger happy and looking to shoot someone, instead of using his training to restrain Brown, he did not have to shoot and kill him. I support the police and I think they mostly do a great job, but there are bad apples in every walk of life, and I think Wilson was a bad apple.

Fox News Sunday Ignored Congressional Report Debunking Benghazi Myths
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 10:00am

Fox News Sunday ignored a new report from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee that debunked many of the myths that Fox News has spent the last two years promoting.

On November 21st, the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released its report on the September 2012 attacks on two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

Similar to the many preceding investigations into the attacks -- including the Accountability Review Board and the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- the report found that no stand down order was issued during the attacks, there was no intelligence failure leading up to the attack, and that the talking points the administration used in the days following the attacks were based on the CIA's best assessment at the time.

The November 23rd edition of Fox News Sunday did not inform viewers of the report's findings. This stands in stark contrast to Fox's longstanding campaign to promote right-wing myths about the attacks.

Fox has been a tireless promoter of nearly every facet of the Benghazi story. In the 20 months following the attacks, Fox ran over 1,100 segments on Benghazi and hosted Republicans at a rate of 30:1 over Democrats to discuss the issue.

Meanwhile, the network has routinely ignored and downplayed evidence refuting its ridiculous conspiracy theories.

CNN media critic Brian Stelter noted that other Fox programs only provided cursory coverage of the report on the night of its release and that Fox never mentioned it the following day. According to Stelter:
STELTER: Boy, has Fox News spent a lot of time over the past two years focused on the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and I mean a lot of time.

But when a new Benghazi report came out on Friday, there was hardly a peep, and maybe that's because the report, which was Republican led, it was by the House Intelligence committee, debunks many of the myths that have run rampant on Fox News and in conservative media circles.

So I have to wonder: will Fox will stop aggressively pushing its theories about Benghazi? Probably not. With its audience largely in the dark about the latest findings, the myths may, and perhaps will, live on.
On the November 23 edition of Fox News own MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz noted that it only received "brief" coverage on Fox and that the results of the two-year long investigation "deserved more coverage."

And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly also pretty much ignored it, except to say the report was wrong, and then went on to say he was giving you the real truth. When this was a 2 year investigation by the Republicans, and they found nothing O'Reilly and the right were crying about was true.

So they just ignore it and claim they are still right, which is called insanity.

Schultz: Wilson Shouldn't Be A Cop If He's Afraid Of Unarmed Teen
By: Steve - November 25, 2014 - 11:00am

On his show Tuesday afternoon, MSNBC host Ed Schultz said Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson should not be in law enforcement if he is afraid of an unarmed teenager.

Daryl Parks, an attorney for Michael Brown's family, said he does not believe Wilson's testimony that he was scared of Brown.

"Officer Darren Wilson is 6'4", and Michael Brown is 6'4", so there's a little bit of a weight difference, it's not like the officer's a short man or stature, he's a tall man, so I don't really buy into this whole thing that he was scared," Parks said.

"If that's the case, I'm bigger than Michael Brown - should that be that every officer smaller than me should feel threatened and use deadly force if I don't come to warn him? No it doesn't mean that."

Schultz agreed, and said, referring to Wilson, that someone should not be in law enforcement if he or she is afraid of someone who is unarmed.

"I think the training of law enforcement is far more sophisticated than to resort to, 'I'm gonna fire on this guy multiple times,'" Schultz said. "I don't buy that, personally."

Not to mention Wilson had a gun and training in how to restrain people, he did not have to shoot and kill the kid. And the witness who was there also disagrees with Wilsons account of what happened, which means most likely Wilson lied to the grand jury and was coached by his attorney what to say. And the grand juries can be rigged by the prosecutor, which happens in most cases, because cops are almost never indicted.

Look at the Rodney King case, we had video of 10 cops beating an unarmed man who was laying on the ground and the grand jury did not indict any of the cops, so it was not shocking to find out Wilson was not indicted. And of course O'Reilly never reports any of that, as he claims he was right and the protesters are all wrong. When it was basically a he said he said, with the grand jury believing the cop, as they usually do.

No matter what, the fact is a cop shot and killed an unarmed teen, and the cop was not punished at all, he even got a paid vacation out of it.

Kelly Admits The Right Is Lying Over Obama Immigration Order
By: Steve - November 25, 2014 - 10:00am

And not only does her admission prove Fox and the Republicans are lying, it shows she lied about it too, because she was caught saying the same thing, then later admitting it was not true, but of course she never talked about her saying the lies too.

Kelly Called Executive Action "Amnesty" In July, But Now Admits It's A Loaded Term Exploited By Conservatives

Fox News host Megyn Kelly undermined months of claims from her own network peers when she admitted to guest Jennice Fuentes that President Obama's upcoming executive action does not constitute "amnesty."

Kelly, who has herself used the "amnesty" label to discuss the president's coming order, acknowledged that the term is a dog whistle conservative media have exploited to stoke opposition to immigration reform.

Obama announced a new set of executive actions that will allow as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to apply for protection from deportation based on the time they have been in the U.S. and their family ties.

Which is not amnesty.

On the November 19th edition of The Kelly File, Kelly admitted that the president is not actually pursuing "amnesty," because "amnesty is citizenship and that's not what Obama is doing."

Kelly also explained how conservatives purposely misuse the word "amnesty" for political gain: "That's a hot-button term that the right uses to get people upset."

So she admits it is nothing but right-wing propaganda, while doing it herself, and not admitting she herself did it.

Kelly has invoked amnesty to warn against the action, as recently as July. According to Nexis transcripts of the July 30th edition of The Kelly File, Kelly said that Obama may be preparing to "drop a bomb like amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants."

For months, Fox has labeled the president's plan amnesty. On November 13th, Fox host Bill O'Reilly said Obama's executive action "is essentially an amnesty for millions of people."

Earlier in the month, Fox host Sean Hannity said that "immigration law does not allow for the amnesty that the president wants to grant."

In early August, Fox co-host Jedediah Bila called Obama's plan "executive amnesty to millions of people."

Fox News Only Spent 30 Seconds On The New Benghazi Report
By: Steve - November 24, 2014 - 10:00am

Fox News had hundreds of segments and maybe a thousand hours of reporting on Benghazi, with all kinds of wild right-wing propaganda being put out. But when the Republican led House committee comes out with it's report that debunks all the lies from Fox, they ignored it, and spent less than 30 seconds reporting on it.

Last Friday, the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on the 2012 Benghazi, Libya attack against the U.S. consulate there that left four Americans dead.

As the Associated Press reported, the committee found that there was, "no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."

It debunked the most persistent myths put forward by Congressional Republicans, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Fox News.

So, how did Fox cover these findings? Chief White House correspondent Ed Henry, sitting in for Bret Baier on Special Report Friday evening, spent less than 30 seconds discussing the report and the aspects he chose to highlight speak volumes.

"The House Intelligence Committee says the initial assessment of the Benghazi terror attacks two years ago, that they were in fact terrorist in nature, was accurate," Henry reported. "It says CIA and Obama administration officials later supported the incorrect scenario that the attacks were motivated by an internet video and stuck with that for several days."

He then pivoted to a new United Nations report that says the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda, adding, "that contradicts the strenuous denials from the Obama administration."

And that was it.

Now think about this, Fox left out the fact that it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees like Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes or others, that made the wrong call about the origin of the attack in those first few days.

Fox also left out the fact that there was no "stand down" order given to a CIA response team once the attack was under way.

And what about the theory that the CIA was collecting and shipping arms from Libya to Syria? Not true, according to the report.

But if you are a regular Fox News viewer who has spent the last year hearing these claims over and over again by on-air personalities, including Bill O'Reilly, you would have absolutely no idea from Henry's report that any of them had been determined to be false -- by a Republican-led committee.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who serves on the intelligence panel even said this in a statement, "It's my hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again."

Unless Fox decides to dedicate a fraction of the time they spent hyping up the Benghazi conspiracies to debunking them, there's very little chance of that happening any time soon.

And of course O'Reilly says nothing, even though he complains that the rest of the media ignores news that is negative for Obama. When Fox News ignores news that is positive for Obama, O'Reilly never says a word, because he also ignored it too.

All that taxpayer money spent on hearings, all that time wasted, all those hours and hours of reporting by O'Reilly and the rest of Fox, and it all turned out to be lies, the report found nothing. This was a Republican House that put the report together, and they still found nothing.

O'Reilly and Fox spent hours and hours lying to you and speculating on it, and when we find out they were wrong they do not report it, they do not say they are sorry, or they were wrong. They just ignore the facts and hope nobody remember how wrong they were. Which is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are nothing but dishonest partisan right-wing hacks.

Obama Hammers Boehner For Not Passing Immigration Bill
By: Steve - November 23, 2014 - 11:00am

In Las Vegas, President Obama cut through the angry rhetoric and BS on immigration and explained to the American people that it was John Boehner who forced Obama to act alone by refusing to allow a vote on the Senate passed immigration bill.

The president said this:
OBAMA: It has now been 512 days. A year in a half in which the only standing in the way of that bipartisan bill and my desk so that I can sign that bill. The only thing standing in the way is a simple yes or no vote in the House of Representatives. Just a yes or no vote.

If they had allowed a vote on that kind of bill, it would have passed. I would have signed it. It would be the law right now. These leaders right here tried to make it happen. Nancy Pelosi kept on saying to John Boehner let's just call the bill, see where it goes.

There are Republicans who worked hard on this bill too, and they deserve credit. Because even though it wasn't necessarily popular in their party, they knew it was the right thing to do. But despite that, the party leadership in the House of Representatives would not let it come forward, and I cajoled and I called and I met.

I told John Boehner I'll wash your car. I'll walk your dog. Whatever you need to do just call the bill. That's how democracy's supposed to work. And if the votes hadn't been there, we would have had to start over, and he didn't do it. But at least give it a shot, and he didn't do it.

And the fact that a year and half has gone by means that time has been wasted. And during that time, families have been separated. And during that time, businesses have been harmed. And we can't afford it anymore.
The president was correct. Boehner has an easy way out of the mess that he created by refusing to allow a vote on the Senate passed immigration bill. The point that the president raised is never discussed by Republicans who are calling the president a lawless emperor. Boehner refuses to acknowledge his own role in Obama's decision to use executive action.

If Boehner allowed a vote on the Senate passed immigration bill, none of this would be happening today. During his speech, the president reminded congressional Republicans that no one is stopping them from passing a bill. Obama mocked Republicans who claim that his actions are preventing them from passing a bill.

President Obama was pressing his advantage on this issue. Obama has turned into a one man wrecking crew. Republicans are trapped in an immigration quagmire that they created. Obama warned Republicans not to shut down the government over his executive action, but most importantly, he told the truth about why he had to act alone.

Republicans made their obstructionist bed, and now they have to lie in it.

Notice that O'Reilly never mentions any of this, he ignores it. A year and a half ago an immigration bill passed the Senate and would have also passed the Republican majority House, but Boehner would not let it come up for a vote. So it's the Republicans fault we did not get a bill passed, but O'Reilly and the right ignore all that and blame Obama, which is just ridiculous.

Then they scream bloody murder when he acts without them, when it was their fault a bill was never passed because they would not even let it come up for a vote. And what makes it worse is when Bush was President and the Democrats blocked bills from getting an up or down vote O'Reilly and the right were outraged and called it un-American.

The Republicans even created a website called www.upordownvote.com, that O'Reilly supported. But now when Republicans block bills from getting an up or down vote O'Reilly is silent, and not only is he silent, he tells people to support the Republicans and vote them into office. When they are doing the very same thing he said was un-American when Democrats did it under Bush.

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

The TPM was called: President Obama Dividing the Nation. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Discussion about the immigration problem in America rarely changes opinion. Both sides are dug in and mostly un-persuadable. So Talking Points believes President Obama should be the focus of the debate. By unilaterally giving legal status to millions of undocumented people, the president is challenging the Constitution.

The Wall Street Journal, sympathetic to immigration, editorialized this way: 'The politics of immigration is already fraught, and Mr. Obama's order will make it worse.' Indeed, Texas and Oklahoma have announced they will sue President Obama on the grounds that he is violating the rights of those states. The administration disagrees, and millions of dollars will be spent defending the president's actions.

In the end, the president may very well lose in the Supreme Court. The tragedy here is, none of this had to happen. I believe the new Congress would have passed a fair immigration law if given the chance; there was immense pressure on the Republican leadership to do that.

But President Obama was in a rush, and the question is why. Speculation from the right says the president wants to trap the Republican Party into overreacting. Also, that he wants to reinforce his reputation as a liberal icon. What Barack Obama has done is setting off a constitutional brawl that will be harmful to a nation that needs united leadership and intense problem solving.
Comment: Which is ridiculous and nothing but one sided right-wing propaganda. Because over a year ago the Senate passed an immigration bill, that went to the Republican majority House and Boehner never even brought it up for a vote. And btw, we know that if he had it would have passed, they had the votes. But he did not bring it up for a vote because the Tea Party wing of the Republican party did not like it.

O'Reilly does not mention any of those facts, instead he dishonestly blames Obama for dividing the nation. When it is the Republican party that has divided the nation by declaring war on President Obama and the Democratic party the day after he took office. The Republican party has divided the nation by refusing to work with Obama on anything, mostly because he is a black man, and partly because he is a Democrat.

O'Reilly is a liar, and he does not tell you all the facts, all he does is put out lies and right-wing propaganda, which is about as dishonest as you can get. Obama is not dividing the nation, the Republican party and Fox News is, and O'Reilly also said that he believes the new Congress would have passed a fair immigration law if given the chance.

Are you kidding me, they have been sitting on a fair immigration bill for over 500 days, and they will not even bring it up for a vote. That statement alone shows that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing stooge. O'Reilly also said that The Wall Street Journal is sympathetic to immigration, which is just laughable, because that is a lie, they are a conservative newspaper and 99% of their articles are against immigration.

Then the Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was on to discuss it.

Ramos said this: "Barack Obama is paying back a debt to the Latino community. In 2008 he promised that he would do immigration reform during his first year. He didn't deliver, even though he had control of Congress, and now he has decided to act. This is something that we fought for."

Ramos also defended the constitutionality of the move, saying this: "He told me that he didn't have the legal authority to stop deportations, but then he listened to us and he changed his point of view. I think that he honestly believes he has the legal authority to do what he did."

Then Dr. Ben Carson, the Tea Party favorite, was on with his biased and far-right analysis of the immigration debate.

Carson said this: "I would first recognize that there are millions of Americans who are very poor and very desperate. Why don't we extend some help to those people and start looking at ways to get them in a better situation? As far as the immigrants are concerned, we need to reverse the polarity of the magnet that is attracting them. Get rid of all the benefits that are pulling them in here and secure the border."

Carson turned to the tense situation in Ferguson, Missouri, where a grand jury decision is expected any day in the Michael Brown shooting, saying this: "There are a lot of outside agitators coming in who are riling the people up. There are much better ways, if you feel that an injustice has been perpetrated, to get it taken care of."

Then the two biased Republicans Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on with their observations on America's divisions. With no Democratic guests for balance, none.

