The Monday 9-29-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 30, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why President Obama and Congress are Not Protecting Us Effectively. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If you are not troubled about how the USA is being run, you are not paying attention. The threat from Islamic killers is growing, and our response is disorganized to say the least. But even more dangerous than that is the fact that our government is caught by surprise time after time. That is simply unacceptable, and the one body that could do something about it is Congress.

The House and Senate have oversight on the president and how he conducts himself in office, yet our Congress people and Senators say little. A few like John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been outspoken about the danger to America, and they have been vilified by the left as warmongers. On the Democratic side we hear gibberish, foolish rationalizations, or attacks on people like me, who are pointing out the danger of the worldwide jihad.

Last night on '60 Minutes,' President Obama stuck by his talking points, saying this: 'We've got to get Arab and Muslim leaders to say very clearly, these folks do not represent Islam.' So let me get this straight: President Obama believes that he is going to get Muslim leaders to speak out against the jihad? Most Muslims are peaceful people, but Muslims are afraid that if they do speak out they will be killed by the jihadists. However, in his interview last night President Obama remained positive, saying there is 'an unprecedented international coalition.'

The fact is that out of the 62 coalition nations only four will attack ISIS inside Syria. That is a very weak coalition, a bunch of nations that are talking but are not acting. The sad fact is that the United States is the only nation on the Earth capable of destroying the jihad. China and Russia could do it, but will not because they want to see America damaged. Their capabilities are directed toward expanding their power, not fighting evil.

The jihadists well understand that the West does not have the will to defeat them. That's why they behead people on camera. These savages do not fear reprisals because the reprisals are so weak. The jihadists are all over the world now, and our government is befuddled to say the least. President Obama and leaders of Congress need to sit down and find out why we are so often taken by surprise by dangerous situations. There is something very wrong here, and it's just a matter of time until more Americans die because of it.
And all of that is propaganda, nothing but lies and right-wing propaganda. Because Obama and even the Congress have protected us, there are no terrorist attacks by ISIS in America, none, so O'Reilly is lying. Then he basically blames President Obama for the journalist beheadings, when Bush was not blamed for them by O'Reilly when it happened during his time in office.

O'Reilly even said the interviewer on 60 minutes was bad because he did not ask Obama if he was to blame for the beheadings, which is just ridiculous. And only a right-wing nut would blame President Obama for beheadings in a war Bush started. O'Reilly is an insane right-wing hack who hates Obama and blames everything on him, and the truth is that if Obama does not do what O'Reilly wants him to he says Obama is not protecting us, it's just insane.

Then Brit Hume was on with his observations on President Obama's Sunday night '60 Minutes' interview. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, just two Republicans putting their right-wing spin on it.

Hume said this: "The thing that was most striking, was his effort to blame the intelligence community and its leader Jim Clapper for failing to see the strength of ISIS in Iraq. But even if we assume that there had been no intelligence, back in February ISIS had crossed into Iraq from Syria and captured Fallujah and Ramadi. So their capacities were unmistakable and the fact that we missed the whole thing is absurd. In the sense of taking responsibility, President Obama is weak. But he's strong and stubborn when it comes to sticking to policies even when they're manifestly failing."

Then the Republican Bernie Goldberg was on to grade Steve Kroft's '60 Minutes' interview with President Obama. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance, it was total one sided bias from Mr. so-called fair and balanced O'Reilly.

Goldberg said this: "I'll be diplomatic and say it was somewhere between an 'A' and an 'F,' President Obama is very slick and if you are going to stand a chance of getting information, it has to be with follow-up questions. I think Steve Kroft's questions were fine, but the follow-ups not so much."

O'Reilly advised questioners to be more combative when interviewing President Obama, saying this: "They don't debate the president, which is the only way you'll get anything out of him. You have to say, 'Mr. President, isn't it your fault that these two American journalists were beheaded because if you had taken action last March the ISIS guys might be dead by now?'"