Gutfeld said this: "It's healthy to be divisive. Before there was Fox News you never heard the media rail against divisiveness because they were quite comfortable in lockstep. But now they have some competition and they're constantly talking about divisiveness. One reason there is more divisiveness now is that we've been putting identity before industry, we believe who you are is more important than what you do. It's created a lot of factions and has made people angry at one another."

McGuirk added that social media outlets enable more hate-spewing than ever before, saying this: "We've always been divided, we're a nation of disparate people with competing agendas. Then you throw in envy, stupidity, prejudice, and social media, which really amplifies the divisiveness and hate exponentially. It's very upsetting and disturbing."

Comment: We are a divided nation, mostly because the Republican party is so far right they refuse to work with the Democrats on anything, even issues the people support them on with a majority in the polls, the Republicans do not care. They go against the will of the people and put political ideology ahead of the will of the people.

O'Reilly never says a word about this. Instead he puts out the GOP talking points propaganda that it is all Obama's fault and he is dividing the nation. Which is just ridiculous, Obama has tried to work with Republicans, but they refuse to work with him. Instead they stand firm on their far-right positions, even though the majority of the people support it.

Here is one perfect example: The Minimum Wage Increase. The Democrats support it, Obama supports it, and the vast majority of the American people support it, somewhere around 70%. But the Republicans oppose it, and they vote it down every time, even though the majority of Americans want it raised. That is going against the will of the people and really dividing the country, but O'Reilly does not say that, he blames everything on Obama and says he is dividing the country.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Thanksgiving Tip. Billy said this: "With many Americans in need of food, and with Thanksgiving around the corner, consider making a donation to a local food bank."

O'Reilly & The GOP Wrong About NY Stop & Frisk Policy Change
By: Steve - November 22, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual O'Reilly was wrong about the NY stop and frisk policy change, it was his usual fearmongering and even though it was ruled unconstitutional he still was against changing it.

NYPD Report Finds That Violent Crime Down In NYC After Stop-And-Frisk Reforms

O'Reilly and pretty much all the Conservatives in the media long argued that stopping the NYPD's discriminatory stop-and-frisk tactics would result in higher violent crime rates. But even after the dramatic decrease in stop-and-frisk's application in the city, a NYPD report shows that the city's crime rate dropped to a 20 year low.

Bill O'Reilly: If You Take Stop-And-Frisk Away, "More Black Americans And Hispanic Americans Are Going To Die."

On the June 4, 2013 edition of his show, O'Reilly claimed that stop-and-frisk has decreased violence in minority communities and "Stats aside, it's a fact that if you take stop-and-frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/4/13]

NY Daily News: With Decline In 'Stop-And-Frisk' Policy, "The Body Count Will Start Rising."

In 2012, a New York Daily News editorial titled "How to kill New York," argued that, if the stop-and-frisk program is reformed, "the body count will start rising." [Media Matters, 5/16/12]

NY Post: If They Weaken Stop-And-Frisk, New York Will "Again Become The Crime Capital Of The World."

The New York Post has repeatedly claimed that stop-and-frisk policy was crucial to maintaining safety in New York and that weakening the program would lead to "mayhem," and a return to days when "criminals ruled the street."

One editorial claimed that if opponents of stop-and-frisk policy are successful, "the blood of new crime victims will be on their hands" and New York City will "once again become the Crime Capital of the World."

Post columnist Andrea Peyser claimed "a war is being waged on the effective policy of stop-and-frisk, and it will end in buckets of blood on city streets." [New York Post, 6/20/14; New York Post, 7/9/12; New York Post, 5/18/12; New York Post, 9/23/13]

And now the facts:

New York City's Stop-And-Frisk Approach Ruled Unconstitutional In 2013.

In 2013, a federal judge ruled that New York City's policy of stopping, questioning, and patting down "suspicious" people on city streets was applied in an unconstitutionally discriminatory way because "at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion," which "resulted in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

Huffington Post: Stop-And-Frisk Stops On Track To Decline 75 Percent In 2014.

On November 11, the Huffington Post reported that the New York Police Department (NYPD) is on track to conduct about 75 percent fewer stops in 2014 than it did the previous year. In 2013, the department stopped and questioned or frisked 190,000 people on the streets of New York City, but was ordered to implement reforms. So far in 2014, NYPD has conducted 45,000 stops.

NYPD Reports Violent Crime Drop After Stop-And Frisk Reforms

NY Daily News: "NYC Crime Rate Hits Lowest Mark Since 1994."

The New York Daily News highlighted new statistics that show overall crime rates in New York City have declined "7.9% in August, September, and October as compared to the same period last year" to the lowest level the city has seen since 1994.

According to the Daily News, "The city is also on a record-low pace for murders and burglaries," and the shooting rate has slowed. [New York Daily News, 11/17/14]

Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is not the non-partisan Independent who only reports hard facts (as he claims to be) because he gets caught reporting right-wing talking points based on lies and fear that are not true, and have no basis in facts.

O'Reilly reports his opinion, an opinion that is biased and represents the Republican position on an issue, in an attempt to get the public to support his position, even though we usually find out later that he was wrong. He never reports that he was wrong, and hopes that people just forget it, then he moves on to telling more right-wing lies and spin on some other issue.

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

There was no TPM because O'Reilly went right to his top story about the Obama immigration order speech. Billy anchored a special live program immediately after President Obama's speech on immigration with one guest, the biased Republican Charles Krauthammer, who provided his perspective on the president's address. With no Democratic guest on for balance, even though O'Reilly promised he would have a fair and balanced debate on it.

Krauthammer said this: "He is making an announcement to all those people waiting to get into the U.S. legally that they are chumps, and if you want to get into this country and stay in this country, the way to do it is to come in illegally. I find the president's audacity rather remarkable."

Krauthammer also said this: "If he feels so strongly about this, and scripture dictates that this ought to be done, why did he do nothing in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the White House, the House and the Senate? He could have done it constitutionally by passing legislation. He's a very skilled politician who has used this issue for six years, and it becomes somewhat offensive when he pretends it's all for high principles."

COMMENT: Earth to Krauthammer, Obama did it for political reasons, duh! He is a politician, just as Republicans are, and they do things for political reasons too. You just do not like it when Democrats do it, because you are a far-right stooge, but when Republicans do it you are ok with it, you fricking hypocrite.

Then the Republican Ed Henry was on, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Henry said this: "The headline is that the president is going it alone. He's trying to spur action by Republicans when they take over Congress in January, but it may blow up in his face. Republicans are already calling him an 'emperor,' but I'm told by his advisers that he doesn't care. The president decided to go on offense and set the terms of this debate. Where I agree with Charles Krauthammer is that the president is trying to stay relevant. He took it on the chin in the midterm elections and he is a lame duck now."

O'Reilly commented on the fact that President Obama cited the Bible in his speech, saying this: "He is perhaps the most secular president we've ever had, yet he invoked 'scripture.' I think many Americans are going to be skeptical about the president's speech."

Then the journalist and illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas was on, he of course praised the president's action, saying this: "I haven't left the United States since I was 12, and now with the president's executive order I get a work permit and hopefully a driver's license. I will also get a chance to see my mother because I can go back to the Philippines and return. But when people hear the word 'amnesty,' they think permanent. This is temporary."

O'Reilly reminded Vargas that his experience is not exactly typical, saying this: "Surely you understand how millions of Americans are saying bad behavior is being rewarded. It wasn't your fault you were sent here at age 12, but there are a lot of people who came here in devious ways and didn't contribute to our society. This is a complicated issue with a lot of emotions."

Comment: And as usual O'Reilly is wrong, because most of the illegals that come here do it to find work and be good law abiding people.

Then Laura Ingraham was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. O'Reilly asked her how Republicans will challenge President Obama's unilateral action?

Ingraham said this: "The best course of action would be a lawsuit filed by a member of Congress. The basis of the suit would be a separation of powers claim, namely that the president usurped legislative authority. Clearly it was not the intent of Congress to institute these new policies, this goes way beyond the traditional prosecutorial discretion that presidents have used in the past. I have never seen a president take this much authority away from Congress, so Congress must use all of its tools."

Comment: Which is ridiculous, because they would lose the lawsuit, it would take years, Obama would be out of office by then, and the legal experts have already said Obama has the constitutional authority to do it, just as Bush Sr. and Reagan did. That Republicans had no problem with then, they only have a problem with it when a Democrat does it.

And btw folks, O'Reilly also never mentioned that Bush and Reagan did the very same thing, and nobody filed lawsuits over it, nobody said it was un-Constitutional, nothing.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a website that wrote a good review of his book.

Far-Right Nut Laura Ingraham Wants To Get Rid Of The 14th Amendment
By: Steve - November 21, 2014 - 10:00am

And this is the moron O'Reilly has for his full-time fill-in host when he is not there, but he never says a word about any of her radical far-right positions or ideas. Think about that, if Bill O'Reilly is a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides (as he personally claims he is) how in the hell can he have Laura Ingraham as his full time fill-in host? Here are the details on her latest far-right nonsense:

Fox News and ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham has repeatedly urged the Republican party to prioritize the elimination of birthright citizenship, a constitutionally-protected right that cannot be abridged without repealing parts of the 14th Amendment.

During the November 19th edition of The Laura Ingraham Radio Show, Ingraham asked GOP Chairman Reince Preibus why Republicans aren't "finally dealing" with "the anchor baby issue." [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/19/14]

Ingraham: Republicans' Number One Priority Should Be "Locking The Border Down And Ridding Us Of This Birthright Citizenship."

On the November 19th edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham charged Republicans with the task of "ridding us of this birthright citizenship" in her continued crusade against immigrants. [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/19/14]

Ingraham: "We Could Do A Lot To Enforce Our Immigration Laws...We Could Move to End Birthright Citizenship."

During the November 17th edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham recommended ending birthright citizenship, which she says leads to "fraud and gaming the system." [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/17/14]

And now the facts:

Former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger: Birthright Citizenship Is "Part Of Our Unique National Identity," "A Good Rule That Has Served Us Well For 200 Years."

Dellinger appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation and explained that "If you're born here, you're a citizen." Dellinger noted that birthright citizenship was the rule commonly applied by the courts prior to Dred Scott, and was returned to and preserved in the U.S. Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Dellinger also outlined the Supreme Court decision finding that birthright citizenship applies to undocumented aliens.

UPenn Law Professor: Birthright Citizenship "Enacted A Prophylactic Rule Against The Majority's Ability To Deny Persons Born In The United States The Legal Status Of Citizenship Based On Prejudice."

In a 2009 law review article, University of Pennsylvania law professor Cristina M. Rodríguez wrote that the Citizenship Clause acts as a "prophylactic rule" to safeguard immigrants from discriminatory denial of citizenship and that it "stands for the principle that citizenship is not earned; it is indefeasible."

Rodríguez also argued that birthright citizenship "is the broadest egalitarian construction we can give to the Clause." [Journal of Constitutional Law, 07/09]

Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra: Birthright Citizenship Is Based On "Objective Measure Of U.S. Birth Rather Than Subjective Political Or Public Opinion."

Constitutional Accountability Center's chief counsel Elizabeth Wydra debunked right-wing arguments about birthright citizenship, pointing out that "inalienable rights are not put to a vote," and that birthright citizenship is not based on "subjective political or public opinion."

NALEO: Birthright Citizenship Is "A Pillar Of American Civil Rights."

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) argues that birthright citizenship is a "pillar of American civil rights" and changing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment would "impose significant financial and administrative burdens" on families and the government.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child's citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.

This process would impose significant costs on all levels of government at a time when we can least afford it. It's a far-right idea that will never happen, and it is being pushed by the fricking fill-in host for the O'Reilly Factor.

And yet, O'Reilly says nothing, and continues to use her as his fill-in host. While as the same time claiming to be an impartial, fair and balanced Independent, which is just laughable.

Major Networks Not Airing Obama's Immigration Speech
By: Steve - November 20, 2014 - 11:00am

Despite the great significance of Barack Obama's planned executive action on immigration reform, the four major television broadcast networks are not planning to cover the president's Thursday night address where he is expected to announce his plan.

ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have all indicated they won't break their planned programming to cover Obama's 8 p.m. ET speech. CNN's Brian Stelter first reported that ABC, NBC and CBS were opting out, and an official with FOX confirmed the same with The Hill.

CNN, MSNBC, FOX News and other cable news networks were expected to air the speech, as was PBS.

But the networks that cater to an audience who will be very interested in what the president has to say cleared the time for the address, CNN reported. The vice president of Univision, the nation's leading Spanish-language network, announced plans to interrupt its airing of the Latin Grammy Awards for the president's address.

Telemundo, the other big Spanish-language network in the U.S. will also show the speech live. And the White House is expected to stream the event online. Stelter reported that White House officials decided against formally requesting that the major networks carry the address after getting the impression that they would be hesitant to do so, reports echoed by Deadline and The Hill.

November is sweeps month, when primetime slots become all the more valuable. The four major networks have shows slotted for 8 p.m. that attract big audiences, including the fall finale of "Grey’s Anatomy" on ABC, Deadline noted.

Obama announced the address on Wednesday, saying "everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken," and, "I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system work better."

While the exact details of the president's plans to sidestep Congress are not known, the sweeping reforms could potentially shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The president's expected executive action on immigration has prompted protest among Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who said on Wednesday that Congress should take legal action in response.

Joy Behar From The View Said Bill O'Reilly Is Shameless
By: Steve - November 20, 2014 - 10:00am

It's been more than four years since Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg stood up and walked out of The View during an appearance by Bill O'Reilly. But the moment left such a lasting impression that Howard Stern wanted Behar to tell him what exactly happened when she was on his radio show Monday.

"I was shocked by that," Stern said of the walk-out, "because I feel if you have a show and you invite someone on that they're a guest."

He said you don't have to agree with them, but "why walk off your own show if he's a guest on the show? Just don't have them on."

Behar pointed out to Stern that she was not in charge of booking The View when she was a host and would not have invited O'Reilly to appear.

BEHAR: "I don't find him amusing in any way, I don't find him interesting in any way," she said, adding that she normally would not walk off the set of her own show but "there was something propelling my ass out of the seat."

She said she "absolutely" does not regret the move, especially given all the publicity it drummed up for her and The View.

As for how O'Reilly reacted backstage after the incident, she said, "He's shameless, he doesn't give a shit."

And, while her boss Barbara Walters was pissed about the move immediately after it happened, as soon as she saw the viewer numbers go up from it, she didn't mind so much.

"Everything is forgiven when you get ratings," Stern said.

Reagan And Bush Also Acted Alone On Immigration
By: Steve - November 20, 2014 - 10:00am

Barack Obama, or what Republicans call our Fascist-in-Chief, plans to forego chasing the wild goose of Republican approval and take executive action on immigration reform, potentially relieving nearly five million undocumented immigrants of the fear of being separated from their homes and families.

The Republicans, incensed that a government official would have the gall to get something done without their approval, have made it clear that Obama acting alone on immigration would be nothing short of a declaration of war.

And if it's one thing Republicans can get jazzed about, it's war. Any war. The war on Christianity, the war on Christmas, the war on marriage - if it can be packaged as a war, Fox News will have graphics for it and Bill O'Reilly will find the wind in his lungs to yell about it.

But while the Republicans gleefully grind their axe, they seem to have forgotten this important fact: Their heroes Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush also acted alone on immigration, extending amnesty to family members who weren't covered by the immigration overhaul of 1986.

Wow, it turns out, executive action is actually something a president can do. As in, it's within the powers our constitution gives the office of president. Weird. Party pooper and Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX) echoed this inconvenient fact, saying:

"It's clear that it's fully within his legal authority to issue these orders. Republicans didn't raise any objections in the past when Republican presidents issued similar orders. This is pure political theater."

Speaking of political theater, House Speaker John Boehner offered this dramatic, ominous statement on Obama’s pending executive action:

"Every administration needs this and needs that, needs all kinds of things. You know, if he wants to go off on his own, there are things that he's just not going to get."

Wake up the graphic design team at Fox and tell Bill O'Reilly to do some breathing exercises, because it looks like we're about to have a war on our hands.

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

The TPM was called: ISIS kills another American. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 26-year-old Peter Kassig from Indiana was executed by ISIS killers and the video released over the weekend. Mr. Kassig is the third American beheaded by this barbaric group. President Obama has condemned the murder as 'an act of pure evil,' but that's not enough. ISIS is a direct threat to all Americans, they would kill all of us.

Therefore Mr. Obama must change his tactics. First, Special Forces and the U.S. military should kill as many of these terrorists as we can. Borders do not matter. If we know where they are, we go after them from the air, the sea or on land. All the military assets the USA has should be used in eradicating the terror group; those who are captured must be taken to Guantanamo Bay.

On to Iran. America will again negotiate with the Iranians to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. Few are optimistic that Secretary of State John Kerry will succeed, but we hope a strong deal is reached that will protect the world from the Mullahs. If Iran does not agree to stop its nuke program, severe sanctions must be re-imposed.

And then there's Putin, whose forces are now invading eastern Ukraine. Over the weekend, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Putin to his face to get out of Ukraine. Putin replied, that's impossible because Russia is not there! President Obama knows Putin is lying, and must impose draconian sanctions on Russia.

So you can see that in three areas, the bad guys are winning and the president seems hesitant to do what is necessary to turn things around. He can talk all he wants. Meantime, Americans are being murdered.
Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to analyze the ISIS bloodshed and the proper response.

Williams said this: "I disagree when you say all of America's assets, because that would mean ground troops. The polls show that the American people do not want our military forces in another war, and you have to have the support of the American people for military action."

Ham said this: "It's true that the American people are concerned about going in with troops on the ground because they've been burned in the past, but you have to have a commander-in-chief who is willing to make that argument to the people and to take it to Congress for approval."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped design ObamaCare.

Hume said this: "This is pretty damaging, because it reinforces a lot of what the public already understood about ObamaCare and how it was sold. According to Gruber, they knew there were taxes but had to mask that in order to hoodwink the Congressional Budget Office."

Then Alan Colmes and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "This does political damage and it's not good for the president. It adds to the feeling that the government is deceptive and isn't on our side. And there probably was some deception going on."

Marshall said this: "We have to be realistic and look at the facts. This is a piece of legislation that Republicans have been very open about wanting to repeal or replace or tweak. This definitely hurts the president and Democrats are lying to themselves if they pretend it doesn't."

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about President Obama, who still seems poised to sign an executive order that will instantly legalize millions of immigrants.

Rove said this: "I was there in the Cabinet Room in 2006, when Senator Obama was a rising star in the Democratic Party. He promised President Bush that he would be a down-the-line supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. But the next year he showed up on the floor of the Senate and voted for a series of killer amendments that were favored by labor unions."

Rove also said this: "There has to be verifiable border security, you have to resolve the issue of guest workers, and we have to do something about the status of the people who are here illegally. If they want to become citizens, they should pay fines and go to the back of the line. If they don't want to become citizens, they can remain and work here, but they don't get ObamaCare and welfare. They broke the law!"

Then Sam Dotson was on to discuss the grand jury decision expected any day in the Michael Brown case, O'Reilly asked St. Louis Chief of Police Sam Dotson how his force is preparing for potential unrest.

Dotson said this: "We have to keep people safe, we have to protect their constitutional rights, and we have to keep property safe. Governor Jay Nixon has activated the National Guard to help us do those things. The frustrating part for law enforcement is that there are a lot of good people who just want to have their voices heard. We can engage with them, but this criminal element is here to do criminal acts. They're here because there's a stage and a platform - it bothers me and it worries me. When they break the law, we have a plan to go get them."

Comment: And of course O'Reilly had no Democratic guest on for balance, and he did not say one work about the KKK saying they were going to use violence at the protests, O'Reilly ignored it.

Then Jesse Watters visited Philadelphia's Bartram High School, where students have assaulted teachers in numerous incidents.

Here's what some students told Watters: "I wouldn't recommend this school to nobody" ... "Some of the teachers are not teaching us, they're not preparing us for college or none of that" ... "They pressure a lot of students and they expect them not to retaliate, but in this environment they got to expect something violent."

One neighborhood woman summarized the bleak situation like this: "If you don't get a handle on this right now, it's going to get worse because other kids feel as though they can get away with that. Years ago, you weren't even allowed to look at a teacher crooked."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: More Danger on the Internet. Billy said this: "Employers and college admissions officers check out your social media pages, so don't forget that what you put out on the Internet can seriously damage your life prospects."

What a joke, this is old news and a tip O'Reilly has reported before, thank you for nothing Mr. Obvious. We already know employers and other people look at your facebook page etc. in fact, you have given this same tip before, get some new tips that actually help people or end this worthless tip of the day garbage.

Fox's Juan Williams: Gruber Comments 'Much Ado About Nothing'
By: Steve - November 18, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly: Obamacare "Was A Fraud." On the November 12th edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly claimed that Gruber "is a patriot for finally telling the truth to the people" that the ACA "was a fraud" crafted in a "deceitful" way. (The O'Reilly Factor, 11/12/14)

But Fox News commentator Juan Williams thinks O'Reilly and other conservatives are making "much ado about nothing" over MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's controversial remarks that the Affordable Care Act passed only because of a "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter."

Although he understood how the comments could be "insulting," Williams insisted that all laws require some sort of clever packaging much like how corporations market products.

And he is exactly right. New Republic senior editor Brian Beutler explained that Gruber's comments about how the health care reform law was written are "ultimately unnewsworthy" because "everyone writing significant legislation does this."

In his article on Gruber's comments, Beutler also explained that Gruber was wrong in his claims that the cost sharing tradeoffs in the ACA weren't publicly discussed. In fact, Beutler asserted that the ACA "actually stands out for how much it was debated, and, for the most part, how transparent that debate was."

The Senate Held Years Of Bipartisan Hearings On Health Care Reform Before ACA Passed. Former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) posted a timeline of his committee's work on health care reform since 2008, which included more than a dozen hearings through 2008-09 and "31 bipartisan meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill" between June and September of 2009.

And btw, Bush and his crew did the exact same thing when they passed the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill, but then it was a Republican doing it so O'Reilly and the right said nothing.

When Fox News Sunday host asked Williams if he thought the Gruber comments presented "nothing new" for the Obamacare debate, the former NPR reporter said this: "I would say it's much ado about nothing with Gruber, except that the critics of Obamacare are having a field day."

Contrary to Republican talking points, he continued, "the act is working," and the GOP should be celebrating how the "uninsured rate in the country has dropped by 25 percent."

New York Times economics correspondent Neil Irwin explained that Gruber had simply highlighted something "completely commonplace about how Congress makes policy of all types."

As Irwin noted, lawmakers often craft legislation "to fit the sometimes arbitrary conventions by which the Congressional Budget Office evaluates laws and the public debates them" and that both parties engage in the practice.

Why President Obama Should Veto The Keystone XL Pipeline
By: Steve - November 17, 2014 - 10:00am

On Friday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted for the ninth time to approve a bill directing President Barack Obama to take action on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Next Tuesday, the Senate will hold a similar vote that is expected to pass. But it is looking increasingly likely that Obama will veto the bill when it reaches his desk. And he should.

"I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices," the president said at a press conference in Myanmar Friday morning. "Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else."

Republicans in Congress (along with some Democrats like Mary Landrieu, who is now leading the charge for the pipeline in the Senate in a last ditch effort to save her seat) point to a State Department report that says the project will not have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions because the Canadian oil is likely to be extracted at a similar rate with or without the pipeline.

Meanwhile, they argue that it will create a large number of American jobs. Of course, for conservatives who don't believe in man-made climate change, even one job is probably worth more any potential decrease in emissions.

But, as Obama said earlier today, Keystone is not some massive jobs bill that is going to solve America's (diminishing) unemployment problem. Republicans love to cite the State Department report on the pipeline's environmental impact, but you are not going to hear them talking as much about the section that covers job creation.

That's because while the report estimates the pipeline will create 42,100 jobs annually, only 16,100 of those are directly connected to the pipeline (the rest are predicted to be the result of a ripple effect of the project).

But as CBS News points out in a piece published today, those jobs will only exist for the two years during which the pipeline is being built. After that, the State Department estimates there would only be 35 permanent employees needed for the operational phase.

Something O'Reilly and the Republicans never seem to mention, the facts show that most of those jobs are temporary, and when they are gone after 2 years there will only be 35 full time employees, to maintain the pipeline. If O'Reilly were a real un-biased journalist, as he claims, he would report this, but he never does.

And when the president stated that Keystone will not lower gas prices, he should have also mentioned that it will raise them. In April, Bloomberg's Tom Randall reported that "in Keystone's weirdonomics, the pipeline would actually increase prices of gasoline for much of the country, according to at least three studies that have looked into it."

Basically, because the oil would be bypassing Midwest refineries in favor of the Gulf, where it can be shipped to more lucrative overseas markets, there will be less oil to be had here at home, therefore increasing prices for American consumers.

Which is another thing O'Reilly and the Republicans never tell you about, while they lie that it will lower gas prices for Americans. When the facts show we will not even get that oil, it will bypass us and go overseas. And that would be 2 to 3 years from now, if not longer, and not do anything for us here.

So, the Keystone XL pipeline will not create any long-term jobs and could actually make gas more expensive in the U.S.

But what about the environmental impact? While the State Department has said that the project will likely not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, it definitely will not decrease them, which is what America and the rest of the world needs to be doing in order to avert the worst case scenarios of climate change. On top of that, construction of the pipeline greatly increases the risk of a massive oil spill on U.S. soil.

Ultimately, the Keystone XL pipeline represents more than a simple construction project. It is about the decision to move forward on renewable energy or remain stuck in the past for generations to come, extracting every last bit of crude oil out of the ground until there's nothing left.

As long as Obama is still president, he has the ability to send a message to the world that despite the modest benefits Keystone might bring, it is not worth the risks and would send the United States down a long path in the wrong direction.

O'Reilly Wrong About The Constitution & Obama's Power
By: Steve - November 16, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual, Billy O'Reilly is wrong when he says Obama does not have the power to put in place immigration orders that build upon the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and provide temporary administrative relief for certain undocumented immigrants.

Because he does, as usual O'Reilly is spinning out right-wing talking points and biased opinions, instead of the facts.

President Obama is expected to announce immigration orders that build upon the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and provide temporary administrative relief for certain undocumented immigrants, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that O'Reilly and the right-wing media have attacked as "lawless."

But experts across the political spectrum acknowledge that this type of executive action has long been practiced and authorized under federal immigration law.

Here are some headlines, and O'Reilly ignored them all:

Right-Wing Media Has Been Misinforming About The Action For Months

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#attacking

The Executive Action Is A Type Of Long-Accepted Prosecutorial Discretion

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#discretion

Prosecutorial Discretion Is Widely Used By Law Enforcement, Not Just For Immigration

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#enforcement

Republicans Supported The Same Type Of Prosecutorial Discretion In The Past

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#republicans

The president will announce a plan to issue an executive order to "protect up to five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation," which may defer action on deportation proceedings for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens, beneficiaries of DACA, or children otherwise legally present. Obama's plan is also expected to provide opportunities for undocumented immigrants to obtain work permits, similar to DACA.

Officials said one of the primary considerations for the president has been to take actions that can withstand the legal challenges that they expect will come quickly from Republicans. A senior administration official said lawyers had been working for months to make sure the president's proposal would be "legally unassailable" when he presented it.

Most of the major elements of the president's plan are based on longstanding legal precedents that give the executive branch the right to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in how it enforces the laws. That was the basis of a 2012 decision to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, who came to the United States as young children. The new announcement will be based on a similar legal theory, officials said.

And more: In 2012, almost 100 law professors wrote a memo to the president explaining the decades-old legal precedent for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion and defer action on the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants. These arguments were used by the White House when it created DACA, a use of "clear executive authority" that is a "long-standing form of administrative relief."

UCLA Law Professor Hiroshi Motomura was the principal author of the 2012 memo that outlined the legal rationale for temporary administrative relief like DACA. Motomura explained that the president could build upon the program as is being reported, which is essentially "a list to prioritize who should be deported first."
MOTOMURA: The DACA program applies to any undocumented immigrant age 16 to 31 who came to the United States as a child, has either graduated from high school or is currently enrolled in school, and doesn't have a criminal record.

The government basically promises not to deport these youths and adults for two years and allows them to work legally in the United States. They don't get permanent residency or a path to U.S. citizenship, however -- as they would have if Congress had passed the Dream Act.

As of June 2013, the administration had received more than 550,000 applications for DACA and approved about 72 percent of them. There were another 350,000 or so youths and adults in the country who likely qualify but either don't know about the program or can't pay the $465 application fee.

There are 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has said it only has the resources to deport about 400,000 of them per year. Someone has to be at the bottom of the list. DACA was a way of formalizing those priorities. The "Dream Act kids" are officially at the bottom of the list.

The legal rationale for the DACA program was outlined in a letter drafted in 2012 by UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura and co-signed by nearly 100 top legal scholars around the country. In an interview last year, Motomura told me that Obama could conceivably expand that program, but there are limits to how far he can go.

Here's how I think about it. If the president can make a list to prioritize who should be deported first, then I think it's clear that he can give people at the bottom of that list a piece of paper saying you're at the bottom, Motomura says.

"That's how I think about DACA. It's clearly within his discretionary power. But if he did this for every single immigrant, he would no longer be exercising his discretion. That would be problematic."
Think about this folks, this is the legal opinion of a Law Professor, and 100 other legal experts agree with his opinion. O'Reilly disagrees, and says it is not only un-constitutional, he also says it will harm the country. Which is just laughable, all it does it make parents of kids who are already here legal for 2 years, it does not harm anyone, it helps them.

O'Reilly is not a lawyer, and he is not qualified to give legal opinions. The actual legal experts disagree with him, even most of the conservative legal experts disagree with him. O'Reilly is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack who has a cable tv news show, that less than 1% of the people even watch, and 90% of that 1% are also right-wing stooges who believe all the spin and propaganda O'Reilly puts out.