And now here is the truth, to O'Reilly and Goldberg think no journalist ever does a good job when they interview the President, because they are not tough enough on him. In their world if you do not do it the way they would you are a bad journalist. Which is just garbage, because nobody thinks that, except other right-wing loons.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the recent shooting of a cop in Ferguson, Missouri. And as expected, no Democratic guest was on for balance, none. Notice that O'Reilly has ignored all the other news stories about Ferguson in the last week or so, but as soon as a cop gets shot he is all over it, which is 100% bias from O'Reilly by cherry picking the stories about Ferguson he reports on.

Kelly said this: "This happened under strange circumstances. Police first said that this officer saw two suspects trying to burglarize a community center. But then the police changed their story and said no one was trying to burglarize the center and there was just one shooter. The suspect is still at large."

Kelly also predicted that Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi will soon be released from the Mexican jail where he has languished for six months, saying this: "He has already spent more time in jail than virtually any other soldier, and apparently things are getting a lot more friendly between the prosecution and the defense attorney."

Then the worthless moron Jesse Watters was on, he visited the college town of Princeton, New Jersey, where he interviewed some attendees at an American Civil Liberties Union conference.

Here are a few of their statements: "I'm opposed to the war on terror, I think it's way too broad" ... "You can't just prosecute a war because we wish to execute everyone who might do us harm" ... "They have very extreme agenda, but we have people in this country like fundamentalist Christians who have very extreme agendas" ... "If someone sells a little meth on the corner, I don't think he needs to go to prison for a long time."

Watters revealed that he got out safely and is not a card-carrying member of the ACLU ... yet.

Whatever that means, it's just nonsense. The Jesse Watters segment is worthless garbage, it is not news and has no news value, O'Reilly only does it because he thinks it's funny to send the moron Watters into liberal areas to ask them questions and make them look stupid. While never doing the same thing to conservatives, it's a totally biased and not funny attack on liberals, and it has zero news value.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing With Dumb People. Billy said this: "When you encounter an ideologue who mocks or criticizes you but has nothing constructive to say, run fast!"

Which is just laughable, O'Reilly claimed that only the dumb liberals on the left like Stephen Colbert oppose his 25,000 man mercenary army, and that they have no clue how to fight terrorism. When it's a lie, because most military experts oppose his plan, and some conservatives, including Charles Krauthammer. So O'Reilly flat out lied and used the tip of the day to do it.

O'Reilly: Only Dumb People Like Colbert Oppose His Mercenary Army Idea
By: Steve - September 30, 2014 - 10:00am

Monday night Bill O'Reilly lost his mind even more, doing a segment where he said only dumb people like Stephen Colbert oppose his 25,000 man mercenary army idea. Which is not only wrong, it's a lie.

Because almost everyone is opposed to it, including most military experts, and even his neo-con good friend Charles Krauthammer is opposed to it.

Quote: O'Reilly: "Only Dumb People Like Stephen Colbert Oppose Anti-Terror Mercenary Army Idea."



O’Reilly insisted that his plan is a good one and only "dumb people" disagree. And not only are Colbert and everyone else who are mocking him dumb, they’re also ignorant and vacant and have nothing to contribute to the conversation, simply because they think his idea is silly.

And now the facts: The right has also mocked his plan. Charles Krauthammer told O'Reilly to his face that his plan was off the wall. Notice O'Reily does not mention that, instead he goes after Colbert.

O'Reilly was also called out for his nonsense by U.S. Naval War College Professor Tom Nichols, Ph.D., a national security expert, who called his idea "terrible" and "immoral" and pointed out that "it is a morally corrosive idea to try to outsource our national security."

But O'Reilly did not call him dumb, and let's remember that O'Reilly was never in the military. So he has no military experience, none.

And last week his cohort over at Fox news Charles Krauthammer took his turn telling him his plan was never going to work. Who O'Reilly calls a smart guy and even says he is way smarter than he is.

Krauthammer told O'Reilly, "With your idea you've gone from out of the box to off the wall."