Here are the facts: Obama does have the power to do it, and it will not harm the country because they are already here, and we can only deport 400,000 (out of 11 million) of them a year anyway. The reality is it would take about 30 years to deport the illegals who are here now, let alone in the future, so it's impossible.

O'Reilly lies about it to try and get public support against Obama, it's called right-wing talking points and right-wing propaganda, and it's coming from a dishonest fraud who says he is an Independent and not a Republican, while saying the exact same things the far-right loons are saying about it, and those are the facts.

U.S. Expects $5 Billion PROFIT From Program That Funded Solyndra
By: Steve - November 15, 2014 - 11:00am

Remember when O'Reilly flipped out because the federal government gave loans to clean energy companies like Solyndra, O'Reilly said it was a disaster and that it would cost the taxpayers billions.

Well, as usual he was wrong. Because now we find out that the U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded companies including Solyndra, supporting President Barack Obama's decision to back low-carbon technologies.

The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as Friday, according to an official who helped put together the data.

The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. had wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama's credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.

A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.

What happened is one or two companies lost money, so O'Reilly only reported that, while ignoring all the other companies that got loans who were making money. It was right-wing spin and right-wing talking points propaganda, in other words, he ignored the companies that were doing good and only reported on the 1 or 2 companies that were having problems.

It's called right-wing bias, and cherry picking. And now that we find out the government will make billions in profits, O'Reilly is silent, and does not say a word about it. Proving once again he is nothing but a biased and dishonest right-wing hack.

Right-Wing Stooges Float Obama Impeachment Over Immigration Plan
By: Steve - November 15, 2014 - 10:00am

President Obama intends to announce plans before the end of 2014 to enforce changes to the country's immigration system. The New York Times reported that the plans would protect as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants "from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits."

Under the new plan, deportations will continue for convicted criminals as well as "foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers." Obama has made clear that he will reverse his executive orders if Congress passes a comprehensive immigration reform bill:
Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nation's laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the government's 12,000 immigration agents. One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.

Extending protections to more undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, and to their parents, could affect an additional one million or more if they are included in the final plan that the president announces.

White House officials are also still debating whether to include protections for farm workers who have entered the country illegally but have been employed for years in the agriculture industry, a move that could affect hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Obama's actions will also expand opportunities for legal immigrants who have high-tech skills, shift extra security resources to the nation's southern border, revamp a controversial immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities, and provide clearer guidance to the agencies that enforce immigration laws about who should be a low priority for deportation, especially those with strong family ties and no serious criminal history.
This bill makes sense, because it simply makes illegals who are already here with kids legal to be here, but all the Republicans are flipping out over it. Including O'Reilly, who says he is not a Republican who never uses right-wing talking points. While saying the exact same things about it Republicans are, and using their talking points.

Here are some prime examples:

Megyn Kelly Floats Impeachment Over Executive Action: "Some Say Republicans Have No Choice."

On the November 13 edition of Fox News The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly suggested that "some say Republicans have no choice" but to impeach President Obama if he issues executive action on immigration reform. Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer agreed, saying Obama's executive action is "an impeachable offense."

Kelly went on to advise Republicans on legal options to "thwart President Obama's executive action," suggesting impeachment again, and adding a lawsuit, cutting off the funds needed to carry out the executive order, and holding up Obama's judicial and other appointments. [Fox News, The Kelly File, 11/13/14].

Even though a week before Kelly admitted the executive order was not a violation of the constitution.

Leading Law Professors: Presidents Have Granted Deferred Action To Undocumented Immigrants "Historically and Recently." In 2012, almost 100 law professors wrote a memo to the president explaining the decades-old legal precedent for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion and defer action on the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants. These arguments were used by the White House when it created DACA, a use of "clear executive authority" that is a "long-standing form of administrative relief."

Bill O'Reilly Highlights GOP Option To Punish Obama For Executive Action By "Paralyzing The Government."

On the November 13th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that President Obama is "declaring war on the Republican Party" with his immigration executive action and highlighted Republicans option to block an upcoming spending bill, "paralyzing the government" along with "a number of other things the Republican Party may to do punish the president." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/13/14]

Lou Dobbs Hypes Republican Threat To Defund Government To Block Obama's Presidential "Fiat."

On the November 13 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Dobbs hyped Republican threats to "use the upcoming government funding bill debate to block the president's executive action," calling Obama's immigration overhaul "evidence of his unilateral, even occasionally authoritarian inclination." [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 11/13/14]

Krauthammer: GOP Should Block Executive Nominations Until Obama's Actions Are Repealed.

On the November 13 edition of Special Report, Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer advised Republicans against shutting down the government, suggesting instead that they block all executive nominations until President Obama repeals his executive order. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 11/13/14]

Megyn Kelly Floats Defunding Department Of Justice To Block Executive Action.

On the November 12 edition of The Kelly File, Kelly floated the option of defunding the Department of Justice to block Obama's immigration executive action, asking Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) if he would be willing to do so. [Fox News, The Kelly File, 11/12/14]

American Companies Now Have $2 Trillion Dollars Overseas
By: Steve - November 14, 2014 - 10:00am

And the insane right-wing fool Bill O'Reilly wants to give them even more of a tax break, while not punishing them for putting all that money overseas to avoid taxes.

U.S. companies are for the first time holding more than $2 trillion overseas, according to an analysis that paints a bleak picture of whether that money will make its way home and the limited economic impact it would have even if it does.

Corporate cash has hit $2.1 trillion, a sixfold increase over the past 12 years, Capital Economics said, citing its own database as well as that of Audit Analytics and other sources. There is no official total, but the firm also used regulatory filings that included "indefinitely reinvested foreign earnings" to glean the total sitting outside U.S. borders.

"The latest signs suggest that, as business confidence improves in light of the continued economic recovery, U.S. firms are starting to hold less cash domestically," Capital economists Paul Dales and Andrew Hunter said in a report for clients.

"However, the foreign cash piles of the largest firms have almost certainly continued to grow."

That total, while daunting in its own right, is now greater than the amount held on U.S. shores, which totals just under $1.9 trillion, according to the latest Federal Reserve flow of funds tally.

Such numbers are bound to get attention in Washington, which for years has been debating so-called repatriation measures that would allow companies to bring their cash back home at drastically reduced tax rates. The new Republican-controlled Congress is expected to take up the issue quickly when it convenes in January.

But the Capital analysis provides little optimism in that regard. Dales and Hunter pointed out that during the 2004 tax holiday "most of that cash was used to fund dividend payouts and share buybacks rather than to boost investment."

A Democratic congressional report indicated that the biggest companies receiving the benefits of $360 billion in repatriated funds actually cut a net 20,000 jobs, and that the holiday cost Treasury coffers $3.3 billion.

"This is supported by the results of a 2009 study by the (National Bureau of Economic Research), which found that every $1 that was repatriated during the tax holiday resulted in an increase of almost $1 in shareholder payouts," the Capital note said. "Around $0.80 went towards share buybacks and $0.15 to dividend payments."

Very little, then, went to hiring and reinvestment.

In other words, they used the tax holiday money for dividend payouts and share buybacks, which only made the rich richer and cost the Government in less revenue and we lost jobs instead of gaining jobs. And it also shows that the reason O'Reilly used to justify giving them a tax break are lies, and that it was done before and they cut more jobs then they created. So once again it shows that you can not trust Bill O'Reilly to tell you the truth.

And O'Reilly got one more thing wrong, he said it would boost the economy, but it would not. Because the money was used to make the rich richer and did nothing for the lower and middle class who actually fuel the GDP with spending. The rich simply used that money to invest it and get richer, while not creating jobs that would have boosted the economy.

It's basically Reaganomics, that did not work and will never work. But O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends are still trying to get people to believe it does, to justify getting all those tax breaks for himself, the corporations, and his wealthy friends.

The World Explains How Good We Have It With Obama
By: Steve - November 13, 2014 - 10:00am

Being informed, or apprised, means being aware, having knowledge, or perception of a situation or a set of facts to make decisions that are conducive to a person's well-being. Since the world has existed in the Information Age for over twenty years, there is really no apparent, or logical, reason for any human being in a technologically-advanced society to make uninformed or detrimental decisions.

According to those conversant in the benefits of living in the information age, the valuable phenomenon is the product of the digital industry that created a knowledge-based society aided by a high-tech global community. One of the greatest assets to any society in the Information Age is a population armed with a wealth of knowledge to make well-informed decisions for all aspects of their lives, but this is certainly not the case in America.

In what is a damning indictment of American willful ignorance exceeding stupidity, the results of the midterm elections informed the world that a lot of Americans are stupid religious fanatics steeped in racism.

Over the past couple of days, an open letter penned by an informed Canadian that calls into question the intelligence of the American voters has been making the rounds on social media. The title of the letter, "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," summarizes a sentiment that is not unique to Canadians puzzled at the results of the midterms.

This author has colleagues around the world on five continents, and within a day of the midterm elections messages poured in asking, "what the Hell is wrong with Americans, and why do they hate Obama?"

The biggest fear of these colleagues is that with Republicans running Congress, they will create the exact same economic conditions that sent their nation's economies into dire and still ongoing recessions. Where the Canadian writer differed from foreigners astonished at the results of the midterms was not citing the racism, religious fanaticism, and rank stupidity driving hatred for President Obama.

The Canadian writer, Richard Brunt, wrote this:

"Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally -- in sharp contrast to the Bush years. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason."

Yes, it does defy reason, but reason, logic, and rational thought is woefully lacking in a great number of self-inflicted low-information Americans despite the fact that they live in the nation that pioneered and advanced the Information Age.

First, it is noteworthy that most people living in foreign nations are more informed and educated about America, its government, economy, and myriad social diseases driving the preponderance of stupidity that produced the irrational results of the midterm elections. For example, where over 47% of Americans cannot name the three branches of government, people across the world can name the three branches and cite each party's leaders in both houses of Congress.

They also have a firm grasp on the tenets of the U.S. Constitution and understand Republicans and the religious right are on a crusade to restrict other American's 14th Amendment equal rights with a high degree of success due to the Republican Supreme Court. Most Americans could not possibly name even one feature of the 14th Amendment if their lives depended on it.

However, the Constitution is old, and it is the people's pitiful lack of unawareness of recent and current information that boggles the minds of people around the world.

For example, most citizens of Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, including Islamic nations, are well-aware that America's economy is leading the world still struggling to crawl out of the Great Recession the Bush-Republicans created.

They are also informed that the austerity plaguing their nations, preventing economic growth, and driving more of their population into poverty, is a policy Republicans lust to impose on America despite the damage it continues to wreak on people and economies in many European nations. The Canadian attempted to inform American people just how fortunate they are to have President Obama as their leader.

Mr. Brunt noted in his letter to stupid religious racists that "the United States gross national product growth is the best among all member nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, and the stock market is near record highs. Gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing (and leading the world), the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money."

After noting President Obama's major economic successes, Brunt reminded Americans that, "Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden," but he failed to note the President resisted persistent Republican calls to invade several other nations. The Canadian ended with a familiar refrain from people around the world; "When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?"

It is a wretched commentary on this nation's voting public that people around the world are better-informed about America's economic situation, and why it is leading the world still suffering Bush-Republican economic malfeasance and ineptitude. The situation is made worse when you see that there has been nothing but good economic news readily available to even the stupidest religious racists, and still they turned out in droves to put Republicans back in power.

What is stunning, and tragic, is that these moron's have heard and believe Republicans six year-claim that Obama is seizing their guns, preparing to close churches, and imprison Christians that drove them to elect Republicans. The real measure of their stupidity is that there has not been any gun safety laws passed since 1995, and they have been empowered by the Papal-contingent on the Supreme Court to establish and impose their version of Christianity on the entire nation even as they decry the so-called assault on their religious liberty.

The effect of god and guns on the results of the midterms, although substantial, was entirely driven by the real reason Republican voters hate this President; mostly racism. Many pundits rightly cite apathy and delusion as the reason religious psychopaths and corporate-whores easily won Senate seats, and it may have been a big factor, but it is only a factor because the base reason is those teabag maniacs are white.

It has been said before, and is worth reiterating; if any white Republican male had achieved even a fraction of the economic achievements and success as President Obama, their image would be on Mount Rushmore, their birthday a national holiday, and every coin in the country would be imprinted with their head in profile.

What most people around the world have not said, likely to spare Americans further shame and humiliation, is that never before in American history has an entire political movement attempted to thwart America's success as a surrogate for its President.

Before Barack Obama was even sworn in as President, conservatives were openly announcing they hope he would fail, and to make sure their hopes were realized, a cabal of Republican leaders and conservative pundits met in private and plotted a concerted effort to derail the economy.

That is not, as President Obama says, a political party that loves America, it is a party steeped in racial animus like the gun and god crowd that cannot accept the simple fact they have no idea how fortunate they are that Americans twice elected an African American Democrat as President.

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

The TPM was called: Race in America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A report today says that people who live in and around Ferguson, Missouri are buying guns at a record rate. That's because a decision on the police shooting of Michael Brown is due soon and there could be more rioting. Liberal pundits continue to say that blacks are being mistreated by society in general, but especially by the police.

They use phrases like white privilege, police racism, things like that. There is no question that African-Americans are struggling in our competitive country, but are we truly a racist nation? Or is there something else here? Enter commentator Ben Stein, who said this: 'The real problem with race in America is a very, very beaten-down, pathetic, self-defeating black underclass.'

Because of history, America does owe blacks extra help. But Talking Points has said over and over that it is the collapse of the African-American family that has led to the economic chaos. 72% of all black babies are now born out of wedlock, the desertion rate for African-American men is astronomical. That is the truth, and that is why the poor black precincts continue to suffer.

As everybody knows, poverty leads to crime, drug abuse, hopelessness. In Chicago, black gangs terrorize entire neighborhoods, essentially brutalizing their own people. President Obama has not paid much attention to the problem, although I think he grieves about it.

But there is only so much the feds can do; cultural violence and chaos is a local problem. And to combat it, African-Americans should rise up and demand protection. But more importantly, condemn irresponsible behavior by their own.
Then the so-called Democrat Kirsten Powers and the far-right Republican Monica Crowley were on to discuss the Talking Points Memo and America's race dilemma.

Powers said this: "What Ben Stein said, did not come off very well. Referring to black people as 'pathetic' and 'self-defeated' is not an accurate description, I don't think that's true and it sounds racist to me. And you always refuse to acknowledge that there is institutional racism in this country."

Crowley said this: "For decades the black community was largely conservative, they were church-going with solid traditional values. But after the civil rights movement the left got into that community and helped destroy it with government dependency. The left needs a permanent underclass because without it they're out of business."

O'Reilly took issue with arguments put out by both guests, saying this: "Every corporation in this country wants to hire educated black people and colleges are looking to provide aid and acceptance letters to African Americans. But I'm not buying the idea that the leftist promotion of welfare leads to bad personal behavior."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about video showing ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber admitting that the law was promoted under false pretenses to fool "stupid" American voters.

Stossel said this: "They were selling this plan as 'free stuff' for everyone, but the truth is that it's insurance. So if you're healthy you're going to pay in to cover the sick people. Gruber got paid $400,000, but didn't mention that he was being paid by the administration when he went on TV programs. We are conned every time we pass big bills that are going to 'fix' problems, this is consistent with the way government grows."

Comment: And neither Stossel or O'Reilly reported all the details, Gruber did say that the "lack of transparency" and maybe "the stupidity of the American voter" helped get the health care law passed.

Conservatives like O'Reilly pounced, and Gruber appeared on MSNBC to admit that remark was inappropriate.

But what O'Reilly did not report is that he continued to defend the law. Gruber doubted that the new Republican wave in Congress would be able to gut it that much, and said that the Republican strategy on the Affordable Care Act has been to "confuse people" about what's in it "so that they don't understand that the subsidies they're getting is because of the law."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about another example of the violence that is endemic in public schools across the country, a Philadelphia student actually knocked out a 68-year-old teacher.

Guilfoyle said this: "They've been having problems in that school district in general. That's important because if there is a pattern of inappropriate conduct and you have to have a positive teaching environment. He was physically injured and he will be pressing criminal charges against the student, who has been suspended."

Wiehl added that the teacher seems to have a strong case, saying this: "This is the third time something like this has happened. The teacher will pursue the criminal charges and then there will be a civil case. He will allege that the school district knew that teachers are being abused."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "I'm not confident, because the administration is very good at stonewalling and the media have no interest in this. The Senate should grant Lois Lerner immunity so that if she lies she's in big trouble."

Krauthammer also took aim at ObamaCare designer Jonathan Gruber, who has admitted that the law was passed via deception. "What we're hearing now is true liberal arrogance. They believe the voters are stupid and they believe they have to lead the masses to the promised land and they can only do it by deception."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly telling you a new religious book that came out is wrong about Jesus.

Conservative Website Has Article With Obama AG Nominee As Another Woman
By: Steve - November 12, 2014 - 10:00am

On Saturday, President Obama formally introduced Loretta Lynch as his nominee to take over for Eric Holder as the nation's Attorney General. Lynch is considered both extremely qualified and a relatively safe choice. The federal prosecutor out of Brooklyn has made few political enemies and has not had any direct involvement or ties with the Obama Administration.

She has been easily confirmed by the Senate in the past for her two terms as the US Attorney in Brooklyn and some Republicans have even personally vouched for her. If confirmed, Lynch will be the first black female to hold the post.

However, because this is Washington, even though Lynch seems to be a very uncontroversial pick, some conservatives are trying to make political hay and controversy over the selection. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and his acolytes, such as Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), have already indicated that they will try to push this matter, centering it on the immigration debate. With that in mind, some members of the conservative press started chiming in and finding a way to smear Lynch.

One media outlet in particular, Breitbart, ran an article claiming Lynch was a member of the Clinton legal team during the Whitewater investigation in 1992. This article, published Saturday, was then used as the basis for another article the site published on Sunday which stated Lynch was a very political choice by the White House.

But there was one big problem -- the Loretta Lynch they referred to that assisted the Clintons is NOT the same Lynch who has just been nominated by Obama to be Attorney General.

The writer for the Breitbart piece, Warner Todd Huston, went on a Google search looking to dig up some dirt on Lynch. Huston apparently found the other Loretta Lynch mentioned in a couple of archived articles regarding the Whitewater investigation from 20+ years back and then went with the assumption that the two women were the same person.

So much for the rules of journalism, fact checking is not in their agenda.

He then wrote an article wondering why few Republicans were talking about the fact that Lynch was involved with the Clinton Administration and helped them during a 'scandal.' He also claimed that Loretta Lynch (the AG nominee) has been rewarded for her political loyalty over the years.

Timothy Johnson discovered the error on Sunday and published an article pointing this out. Shortly afterwards, Breitbart issued a correction to Huston's article. Talking Points Memo editor-in-chief Josh Marshall ridiculed the right-wing site's correction on Sunday evening.

Breitbart placed 'correction' at the end of the headline and then placed a small correction at the bottom of the article pointing out the Whitewater attorney was not the same Loretta Lynch. Marshall said that entire assertion behind the piece fell apart, so issuing a correction is almost impossible.

"The best I can say in defense of this comical 'correction' is that it would be challenging to amend the piece in light of the categorical collapse of the article's central assertion. I mean, how do you correct it? I guess you just don't? Which is pretty much what they did here."

Breitbart finally decided to just completely delete the article on Monday after dealing with the fallout of publishing a false article and then using it to back-up another article that was meant as a hit job on Lynch.

The other article now has a section removed and a correction at the bottom of it. However, the central premise remains intact that Lynch is an extremely political choice. I guess, only because Obama nominated her.

This is a lesson for them all. Whenever you decide to go and find dirt on someone, always make sure that when you find something, it is actually attributable to that person. And it might be a good idea to look at a photo or two.

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

The TPM was called: President Obama's Immigration Play. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With his party on the ropes and his credibility badly damaged, President Obama needs an issue to regain momentum. And he believes that issue is illegal immigration. So the president has decided to take unilateral action, hoping to please Hispanic Americans and liberal thinkers. The president is obviously trying to put the Republican Party on the defensive, and things could get nasty.

That's the last thing America needs right now. The best thing is to let the new Congress have a few weeks to design an immigration bill. Then, if the president doesn't like it, he can veto and do his executive action deal. Voters clearly stated that they want Congress to fix the economy - tax reform, regulation reform, that kind of thing. Immigration reform is far down the list of priorities for most of the folks.

This is a pure political play on the part of Barack Obama, who is trying to deflect attention away from his economic record and into the conservative versus liberal battle. Talking Points believes this is wrong. However, I do believe some right-wing hard-liners are wrong in objecting to fair treatment for illegal aliens.

There is no question the border has to be secured before any concessions are granted. But if the Republican Congress passes legislation that seals the border, then humane action should be taken. The U.S. government has been complicit in allowing people to cross the border illegally.

From President Reagan on, Washington knew what was happening and did not stop it because business makes money from illegal immigration. So with the government at fault, it should now try to right some wrongs. Seal the border and get some fair policies about people living here illegally.
Comment: And all that is coming from the guy who claims to be an Independent, when if you check it's the very same thing the Republican party uses in their talking points newsletters. Let me clue you in, Bill O'Reilly is a Republican, that is a fact, he just refuses to admit it, and claims to be an Independent, which is just laughable.

Then he had his good friend Karl Rove on to discuss it, with no liberals or Democrats on for balance, which no real Independent would ever do.

Rove said this: "The president is saying that unless the House of Representatives acts in a matter of weeks, he's going to take executive action. He's asking them to pass the Senate version, but that's not how Congress works! The House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill, it goes to conference, and it usually takes months. If the president is saying the House has to pass the Senate bill with no changes, he is totally ignorant of how Washington works. This is a big and complex issue, the Senate bill is 1,200 pages!"

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on with their views on the immigration situation.

Williams said this: "The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013, and the president's been waiting. You say this is not urgent, but half of Hispanics say this is the number one issue. It's tearing families apart!"

The far-right hack Mary K. Ham accused the president of fomenting chaos for partisan gain, saying this: "It's a political move because he's a political animal and I don't think he knows how to turn into anything else. That's why he's going forward with this. President Obama has presided over a precipitous drop in faith in the federal government to do things well, so he should start with smaller things that he can do competently."

Comment: That is the right-wing talking points on it, that Obama is only doing it for political reasons and to hurt the Republican party, and O'Reilly is also spinning out that lie like a good little Republican.

Then Brit Hume was on, who made fun of President Obama for being mocked by the state-run media in China. O'Reilly and Hume pretended to not like it, but in reality they loved it, and they spent part of the segment making fun of Obama. But if China did this to a Republican president, O'Reilly and Hume would call for us to punish them for it.

Hume said this: "This fits in with China's expansionist ambitions, and this is the way dictatorships behave. They're paranoid, they're territorial, and they seek to expand their influence in the world. China is a great power and wants to become a greater power. It sees the United States as a rival and perhaps even as an enemy, and they see President Obama as weak right now. That's why you see this back-of-the-hand treatment."

Then the Republican Senator John McCain, was on with his take on the political showdown in Washington. And of course O'Reilly never said a word about McCain putting out an immigration bill then voting against his own bill, and as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

McCain said this: "This is a cynical action, and it means the president isn't really interested in comprehensive reform. He's only interested in placating his base and the Hispanic population. He knows this will cause a huge negative reaction among Republicans and most people in America. I'm very much afraid that he's going to take unilateral action so he can go back to his base and blame it all on the Republicans. This is an issue that we can sit down and resolve, but for him to unilaterally carpet-bomb us will cause a hugely negative reaction."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about President Obama, who has nominated United States Attorney Loretta Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. Kelly recalled one particular case in 2012, when Lynch ensured that monstrous child molester Andrew Goodman was charged with a federal crime.

Kelly said this: "She stepped in, and she was a heroine in this. She brought federal charges and this child molester, who was about to be freed, will almost certainly be convicted. He's rotting in federal prison right now and he'll remain there until he's found guilty. Lynch is a straight shooter and she should be the most acceptable to the right wing of anyone President Obama was considering."

Comment: But of course some Republicans are already saying they will block her nomination, which neither O'Reilly or Kelly said one word about in their segment.

Then the worthless waste of tv time Jesse Watters was on, he went to Hartford, Connecticut, home of his alma mater Trinity College, and asked some local citizens about last week's elections.

Some of their responses: "I don't know what you're talking about" ... "I can't vote because I'm a felon" ... "The Republicans had money, that dirty cash" ... "I think there was a lot of personal animosity towards President Obama."

Back home in the studio, Watters said that he has not received the proper respect from his old school: "No one has invited me to speak at commencement, I'm waiting for the invitation. The most famous people who graduated from Trinity are Tucker Carlson, George Will, and myself."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a biased Fox News special on Tuesday and Wednesday. So I will publish a good e-mail that was sent to O'Reilly:

Yussuf Ahmed, Perth, Australia: "Mr. O'Reilly, you say you're a registered Independent voter, but I think you're a Republican. Don't deny it, mate, you gave the Republicans a manifesto in your Talking Points."

O'Reilly Shows His Ignorance On The Obama Health Care Bill
By: Steve - November 11, 2014 - 10:00am

On Thursday night, the soon-to-be-Republican-controlled Congress got some advice from their good friend Bill O'Reilly. He told the GOP to cut taxes on corporate income and on capital gains. And he also advised them to secure the border with a high-tech fence, even though experts say that is a bad idea that will not work, even most of the Republican experts say that.

Then O'Reilly mentioned Obamacare, saying this: "It would be a bad idea to try to repeal Obamacare. President Obama will veto the attempt so it's a complete waste of time. If a Republican gets elected President in 2016, then you repeal it. Remember there are some good things about Obamacare like insurance companies can't throw you off the policy if you get sick. So the GOP should be patient on the Obamacare stuff."

Now O'Reilly is clearly on target about President Obama vetoing any repeal of his signature domestic initiative. But that ends the so-called good stuff for O'Reilly, even though he left out most of the good stuff.

O'Reilly's suggestion is that Republicans should eventually pursue repeal of Obamacare, even though there are some good elements in the law. It almost reads as a call for Obamacare cherry-picking, which has something of a history inside the Beltway.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) last year, for example, took aim at what at less popular elements of Obamacare -- like the mandate that individuals procure insurance -- while stressing he wanted to keep intact the more popular elements, like the preexisting conditions requirement and the provision that children can stay on their parents plans up to age 26.

But you can't do that. As has been pointed out a million times, Obamacare is a policy design that works with trade-offs for insurance companies. In rebutting Lee's attack on the law in a Salt Lake Tribune piece, Josh Kanter, founder of the Alliance for a Better Utah, put the deal in direct language:
Obamacare was the result of a "grand bargain" made among the administration, Congress and the insurance industry, classically using various "carrots" and "sticks."

From Congress standpoint, the bargain included a carrot -- the individual mandate. By requiring everyone to acquire insurance, the insurance companies wouldn't be stuck with just the sickest among us. But with that carrot came some sticks -- most notably, those items listed above which are already tremendously popular: elimination of pre-existing conditions, the increased age limitation, and elimination of the lifetime cap.
So when O'Reilly endorses certain attractive components of Obamacare, accordingly, he is effectively endorsing all of Obamacare, though you won't hear him admit it, because he is a Republican who can not admit the truth, that Obamacare is a good bill that just needs a few tweaks.

O'Reilly and the right said the whole thing was bad and it would never work, they screamed bloody murder for months, now that it is working they are silent. And he says nothing about the Republicans in the House wasting taxpayer time and money voting to repeal Obamacare 55 times when they knew it would never pass the Senate, and even if it did Obama would veto it.

Obama Rejects Republican Warnings On Immigration
By: Steve - November 10, 2014 - 10:00am

And Bill O'Reilly, who claims he is not a Republican has given Obama the very same warning, proving he is a Republican.

Some of the idiots at Fox News have even argued it would be illegal and unconstitutional, even though it would be 100% legal, and every President who serves 8 years issues hundreds of executive orders.

United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power.

O'Reilly and Fox have no problem with a President issuing executive orders, as Bush did, he issued 291 executive orders in 8 years, which is 36 a year. Obama has issued 193 so far, which is 33 a year, which is less than Bush issued. O'Reilly and Fox had only have a problem with it when Democrats do it.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama says he intends to issue an order easing the threat against deportation for immigrants in the country illegally. He'd act despite warnings from Republican leaders that he would be poisoning the well with a newly elected GOP-controlled Congress.

And he is only doing it to keep parents of immigrants kids who are here, and born here, from being separated from their family. The same family O'Reilly and the Republicans claim to care about. Proving once again that O'Reilly and the Republicans are lying to you again when they say they care about family values.

Obama tells "Face the Nation" that even if he goes ahead, there still would be room for Congress to pass immigration legislation.

He says if Congress does act, it would take the place of whatever he puts into place by his own authority.

Obama is expected to issue an order before the end of the year.

It's a step that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner both warned against in postelection news conferences.

And let us remember that there was an immigration bill that would have passed, except the Republicans blocked it from even coming up for a vote. Because their far-right racist voters told them they would vote them out of office if they passed it, funny how O'Reilly and Fox never mention that fact.

Republicans Control The Senate & You Will Be Shocked At Their Agenda
By: Steve - November 9, 2014 - 10:00am

Okay, the election is over and the Republicans now have a slight majority in the Senate and control what bills come up for votes and what bills do not come up for a vote. So you would think they are going to work on jobs, unemployment, the economy, health care, and raising workers wages, etc.

And you would be totally wrong!

On Thursday, incoming Senate Majority Leader and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell said that his top priority is "to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in."

Yes you heard that right, his top priority is to stop the EPA from doing their job to keep the air and water clean. Which is what you get when you give a guy power who is backed by corporations and big coal. Instead of making the air and water cleaner he wants to get the EPA to back off, this is what we the people did in the elections, now we will have to live with it.

And if people get sick more from bad and dirty air and water too bad, you elected these corporate owned fools.

In his first one-on-one interview since his re-election for a sixth term, McConnell told the Lexington Herald-Leader that he is convinced that coal has a future and that he feels a "deep responsibility" to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions at coal-burning power plants.