Krauthammer said that Americans have trouble bearing the losses of using our own infantry, and that O'Reilly's idea does not solve the problem because the U.S. would still have Americans in command and Americans who could sign up for the army. If we lose them, we won't suffer less, he argued.

O'Reilly countered that it's not fair for the U.S. to have to fight the brunt of terror all over the world and said we need an alternative.

"The terrorists know there's no will to fight them in the West, this would change that mentality," O'Reilly argued.

"Saying that something is needed is not an argument for why it's gonna work," Krauthammer remarked, arguing that the U.S. would inevitably suffer losses through this highly paid mercenary army.

He noted another problem, which is the people who would likely sign up for the mercenary army.

"The problem is do you really wanna be running around the world responsible for a band of desperados, do you want to recruit from the same pool that ISIS is?"

Not to mention the cost, if you paid them each $100,000 a year it would cost $2.5 billion, and that is not including the cost for training, logistics, command, medical care, etc.

O’Reilly said he has confidence that this could work, but he appreciates Krauthammer's dissent. But notice he did not call Krauthammer dumb, as he did with Colbert.

In reality, only a few people agree with O'Reilly that it's a good idea, most military experts and even Charles Krauthammer think it's a bad idea that will never work and just be a massive waste of money. But O'Reilly does not have the guts to call them dumb, he can only say it about Stephen Colbert, proving what a coward he is and what a biased hack he is.

The Republicans Love 2 Things: Ted Cruz & Religious Liberty
By: Steve - September 29, 2014 - 11:00am

How do you say winning? If you’re a conservative, you pick the driver of a very unpopular event, the government shutdown, as your next presidential pick because you enjoy losing badly.

Far-right first term Senator Ted Cruz Cruz won the #1 spot in the Values Voter Summit straw poll at 25%, with Dr. Ben Carson coming in next at 20%. Former Governor Mike Huckabee came up third and Senator Rick Santorum won fourth place.

And all 4 of them are extreme far-right Republicans that will never be the President, because they are too far to the right and out of the mainstream. But Republicans love them, because they are just like them, out of the mainstream.

Last year, Cruz beat Carson by a much wider margin with 42% on the heels of shutting down the government.

Yes, shutting down the government is what the conservative base likes. They want senators who don’t do their jobs, but instead make things worse for the average American -- anything to spite President Obama.

Now get this, the conservatives who were polled said the most important issue to them was "religious liberty."

And yes, I am not kidding. The Republicans at the voter values summit actually think religious liberty is the most important issue facing America today. Not the economy, not jobs, not health care, not unemployment, not the stock market, not immigration, they went with religious (fricking) liberty. And they wonder why they are seen as out of the mainstream, come on.

This even got Republicans very excited on Twitter, after they convinced themselves that they could win the White House on it because it's HUGE. The problem for the Republican Party is that their definition of religious liberty is very exclusionary and thus the opposite of the idea of religious liberty.

Republicans fight for liberty for Christians, while demonizing other religions, especially their misinformed ideas of Muslims. In other words, they believe in religious liberty, as long as you are a christian, they are against religious liberty for everyone else.

Liberty sounds all exciting and Ted Cruz delivered a bit of a sermon at the Value Voters Summit, so it seems like a perfect match. But Cruz delivered more of a heady brew of persecution and delusion, culminating in him announcing that when Republicans take back the White House in 2017, they will repeal every word of Obamacare. Even though it's working and everyone that has it, likes it, he still plans to try and repeal it, too bad for him it will never happen.

Cruz said this: "In 2017, with a Republican president in office, we're going to sign legislation repealing every word of Obamacare. Brace yourselves for the smarm, Weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning."

Which is just ridiculous and Cruz is insane, because even if the Republicans win the White House (not gonna happen) they will never be able to repeal Obamacare. They do not have the votes, and it is just too late, especially when they have no plan to replace it.