He said he won a number of coal-producing counties for the first time this election, but that it was a disappointment that the state House didn't go to the GOP on Tuesday night as it would have helped him in his crusade to block the Obama administration's efforts to promote low carbon, clean energy.

Yes you read that right, he is opposed to low carbon clean energy, and he supports dirty coal produced energy, because he is in the back pocket of the coal industry. This is what you get folks when you elect Republicans, have fun with the dirty air and the pollution.

McConnell said the only good tool with which to stifle the EPA "is through the spending process, and if (President Barack Obama) feels strongly enough about it, he can veto the bill."

What this means is that McConnell will have a hard time killing the EPA's carbon pollution regulations without shutting down the government, a thing he has already pledged not to do.

McConnell, who recently used the "I'm not a scientist" line to avoid taking a stance on climate change, decided to focus on the future of coal rather than that of the climate.

"I'm absolutely convinced from the people I talk to around the country, not just here but around the country, that coal has a future," McConnell said. "The question is whether or not coal is going to have a future here. It's got a future in Europe. It's got a future in China, India, Australia. But not here?"

A recent investigation by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute found that much of McConnell's vast personal fortune comes via his wife, Elaine Chao, whose father founded a shipping company, Foremost Maritime Corporation, that ships commodities, including coal, all over the world.

The investigation found that the company ships cheap coal from Columbia -- coal that can undercut the more costly production in Kentucky.

McConnell consistently places blame for the declining fortune of Appalachian coal squarely on the Democrats shoulders, but the real story is much more complicated and entails mechanization, natural gas, international trade, and much more powerful forces than EPA regulations.

And that's not all, the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a Karl Rove-linked group, supported McConnell's protection of the coal industry from the "Obama's war on coal" this election with ad buys.

In Thursday's interview and a post-election speech, McConnell made the war on coal a high-profile talking point and his renewed war on the war on coal as Senate leader the rejoinder.

"I think it is reasonable to assume we will use the power of the purse to push back against this overactive bureaucracy," McConnell said in a post-election speech November 5th. "Of course, we have a huge example of that in this state with the war on coal."

In his post-election speech, McConnell refrained from throwing any major punches, and took a more conciliatory tone, as did President Obama in his speech shortly thereafter. But as Evan Osnos noted in the New Yorker this week, if McConnell has a deep instinct to rise above his penchant for political calculation now "in a bid for comity and history, he hides it well."

In so many ways, McConnell is the leader that this U.S. Senate deserves, Osnos said. "He is a pure political hack: he entered politics as a center-leaning, pro-environment, pro-choice Republican in a Democratic state; year by year, he has marched to the right in step with his Party," he wrote.

For a look into the incoming Senate Majority Leader's plans for the next two years, McConnell has told his donors that he will work hard to thwart the Obama agenda, including pushing coal, moving forward with the Keystone XL pipeline, and stopping the EPA from doing anything to confront climate change.

Notice anything missing from his agenda, how about jobs, health care, unemployment, wage increases, the economy, the cost of food, the cost of living, etc. These are the most important issues facing Americans today, and McConnell does not say a word about any of it as a priority in his agenda.

The Thursday 11-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 7, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What Republicans Have To Do To Establish Authority. The biased and dishonest right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Voters now expect the GOP to improve things in America, so Republicans have to pass new laws that will help all Americans. About 70% of all American workers earn less than $50,000 dollars a year. If they get sick it's a disaster, educating their children is a huge financial burden, as is saving for retirement. So priority number one is to stimulate the economy.

President Obama's policies and those of the Democratic Party have constrained private industry, and take-home pay has gone down on President Obama's watch. Republicans need to lower the corporate income tax to about 20%. That will give companies more money to expand, thus creating jobs.

Number two, there should be a six-month tax amnesty on corporate money held overseas. Let the companies bring it back, provided it is invested in America. Third, raise the minimum wage, which will encourage young people to get into the marketplace and other folks to get off the dole. Also, the capital gains tax should be cut to 15%. That encourages private investment, so more money will flow into the marketplace.

If Republicans do those things, the economy will surge, employment will rise, and so will wages. It would be a bad idea to try to repeal Obamacare. President Obama will veto the attempt, so it's a waste of time.

How about immigration? First, the border has to be secured with a military presence and a high-tech fence. Then you can fairly deal with the people already here. If President Obama goes around Congress and legalizes the undocumented, Republicans should cut off all funding and make it impossible for the executive order to be enforced.

Finally, on social issues like gay marriage and legal pot, let the states decide. If the GOP takes my advice and nominates an honest person to run in 2016, it will win. If Republicans continue to fight each other and do not compromise, the party will lose and President Hillary Clinton will be in the Oval Office.
Comment: Nonsense, President Obama's policies and those of the Democratic Party have NOT constrained private industry, they are making record profits and are sitting on 2 trillion dollars in reserve. They are not spending it or hiring because of low demand, that is caused by the Republicans blocking all the jobs bills.

Actual corporate income tax (that they actually pay) is already below 20%, with a lot of corporations paying zero in taxes, and a lot of them also get refunds. And a cut to capital gains will simply make the rich richer, and not create jobs. This has already been proven over and over, all it does is give the rich more money.

O'Reilly wants to reward corporations who have sent money overseas, which is ridiculous, they should be punished for being un-American, not rewarded. The only thing he has right is raising the minimum wage, the rest of it is right-wing propaganda.

Then James Carville was on, he said this: "It was a real thumping Tuesday, but now we go to work on 2016. There's an election every two years and I think Democrats will have a good one in 2016."

Carville also said this: "One of the things that would help these people making less than $50,000 is to cut the payroll tax. That would put money in their pockets right now."

Then Ed Henry was on to talk about President Obama, who continues to imply that he will soon enact an executive order to unilaterally "improve" our immigration laws.

Henry said this: "On one hand the president is saying he wants to work with Republicans, but at the same time he says he's bulling ahead with an executive order. That doesn't sound like cooperation when you want to go ahead unilaterally. But the Republicans can actually supersede any executive order by actually passing a bill that focuses on border security. It's put up or shut up time for Republicans."

Then Andrea Tantaros & Nomiki Konst were on to discuss the new Republican-led Senate.

Tantaros said this: "I don't think there's a lot of common ground. If President Obama was going to work with Republicans he would have done it after he was shellacked in the 2010 elections. He ran on a mandate that he would work with Congress but he hasn't done so."

Comment: Which is nothing but right-wing spin and ridiculous, because Obama has tried to work with the Republicans for 6 years, they refused to work with him and just say no to everything he wants to do. They have no counter proposals, they just vote no to everything, that is not trying to work with him, it's gridlock, I guess Tantaros forgot about that, yeah right.

Nomiki Konst, co-founder of the liberal Accountability Project, blamed both sides for the gridlock, saying this: "We have a Congress that is not made up of leaders and we have a president who's an introvert and doesn't like politicking. They have to communicate with each other, but they're politicians and not leaders."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl examined newly released emails written by John Morton, former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Wiehl said this: "These are a series of memos from 2011 and 2012, that basically tell ICE agents not to go after illegal immigrants unless they've committed felonies. The key words in these memos are 'prosecutorial discretion,' which is code for 'don't prosecute.'"

Guilfoyle added that Morton's then-bosses are not directly implicated, saying this: "This could have come from former Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. There isn't a direct link that says it was under her direction, but this is in keeping with the administration's ideology."

O'Reilly (Mr. no speculation) speculated that senior administration officials must have approved the policy, saying this: "Somebody had to tell him to do this, guys like this don't just write memos to federal prosecutors telling them to leave illegal immigrants alone."

Then the biased far-right stooge Bernie Goldberg was on, he spent Tuesday night channel-flipping and analyzing election coverage. And he specifically criticized NBC's Tom Brokaw, who lamented that President Obama "gets hammered" by Fox News and talk radio. Even though it's true, they hammer Obama 24/7 with biased and partisan commentary. Just as MSNBC did when Bush was in office.

Goldberg said this: "I'll stick up for Brokaw on one part, and that is that there are some talk radio shows that are vulgar. He has every right to condemn those. But, just as the voters rejected the phony 'war on women,' I think it's the same thing with the liberal war on Fox News. When Brokaw says Fox News hammered Obama, it just feels like an old and tired argument. If Fox News is such a bogeyman, why did so many Americans choose Fox News to watch election night coverage?"

O'Reilly answered that question, saying this: "A lot of traditional-minded people don't trust Tom Brokaw and his ilk."

Comment: Now let me answer that question with the actual truth. On election night 6 million Republicans watched Fox News, because the word was out that the Democrats would take a beating.

Plain and simple, those 6 million viewers were Republicans who just wanted to see their guys win. It does not represent a sample of Americans, it was not a mix of Democrats and Independents, it was 99% Republicans, which proves nothing, except that Fox is a right-wing biased news network.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Voters = Patriots. Billy said this: "Those of you who voted Tuesday are the leaders of the country and you are honoring the nation's history and traditions."

Citizens United Head Admits SC Ruling Handed Elections To Republicans
By: Steve - November 7, 2014 - 10:00am

Don't think the Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited dark money campaign donations made a difference for the Republicans in Tuesday's midterms? The plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case thinks so.

"Citizens United, our Supreme Court case, leveled the playing field, and we're very proud of the impact that had in last night's election," said David Bossie, chairman of the conservative advocacy organization.

He complained that Democratic lawmakers were trying to "gut the First Amendment" with their proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 ruling, reported Right Wing Watch, which allowed corporations to pour cash into campaigns without disclosing their contributions.

Bossie said this so-called "dark money" was crucial to the Republicans gaining control of the U.S. Senate and strengthening their grip on the U.S. House of Representatives.

"A robust conversation, which is what a level playing field allows, really creates an opportunity for the American people to get information and make good decisions," Bossie said.

Comment: For me the problem is not so much the dark money, it's the unlimited amounts of money. When the wealthy can donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates running for office, or re-election, it gives them an unfair advantage and makes the playing field unlevel. Basically it lets the person with the most money win, which is not how our system should work, every voter should be on a level playing field, and the Citizen United ruling made that playing field unlevel.

Instead of allowing unlimited donations, they should have a $500 donation limit, then the average voter is equal to a millionaire or a billionaire. But as usual corporate America and the wealthy got what they wanted and the average American got screwed, because the corporations and the wealthy own Congress and they have all the power. And of course O'Reilly supported the Citizen United ruling, even though it was unfair to the little guy, the very same little guy O'Reilly claims to be looking out for.

The Wednesday 11-5-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 6, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Democrats Get Their Butts Kicked. The biased and dishonest right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Know what? The Democratic Party earned their thrashing. Led by President Obama, the party has failed to lift the American economy and has not provided enough protections for the American people. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, blocked most meaningful reform bills, allowing bad policies to continue. And the American people know it.

About 65% of voters yesterday told exit-pollers the country is going in the wrong direction. So there is no debate, and that's why the Republicans have now assumed power in America. It is worth discussing exactly why President Obama took it on the chin. First of all, his economic policies did not work. Take-home pay for most working Americans has dropped on his watch. That is the only important economic indicator for the folks.

The reason is that Mr. Obama wants the feds to run the economy. Even today after the Republican landslide, the liberal New York Times is screaming that the government has to 'create jobs.' Moronic! The private sector creates jobs. And then there is President Obama's style. You simply do not play golf after announcing that an American citizen has been beheaded by ISIS. That's inappropriate and the American people took notice.

Also, when there is a threat of an epidemic, you take quick decisive action and you do not allow the Centers for Disease Control to confuse everybody. Finally, you do not play the race card. Elements of the far left are addicted to the race excuse. It is offensive and has harmed the image of the Obama administration. Exit polling yesterday says that American voters are most concerned about the economy, and they should be.

President Obama is desperately trying to redistribute income and in the process is creating a welfare state in America. That welfare state is unsustainable and you can see it in the national debt, which will most likely be more than $20 trillion once President Obama leaves office. Add it all up, and you have the vote last night.
Comment: Almost all of what O'Reilly said is propaganda, he is right the Democrats got their butt kicked, but that's about all he got right. The economy is doing great and the Obama economic policies did work, the only thing that is down is take home pay, because the Republicans block everything that would raise it, and the corporations are not giving their employees any raises.

Then the loon Glenn Beck was on to evaluate Tuesday's election results, and the crazy Beck sounded an ominous alarm.

Beck said this: "The president is disconnected from the American people entirely, you saw that there was no humility in his press conference today. He is also disconnected from the Democrats. He came out yesterday and said that by Christmas he will have his executive order on illegal immigration. I think this president is going to go more radical, he doesn't have anything to lose. He is going serve the uber-left and the Republicans are not prepared for this. We have a very bad scenario heading our way, I think we are in the most dangerous period that the republic has been in since the Civil War."

Then the Democrat Bob Beckel was on, he said this: "This was a perfect storm of an unpopular president, a bad electoral map, and low turnout. And if you understand presidential politics, this was not 'historic.' Go back and look at history!"

Beckel conceded that President Obama has not lived up to the hope and hype, saying this: "I'm disappointed, but I still think the guy was well-intentioned and has good policies. I just don't think the policies were handled very well."

Then the Fox News host and Republican presidential prospect Mike Huckabee was on to analyze the election results and the efforts by Bill and Hillary Clinton to help Democratic candidates. And he is still working for Fox, even though he is most likely going to run for President, which is a joke but O'Reilly said nothing about it.

Huckabee said this: "Everybody was predicting razor-tight elections, but they were blowouts. Bill and Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time in some states, but they couldn't pull a rabbit out of the hat, they couldn't pull a vote out of the cemetery. But Republicans made one big mistake - they didn't really lay out what they're going to do. They should have put some things on the table like the Keystone Pipeline, term limits for members of Congress, and a balanced budget amendment. If Republicans want to show Americans they can govern and lead, they have to find a way to come together."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Tuesday night's election and President Obama's likely response.

Krauthammer said this: "The president is a strange combination of obliviousness and recklessness. This is a man who is seething with anger over what's happened, a man who thinks he's been betrayed by the country. He's so self-involved and he hates to be irrelevant, so now he's going to get his revenge on everybody by doing a reckless thing and legalizing millions of illegal aliens. He knows it will create a crisis, but it will put him back in the spotlight and makes him the issue."

O'Reilly said he is worried about a full-blown constitutional crisis, saying this: "If he signs an executive order legalizing millions of illegals, I think he's going to be impeached. The Republicans can not sit through that."

Comment: But remember this is the same right-wing moron that said Ebola was a crisis, even though it was not and never will be, so he can not be trusted to tell the truth.

Here is a good e-mail that was sent to O'Reilly: Carl Hafner, Copaigue, NY: "You, O'Reilly, don't get involved with partisan politics? All you've been doing for months is putting down the president. Inflation is low, unemployment is down, the stock market is up. Tell Rove to put that on his chalkboard."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Sitting Pols, Sitting In? Billy said this: "Send an email and tell us what you think about inviting active politicians to guest host The Factor."

Comment: I think it's a terrible idea, because it will be all Republicans and all they will do is use the Factor show to spin out their right-wing propaganda and lie even more to the people using a national tv news show. In fact, I think it's the dumbest idea O'Reilly has ever come up with.

Hey O'Reilly: What Happened To The Ebola Crisis?
By: Steve - November 6, 2014 - 10:00am

Notice that O'Reilly has suddenly stopped talking about Ebola, the massive crisis he claimed was out of control and so bad we needed to ban anyone from Africa (or who was even in Africa) from coming into the USA. As I predicted from day one it would be no crisis and never will be, while at the very same time O'Reilly was screaming that the sky was falling every night for 3 weeks straight.

Face it folks, the Ebola nonsense from O'Reilly is yet even more proof he is nothing but a propaganda spewing right-wing fool. I told you the truth about it, while O'Reilly spread fear and lies, and I am not even a real journalist, I'm just a man with a blog and a website and no staff to research things for me, but O'Reilly still got it all wrong.

Here are some Ebola facts: In the past ten days the U.S. has lost interest in the virus that recently dominated headlines and threatened to metastasize across the 2014 midterm election.

Less than two weeks ago the presence of a case in New York City augured to some on the right the pivotal moment when the virus leapt from some Dallas hospital room to the dense urban jungle of Gotham, where it could not be controlled.

Instead, Dr. Craig Spencer is now the only ebola patient in the United States, and the two Dallas health care workers who represent the sole cases of ebola transmission in the U.S. are both clear of the virus.

We only had one fatality in the U.S. And that was a guy from Africa who illegally entered the country by lying about his Ebola symptoms. Not one American citizen has died from Ebola, none.

Sure enough Google Trends finds the interest in ebola declining beneath the levels preceding the virus stateside arrival. Interest initially surged after the CDC announced Thomas Eric Duncan had tested positive for ebola on September 30.

Attention peaked on October 16 following the announcement that infected nurse Amber Vinson had flown from Cleveland to Dallas just before becoming symptomatic, a news cycle that coincided with heavy criticism of Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital's ebola protocols. Interest spiked one last time when Spencer tested positive.

This is a rapid turnaround from a fortnight ago, when many predicted anxiety over the virus would figure prominently in the final days of the 2014 midterm elections. For a while any Republican politician (or O'Reilly) calling for a travel ban from west Africa (never actually implemented) could get on television, while GOP candidates cut campaign ads tying ebola to the U.S.-Mexico border and ISIS.

Late last week GOP candidate Scott Brown (R-Northeast), patient zero of ebola demagoguery, was still using ebola to drum up fears of undocumented immigrants humping it across a porous border. Who also lost his election, one of the few Republicans who did, so what does that say about how bad he was.

O'Reilly and Brown's fearmongering has charted a course opposite that of the public, which has reported increasing confidence in the government's ability to contain ebola and decreasing fears that it will spread in the U.S. Midterm coverage has focused not on ebola but on party branding.

Meanwhile at least some news outlets have contributed to the calm by declining to report on every patient with ebola-like symptoms. And after some early missteps the CDC appears to have a handle both on the virus and public reaction to it.

Ebola continues to debilitate countries in west Africa, where it has taken a massive toll and where it ultimately must be stopped. But in the U.S. the fever has broken.

And the so-called crisis never happened, proving that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a fearmongering partisan idiot. Because I knew the truth about it and reported it here on my blog, I was right and O'Reilly was wrong, and I am just one man with a computer doing this all on my own.

O'Reilly has millions and millions of dollars, and a staff of 20 people, and yet he still got it all wrong. Then after being wrong he does not admit to being wrong, or say he is sorry, he just drops the story and hopes everyone forgets he got it all wrong.

Minimum Wage Raise Passes In Four States
By: Steve - November 5, 2014 - 11:00am

Voters in four states approved ballot initiatives to raise their state minimum wages on Tuesday, sending another message to the Republicans in Washington that Americans support a higher minimum wage.

Binding minimum wage referendums were on the ballot in Arkansas, Nebraska, Alaska and South Dakota on Tuesday, with polls suggesting ahead of election day that all of them would pass.

Arkansas voters approved their initiative by a 65-to-35 margin, according to early returns. The measure will increase the minimum wage incrementally to $8.50 per hour by 2017. Nebraska voters, meanwhile, approved their initiative, which will raise the minimum wage to $9 by 2016, by a 62-to-38 margin.

Alaskans voted by a 69-to-31 margin to raise their minimum wage from $7.75 to $9.75 an hour by 2016, and then peg it to an inflation index so that it rises with the cost of living.

South Dakota voted 55-45 to raise their minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 next year. It will also be indexed thereafter.

The federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour and hasn't been raised since 2009, though states have the option of setting their own minimum wages instead. Arkansas and Nebraska will now join 24 other states that are slated to have a higher wage floor than the federal level next year.

Raising the minimum wage is extremely popular among Americans, with 70 percent of respondents to a recent poll saying they back the idea.

Supporting minimum wage increases became so fashionable during this midterm election season that even some Republican candidates got behind the ballot initiatives. After discouraging such a raise earlier this year, Dan Sullivan, the Republican challenger to Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), eventually said that he would vote in favor of the Alaska measure. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who unseated Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) on Tuesday, slowly came around to say he would do the same for the initiative in Arkansas.

But virtually every other Republican is opposed to it, and we do not know if they are serious until they vote for it, after all, they could have been lying just to get elected or re-elected. And most likely they were lying just to win their elections. Because 99% of Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage and vote no on it every time the Democrats bring it up for a vote.

Given the broad public support, progressive and labor groups in recent years have made a point of putting minimum wage referendums on the ballot at the state and city level. By going to the ballot box, minimum wage backers are able to bypass reluctant state legislatures, particularly those led by Republicans, and put the vote to what is often a more sympathetic audience.

Recent polls in Arkansas, Alaska and South Dakota all showed support for the minimum wage ballot measures, even though the legislatures in those states are GOP-controlled. Nebraska, though solidly red, does not formally recognize state lawmakers party affiliation.

Minimum wage increases have been a bright spot for organized labor recently, as unions -- and the Service Employees International Union in particular -- have spearheaded the campaign to raise wages in fast food and retail.

President Obama has cited the fast-food strikes in calling on Congress to hike the federal minimum wage. Democrats in both chambers have proposed raising the wage to $10.10 per hour and tying it to an inflation index. House Republicans, however, haven't brought the measure up for a vote, and Senate Democrats haven't rounded up enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Voters in Illinois said they're okay with a higher minimum wage, boosting education funding with additional taxes on millionaires and requiring health insurance providers to include birth control in their coverage.

The referendum questions on the November 4, 2014 ballot are non-binding advisory questions that, essentially, tell legislators what the voters think. The vote does not directly impact existing law.

Illinois voters approved the statewide advisory that called for the state's minimum wage to increase from the current $8.25 per hour to $10 per hour by January 1, 2015. With about 90% of all precincts reporting, the measure passed with 68% of the vote; 32% of the vote was against the measure.

Voters also approved a referendum that would require health insurance plans to include prescription birth control and prescription drug coverage offered to residents of Illinois. With about 90% of all precincts reporting, the measure passed with 67% of the vote for and 33% against.

Voters additionally said they would support a 3% tax increase on income over $1 million to help fund education in Illinois. That measure was approved with 65% voting for and 35% against after about 90% of all precincts reported on election night.

Employment Report Shows 230,000 Jobs Added in October
By: Steve - November 5, 2014 - 10:00am

And as usual, not a word about it from O'Reilly, because it is good news for Obama and it shows his economic policies are working. While O'Reilly says the economy is doing terrible, and Obama has bad economic policies, the actual facts show the opposite. Jobs are up over 200,000 a month, unemployment is down, the stock market is setting new record highs all the time, gas prices are below $3.00 a gallon and heading for $2.50 a gallon, and it's already down to $2.72 a gallon here in East Peoria Illinois.

ROSELAND, N.J. -- November 5, 2014 - Private sector employment increased by 230,000 jobs from September to October according to the October ADP National Employment Report. Broadly distributed to the public each month, free of charge, the ADP National Employment Report is produced by ADP, a leading global provider of Human Capital Management (HCM) solutions, in collaboration with Moody's Analytics.

Payrolls for businesses with 49 or fewer employees increased by 102,000 jobs in October, up from 93,000 in September. Job growth was up dramatically over the month for medium-sized firms. Employment among companies with 50-499 employees rose by 122,000, well over twice September's increase of 47,000.

Goods-producing employment rose by 48,000 jobs in October, down slightly from 50,000 jobs gained in September. The construction industry added 28,000 jobs over the month, above last month's gain of 13,000. Meanwhile, manufacturing added 15,000 jobs in October, down by over half from September's 33,000 which was the highest total in that sector since March 2011.

Service-providing employment rose by 181,000 jobs in October, up from 176,000 in September. The ADP National Employment Report indicates that professional/business services contributed 53,000 jobs in October. Expansion in trade/transportation/utilities grew by 47,000, up from September's 37,000.

The Monday 11-3-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 4, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Midterm Election. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points does not endorse political candidates because it's my job to keep an eye on all the powerful people in America. That being said, there is no question the Obama administration is having trouble almost everywhere. It's clear that President Obama's economic policies have not helped working Americans.

The key indicator - your take home pay - has gone down since he's been in office. Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party believe the federal government should essentially run the economy. The president and Congress have poured nearly one trillion taxpayer dollars into the marketplace and all we have to show for that is 2% growth per year on average. The feds cannot run the private economy, it's not working.

And that is the Democratic philosophy - big government, many regulations, high taxation. Overseas, things are a mess, U.S. foreign policy is in disarray. Finally, the most important thing for the future - education - is also not doing well. According to the CATO institute, spending on American students has more than doubled since 1970 to almost $13,000 a year per student, among the highest in the world. But SAT scores have declined 3% since the 1970's.

Spending does not translate into good education, discipline does. Both teachers and students must be held accountable in the classroom, but the Democratic Party opposes that philosophy.

There's little I can say about the Republican Party because there is no cohesive message and the battle between conservatives and moderates continues to rage. The GOP has no visible leadership, no unity, and a terrible image among minority voters. But the failure of the Democratic Party overrides the inertia of the Republican Party, and that is why the GOP is favored to win tomorrow.
Comment: Almost all of that is either a lie, spin, or flat out Republican propaganda. O'Reilly says he does not endorse candidates, even though he does, in a generic way, he tells everyone the Democrats are terrible so you should elect Republicans, he just does not endorse them by name.

The Obama economic policies have worked, so O'Reilly is lying about that, every economic measure has gone up, except take home pay, which is not the fault of Obama and O'Reilly knows it. Take home pay has not gone up because corporations are paying less and not giving their workers raises. This has nothing to do with Obama, and the one thing that would raise take home pay is raising the minimum wage, that Obama supports and the Republicans keep blocking, somehow O'Reilly ignores that.

The 2% growth per year on average stat is deceptive and misleading, O'Reilly is using an average for all 6 years, counting the 1st 2 years that were to blame on Bush, if you average the last 4 years it is much better. Not to mention, the Republicans block everything that would help the economy and the GDP, O'Reilly never mentions that either, and just blames it all on Obama, which is ridiculous and total right-wing propaganda.

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing stooge Karl Rove on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance, none.

Karl Rove was asked about any impending electoral surprises, Rove cited the Colorado race between incumbent Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Cory Gardner, saying this: "The Republicans lead by 112,000 in the mail-in ballots, and virtually all the votes will be cast this year by mail-in. It is also interesting that in Alaska the election results may not be known until November 12th because they allow a week for the votes to come in from the hinterlands."

Rove conceded that his GOP is trailing in two key states, saying this: "The Republicans have great hopes for North Carolina and New Hampshire, but we're behind in both. The good news is that 13% of voters are still undecided in North Carolina and Scott Brown in New Hampshire is the best closer on the Republican side. I don't know what's going to happen in North Carolina and New Hampshire, but the Republicans will take the Senate."

Then Brit Hume was on, with no Democratic guest for balance, he talked about President Obama's sycophants who continue to blame his unpopularity on race, which Hume denounced as both offensive and inaccurate. Which is his opinion and not a fact.

Hume said this: "This campaign is a lot about President Obama, but it hasn't been personal attacks on him as a person, it's been criticism of his policies. In no sense has this been about the president's race, and to the extent that it has been, it's been on his part and the part of those who are working with him to try to hype the black turnout."

Comment: Ignoring the fact that there are a lot of Republican racists who hate Obama, O'Reilly and Hume act like there is no racism against Obama, which is a lie, because there is a lot of racism against Obama and it's all from white people in the Republican party, they just ignore it and deny it.

O'Reilly even reminded his viewers that presidents are always hammered by their political rivals, saying this: "When you think back to the attacks on Bush and Cheney, they were savage. President Obama has had it easier than those two guys, certainly in the press."

Comment: Not true, Obama has been hammered as much or more by his haters on the right, and a lot of it is racist, he has even had more death threats than any other President, which is a fact O'Reilly ignores and never reports on.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to pick the stupidest moments of the long campaign season. Ham singled out Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who essentially accused her constituents of racism and sexism.

Ham said this: "She is a third-term female Senator, and the state elected a female governor before Bobby Jindal, who is also a racial minority. That was insulting to people you're trying to get votes from."

Williams (the so-called Democrat) slammed Kentucky Democratic candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, who refused to say whether she voted for President Obama, saying this: "That was cringe-worthy. She knows 60% of the state doesn't like Obama, but she could have said, 'I'm a Democrat, I voted for Obama, but I disagree with him about guns and coal.' She invited people to think Obama is the devil."

Comment: Proving once again that Juan Williams is a pretend Democrat, he was on to pick something stupid a Republican did, and he slammed a Democrat, what a joke.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who has finally been freed after being locked up for seven months in a Mexican prison.

Kelly said this: "Two Congressmen, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Montel Williams went down to Mexico. The lawmakers had been meeting with Mexican officials for many days and the Attorney General of Mexico finally asked the prosecutor to drop the charges. Montel Williams had also been passionately advocating on Tahmooressi's behalf."

Then Jesse Watters was on with his waste of time segment about the midterm elections, Watters ventured out to take the pulse of the American electorate, or at least a sad, tiny slice of it.

Some comments: "I don't really participate much in the midterm elections" ... "I'm an Earth citizen, I don't vote for a man to govern me." Watters also revealed that he'll be very easy to find Tuesday evening. "We'll be doing an online broadcast on FoxNews.com/StrategyRoom. I'll be there with Harris Faulkner, Andrea Tantaros, and a whole gang who will be analyzing things."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a SNL skit about Megyn Kelly from Fox News.

Fact: Unless You Are Wealthy You Are Stupid To Vote For A Republican
By: Steve - November 4, 2014 - 10:00am

The word stupid has a broad range of applications, but it generally means a person lacks basic intelligence or the ability to reason. It can also imply a lack of capacity for reasoning, or a permanent state of slow-mindedness.

However you define the word stupid, you can hardly think of the word without directly relating it to Republican voters; especially those who are not part of the wealthiest one-percent of income earners.

Over the past weeks while encouraging people to vote in the midterm elections, it became apparent that the level of stupidity inherent in people inclined to support Republicans is beyond comprehension. In fact, it is frightening that so many people of voting age lack the fundamental reasoning ability of a second-grader and are even less-informed about basic facts than a kindergartner; exactly the type of voter Republicans depend on to win elections.