They will never repeal every word of Obamacare because just like Social Security, people need it and want it. In two more years, it will be even more popular and Republicans will have to offer an alternative that people want if they plan to try and destroy it.

Ted Cruz said he has a plan, but in truth, Barack Obama used the conservative plan. Barack Obama used the market based plan based on competition between private companies that was the conservative approach to the healthcare problem. Republicans objected because they didn't want a win for Obama, but now they are left fighting the battle of fools -- fighting against their only idea, with no alternative.

Luckily for Republicans, their base is easily manipulated about what issues they are supposed to care about, hence they care most about something that is not an issue. Religious liberty? The biggest religion in this country is Christianity and it’s not being threatened. The President is a Christian. No one is coming for Christians, no matter how persecuted they like to pretend they are.

But hey, being persecuted pays well for Cruz, Palin, etc. The idea that they are being persecuted is romantic and it isolates the base -- if everyone else is out to get you, they can't be trusted. The only people the base can trust are the people they are sending their money to and voting for. Well played.

If Cruz wants the big love from the base, he's going to need to make a big gesture of destroying the country in a way he can pretend is hurting Obama and not the people. Of course, none of this hurts Obama -- it only hurts the very people voting for Cruz.

And I hope the Republicans do run Ted Cruz against Hillary Clinton, because she will crush him.

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - September 29, 2014 - 10:00am

Once again we have good economic news, and Bill O'Reilly does not say a word about it, even though he is telling people the economy is in chaos because of the bad liberal policies from President Obama. Despite the fact he is wrong, and lying, because the economy is doing good, jobs are back, and the stock market is at record highs.

O'Reilly ignores it all to claim the economy is doing terrible, to make Obama look bad, which is just more proof he is a biased right-wing hack, and not a real non-partisan journalist.

From Bloomburg news:

Economy Grew 4.6% in Second Quarter, Most Since 2011

The U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter at the fastest rate since the last three months of 2011 as companies stepped up investment and households boosted spending.

Gross domestic product grew at a revised 4.6 percent annualized rate, up from a previous estimate of 4.2 percent, Commerce Department data showed today in Washington. The increase matched the median forecast of 81 economists surveyed by Bloomberg and followed a 2.1 percent decline in the first three months of the year.

Busier assembly lines at the nation's factories and job growth that's kept Americans spending indicate companies are a bit more upbeat about the prospects for demand. As the world's largest economy and labor market improve, Federal Reserve policy makers are debating how much longer to keep interest rates near zero.

"We definitely see momentum," in the U.S. economy, said Brittany Baumann, an economist at Credit Agricole CIB in New York, which correctly forecast GDP. "Consumer spending should benefit from strengthening labor conditions and improved financial conditions," while business investment should also continue, she said.

Forecasts for second-quarter GDP, the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S., ranged from gains of 3.4 percent to 5 percent, according to the Bloomberg survey. The estimate is the third and final for the quarter.

Thursday's report also showed before-tax corporate profits rose 8.4 percent last quarter, the most since the third quarter of 2010 and compared with a previously reported 8 percent gain.

Koch Brothers Group Tried To Register A Cat To Vote
By: Steve - September 28, 2014 - 11:00am

Americans for Prosperity claims they stand for free markets and liberty and against Kenyan socialism and voter fraud. That's why it's so important to AFP to make sure that you and your cat are ready to vote in North Carolina next month.

Among AFP's many conservative causes, the Koch brothers-funded group claims to be concerned about the integrity of the American voting process, watchdogging liberal voter drives and saying it "will not tolerate those who would cheapen the vote."

But according to the Raleigh News & Observer, AFP's North Carolina office just sent "hundreds of North Carolinians -- and one cat" a voter-registration guide riddled with errors:
The information -- an "official application form" -- was sent by Americans for Prosperity, a national conservative group with a state chapter based in Raleigh.

Since then, hundreds of people who received the forms have called and complained to the State Board of Elections, said Joshua Lawson, a public information officer for the board.

"It's unclear where (Americans for Prosperity) got their list, but it's caused a lot of confusion for people in the state," Lawson said.