And it does not matter what issue or policy the typical GOP voter either supports or opposes, they base their position on whatever absurdity their favorite Republican candidate espouses; regardless of reality.

One of the most bizarre ideas held by Republicans living in drought-stricken California is that the lack of rainfall responsible for, among other things, a non-existent snowpack in the mountains and dried-up wells is due to the Clean Water Act and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As a reminder to these right-wing morons, a drought is an extended period of time when a region receives consistently below average precipitation; or for the Republican voters reading this, it means there is no rain for an extended period of time.

Still, local Republicans like Koch-backed Tea Party Jeff Denham have convinced these morons that the reason it has not rained in California for the past three years is because the EPA regulates the amount of toxic chemicals the oil industry pours directly into the air and water.

And yes, they actually believe that. In the insane world of the Republican voter, a lot of them think that because the EPA regulates poison chemicals going into the air and water it has caused a drought, which is just insanity, and even the average 5 year old kid would not believe that nonsese, but most Republicans do.

Unbelievably, more GOP voters are convinced that eliminating the EPA will bring back normal rainfall to the region and create millions of high-paying jobs to boot.

Another crazy thing Republican voters believe is that keeping the minimum wage at poverty levels, or eliminating it altogether, will put more money into working people's pockets and eliminate poverty.

Which is stunning, because in reality those most in need of better wages believe Republican lies that the reason they are poor is not due to low wages, but because of socialist workplace regulations such as overtime pay, 40-hour work weeks, OSHA, and of course the dreaded minimum wage.

This insanity accompanies a firm belief that cutting retirees Social Security and giving their retirement accounts to Wall Street will create millions of jobs as well as eliminate struggling senior citizens living off their Social Security pensions need for food stamps to survive.

In fact, a lot of Republican voters, including some white seniors, are convinced that Democrats and President Obama are responsible for their poverty because they oppose privatizing Medicare; something Republicans convinced them is a Marxist plot to destroy America's storied free market capitalism.

The so-called values crowd are clearly stupefied into supporting Republicans economic policies in large part due to their belief that Democrats and President Obama are waging a war on marriage that only electing Republicans will remedy. They cannot, and will not, believe that marriage does not need protecting because no-one is attacking it, or that anyone in their right mind cares on way or another if a man and woman chooses to marry.

The same pro-life evangelical crowd is convinced by Republicans that President Obama has robbed them of their religious rights and more than a few are preparing for the looming government assault on their churches. And they are the same people who think you are a person before you are even born, but then once you are born they refuse to fund programs for poor mothers to take care of the kids, then they wonder why so many single mothers are on welfare.

They also oppose abortion for any reason, even if it is rape or incest, they think they can pray to end abortion and God will end it. Even though it does not work, never has and never will, and abortion is legal. They even worship far-right pro-life loons who kill abortion doctors, which is insane, especially when they are pro-life and yet they are worshipping lunatics who took a life.

This list of insane beliefs Republicans put out to convince their base to vote against their own self-interests is endless, and sadly no reason or facts will ever convince them their support for Republicans is the root cause of most of their own problems. There are millions of Americans struggling in poverty due to low wages, and yet they will go to the polls and vote for Republicans because they tell them that lower wages and giving the wealthy their pensions will magically increase their personal wealth and save America in the process.

Nobody wants to believe that half of their country's population is stupid, or ignorant, but at the rate Republican candidates get votes based on sheer fantasy and lies, there is no other conclusion that makes any sense whatsoever.

And O'Reilly never mentions any of this about Republican voters, but he did call people dumb who vote for Democrats. Which is also insane, because the Democrats actually support the people, and want to help them, the Republicans only care about the wealthy and the corporations.

One thing is certain; if the Republican American voters were not so stupid, they would not knowingly vote against their own best interests. But Republicans know their base and that without stupid people they would be extinct as a viable political party, but they are far from going extinct and it is all down to the level of stupidity permeating this sad ignorant nation.

Think about this, these Republicans think you are stupid. That is why they lie to you to get you to vote for them, if they thought you were smart they would not lie to you because they know they would not get away with it. But since most Republican voters are stupid, they lie to you to keep you misinformed to vote for them based on their lies.

Notice that in every study the Republicans in it are the least informed, and get the most political questions wrong. Because O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, Republicans in Congress etc. lie to you and you believe it.

DOW & S&P Close At Record Highs (Again) O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - November 3, 2014 - 10:00am

Once again the DOW and the S&P have closed at record highs, and as usual Bill O'Reilly never said one word about it, because it makes Obama look good, and shows that O'Reilly was wrong when he said the Obama policies were bad for the economy and the country. The far-right stooge Greg Gutfeld filled in for O'Reilly Friday night, and he never said a word about it either.

And not only that, gas prices are also at record lows, with prices here in East Peoria Illinois as low as $2.75 a gallon, which is also an economic boost because people are spending less money on gas now. Just a $1 a gallon drop in gas prices means $1,000 more per household in extra spending money over a year, and for every penny you drop the price and keep it there for a year, you've increased American spending power by $150 billion dollars.

From USA Today:

Two benchmark stock indexes closed at record highs Friday.

The Dow Jones industrial average ended up 195.10 points, 1.1%, to 17,390.52 -- its highest close since Aug. 19, when it finished at 17,279.74. The Standard & Poor's 500 added 23.40 points, 1.2%, to close at 2018.05 -- its highest close since Aug. 18, when it finished at 2011.36.

And the Nasdaq composite index ended at a 14 1/2-year high, gaining 64.60 points, 1.4%, to close at 4630.74.

The tech-packed Nasdaq climbed as high as 4641.51 in early trading -- its highest level in more than 14 years -- before retreating a tad. At its peak, the Nasdaq was at its highest level since March 29, 2000.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note ended 2.33%, up from 2.31% Thursday. And the price of crude oil keeps falling. On Friday, it lost another 54 cents to end at $80.58 a barrel.

Remember this, when you hear someone say Bill O'Reilly is a fair and balanced journalist. Under George W. Bush every time the stock market hit a record high O'Reilly reported it and even gave Bush credit for it, saying it was good news for the country and it shows that Bush is doing a good job as President.

O'Reilly actually used the stock market as a measure of how good of a job the President was doing, but that was under Bush. Under Obama he does not do the same thing, when it happens under Obama not only does he not give Obama credit for it or use it as a measure of how good a job the President is doing, he does not even report it at all, nothing, not a word.

This is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because he has two sets of rules for when Republicans are in office and when Democrats are in office.

Grimes Files Injunction Against McConnell For Illegal Voter Suppression Tactics
By: Steve - November 2, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly (the so-called Independent journalist) never said a word about any of it, but if it was the Democrat using the illegal voter suppression tricks O'Reilly would be all over it, and demand the courts put a stop to it.

Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes has filed for an immediate injunction to stop Mitch McConnell from sending out a mailer that is designed to keep people from voting on Election Day.

The illegal mailer looks like an official document, but it's not. The presentation is designed to scare voters with "ELECTION VIOLATION NOTICE" in all caps across the envelope. The letter warns the recipient that, "You are at risk of acting on fraudulent information."

The mailer is clearly a voter intimidation and suppression tactic.

The Grimes campaign has responded by going to court to force McConnell to stop the voter intimidation tactics. Grimes campaign manager Jonathan Hurst said, "Of all the terrible things Mitch McConnell has done during this 30 year career in Washington, this last-ditch campaign he authorized to intimidate Kentuckians and prevent them from exercising their right to vote is unquestionably his most despicable."

McConnell's voter suppression letter has even caused election officials in Eastern Kentucky to issue an alert, saying this: "Tonight, an alert for Eastern Kentucky voters. The Perry County Clerk and others called us today concerned about a campaign flyer mailed to folks across the coverage area.

Perry County Clerk Haven King says you should not worry if you received one of these letters. "This means nothing; I don't know what people are trying to do. There's nothing fraudulent to my knowledge going on and the people in Perry County if you are registered to vote, you will be able to vote and you will be able to vote at your precinct."

Let's hope his voter intimidation efforts backfire, and give Alison Lundergan Grimes the opening that she needs to seal the deal with Kentucky voters. Because if it works, it could swing the election to McConnell.

McConnell may have saved his biggest mistake for last as the Kentucky Senator might be in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

O'Reilly & Media Lying To You About Obama Poll Numbers Dropping
By: Steve - November 1, 2014 - 11:00am

Week after week, month after month, O'Reilly and a lot of other people in the media report that the Obama approval ratings just keep dropping and dropping, even though it's not true, the truth is they have only dropped 1 point in a year, that is a fact.

The portrait being painted by an array of media artists is unmistakable: Obama's approval ratings are not only weak but they're going down, down, down. Even though it's not true.

The part about Obama's "dropping" and "sinking" polling numbers simply isn't accurate, no matter how many times it's repeated by O'Reilly, Fox News, and inside the Beltway echo chamber.

Does the White House wish Obama's job approval rating was higher? I'm sure his advisers do. Does polling indicate that Democrats face the possibility of deep losses next week in the midterm elections? Yes. Does that mean the press should just make up narratives about the president's approval rating simply because it fits in, again, with anti-Obama spin that Republicans are pushing? It does not.

According to the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages together an array of national polls to come up with Obama's composite job approval rating, the president's approval on January 1, 2014 stood at 42.6 percent.

The president's approval rating on October 30, 2014 (one day ago) was 42 percent.

So over the course of ten months, and based on more than one hundred poll results in 2014, Obama's approval rating declined less than one point.

I can safely say Obama is only president in U.S. history whose approval rating dropped a single digit over a ten-month stretch and it was described as having "plummeted."

And no, there hasn't been a large fluctuation during the year. Obama's high for the year hit 44 percent in February. His low fell to 41 percent in July.

Gallup tells the same story. It posts daily tracking results for Obama's approval rating. On January 1, it was 42 percent. On October 30, it was 43 percent.

The larger story the press doesn't bother telling? How amazingly consistent Obama's approval rating been for four of the last five years. (It experienced a bump in the fall of 2012, during the height of the president's re-election campaign.)

From Gallup:

October 30, 2010: 44 percent
October 28, 2011: 43 percent
October 28, 2013: 42 percent
October 28, 2014: 42 percent

Minus a small change at the end of the 2012 campaign, Obama's approval rating since 2010 hasn't really budged outside of a three or four point range.

And the margin of error in these polls is + or - 3 percent, so in reality it might not have changed at all over an entire year, or longer.

But O'Reilly and the rest of the media doesn't write that story. Instead it embraces and utterly absorbs the GOP's preferred narrative: Obama's presidency is collapsing! Especially O'Reilly, who says it almost every other day, when none of it is true.

The fact that the president's approval rating hovers in the low 40s isn't news. It has been there for a majority of his presidency. So why does the Beltway press seem so anxious this election season to treat Obama's steady approval as news, and to pretend the president's approval rating has suddenly fallen from a lofty perch?

"President Obama's approval rating has plunged to a new low of 40 percent," announced ABC News' Amy Robach on October 15. She was referring to an ABC/Washington Post poll that showed Obama's approval rating had slipped from 42 to 40 percent, which hardly represented a plunge, since the slight movement fell inside the poll's margin of error.

Obama's approval rating dip from 42 to 40 percent was big news at the Post, and was stressed in the first paragraph of the news article. But look at how the Post downplayed its own polling data just two weeks later when it showed Obama's approval had bumped up from 40 to 43 percent - a larger movement in the other direction, albeit one that remained within the margin of error.

That's right, when the approval rating dropped two points, the movement was hailed as big news at the Post. When it went up three points that same month, it was dismissed as "statistically insignificant"?

The Post, like lots of other dishonest news media outlets, appears to be too firmly committed a Republican talking point about Obama's "sinking" approval rating. As does Bill O'Reilly, because he does the very same thing, telling you over and over that the Obama poll numbers just keep going lower and lower, when it is just not true.

Judge Rules Against O'Reilly And Maine Officials Over Nurse Quarantine
By: Steve - November 1, 2014 - 10:00am

Thursday night O'Reilly said the Maine nurse who is facing quarantine, should be taken into custody, even though she is not sick and has no symptons of Ebola, not to mention violating her constitutional rights.

O'Reilly said if she really wants to defy her quarantine, "she should be taken into custody."

Hickox is fighting her state-mandated quarantine in Maine because she doesn't believe it's just or based in science.

She was also quarantined in New Jersey and might sue Chris Christie for keeping her isolated for several days. But O'Reilly thinks whatever public health officials say goes.

Now remember, these are the very same health officials O'Reilly has been slamming for 3 weeks, saying they do not know what they are talking about, and they are lying to us, but now he says he thinks whatever they say goes, talk about double talk and hypocrisy, that is it.

Well, as usual O'Reilly was wrong, because a judge has ruled against Maine because she is not sick and has no signs of Ebola.

A Maine judge has rejected a request by state officials to quarantine and restrict the movements of nurse Kaci Hickox, who after returning from treating Ebola patients in West Africa defied the state's quarantine.

Judge Charles LaVerdiere issued a new order saying she should only continue daily monitoring and coordinate travel with state officials. But, because she's not showing symptoms, the judge said she's not infectious -- and would not approve the limits on her movements sought by Maine health officials.

"The State has not met its burden at this time to prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting [Hickox's] movements to the degree requested" is necessary, the judge wrote.

He did order the nurse to immediately notify health officials if any symptoms appear.

The order hands a win to the nurse in her high-profile battle with state officials. She said in a press conference outside her house: "I am very satisfied with the decision. ... I will continue to be compliant. And yes, it's just a good, a good day."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage issued a statement saying they would abide by the ruling.

"My duty to protect the health of the individual, as well as the health and safety of 1.3 million Mainers, is my highest priority. Despite our best effort to work collaboratively with this individual. she has refused to cooperate with us," he said.

"As Governor, I have done everything I can to protect the health and safety of Mainers. The judge has eased restrictions with this ruling and I believe it is unfortunate. However, the State will abide by ruling."

Hickox, who treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone, contended confinement at her home in northern Maine violated her rights.

She also contended it's not necessary because she poses no risk. She defied the state's voluntary quarantine by holding a news conference and going for a bike ride.

In his initial order, the judge barred her from using "long distance commercial conveyances or local public conveyances," and from showing up at shopping centers or movie theaters. The new order replaces the old one.

Hickox told NBC's "Today" on Wednesday that she doesn't "plan on sticking to the guidelines" and is "appalled" by the home quarantine policies "forced" on her.

Hickox, who volunteered in Africa with Doctors Without Borders, was the first person forced into New Jersey's mandatory quarantine for people arriving at Newark Liberty International Airport from three West African countries. She spent last weekend in a quarantine tent in Newark, but insisted she never had Ebola symptoms and tested negative in a preliminary evaluation.

Although New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo were sharply criticized for ordering mandatory quarantines, other states, including Maine and California, have also implemented quarantine requirements for aid workers.

On Monday, Hickox traveled from New Jersey to Maine, where her boyfriend is a senior nursing student at the University of Maine at Fort Kent. Her boyfriend opted to leave Fort Kent to spend time with her.




To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com