One resident even received a voter registration form addressed to her cat, he said.
Among other errors, the forms apparently instructed registrants to mail completed forms to a state office, complete with the wrong address for that state office.

But registration forms are supposed to go to an applicant's county board of elections. AFP's "official" forms also listed the wrong deadline to get registered in time for November's election. That deadline, according to North Carolina officials, is actually Oct. 10.

So it looks like AFP is deliberately misinforming residents to screw up their chances to turn out on Election Day? Some recipients are wondering this:
Alison Beal of Wake Forest received one of the forms at her home, but it was addressed to her brother-in-law, who lives in Caldwell County.

Beal is not a member of Americans for Prosperity and says her brother-in-law would not be a member either.

Beal said she thinks the false information could be an honest mistake but said it could also deter people from registering.

"It seems like something you would want to pay attention to, if you really want to get people to register to vote," Beal said.
She added: "People don't really know, they assume what they get in the mail is true."

O'Reilly Puts Foot In Mouth Again Over Womens Rights
By: Steve - September 28, 2014 - 10:00am

Friday night Bill O'Reilly downplayed the Gender Wage gap, saying this: "Statistics Don't Include The Emotional Difference Between Men And Women."

Which is not only stupid, it's insane. Here is Billy in action:



"Can women save the Democratic Party?"

I did not know the Democrats needed saving? Worry about your own party fool - Republicans have only won 1 presidential election in terms of the popular vote since 1992. You get smashed by any nonwhite group and whites are a decreasing demographic in America.

And what in the hell does emotion have to do with equal pay?

So according to Bill O'Reilly, women don't deserve equal pay for equal work because those silly, hysterical women just can't keep their heads screwed on straight.

And the Republicans wonder why they are losing the womens vote, just look at O'Reilly, he is one reason. Another reason is the Republican party thinks woman are 2nd class citizens who should always wear skirts and be in the kitchen or the bedroom.

The Friday 9-26-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 27, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Can American Women Save the Democratic Party? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The majority of Americans are not happy with President Obama's job performance, and that is having a deleterious effect on the Democratic Party. In fact, the only thing, the only thing that can save the Democratic Party is women voters. Enter the first lady, Michelle Obama. In a speech at the United Nations this week, she asked, 'do we truly value women as equals, or do we see them as merely second class citizens?'

Those words imply that America is not fair to women, and that is a highly charged statement. On average, women make 81% of what men make in the private marketplace. However, American women are better educated than men, and what the stats cannot define is the emotional differences between men and women. There are approximately 5-million stay-at-home moms and millions of other American women work part-time, devoting most of their efforts to looking out for their kids.

That's a huge factor in the economic comparisons, but it is often underplayed. So the first lady should understand the invalid comparisons that are being made in the gender discussion. It is true that only 15% of women hold top executive positions in the Fortune 500 companies, and that an old boy network makes it tougher for the ladies to gain power. That does not seem to be fair, but life is not fair. No government will be able to impose so-called fairness.

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party will try to convince voters that the fix is in against American women, that theme will be front and center in the upcoming presidential campaign. But I do not believe there is a war on women, I do not believe our capitalistic system is holding the ladies back. I believe some stupid men are, but that's something individual companies will have to deal with.

Finally, we have all seen what's happened in the past six years that President Obama has tried and tried to impose social justice. The progressive vision of enforced equality leads to gross injustices and economic stagnation. Many companies now fear women: they are afraid of lawsuits, controversy, and negative branding. And believe me, that's a big reason some women are held back.
To begin with, I did not know the Democratic party needed saving, they have the White House and the Senate, which does not sound like it needs saving to me, and the Republican party polls far worse, so they are the party that needs saving. Then O'Reilly admits women only make 81% of what a man does, even though in the past he has claimed that number is not true. Then later in his TPM he admits it is not fair to women, so what does he say to that, life is not fair, which is insane.

O'Reilly contradicts himself in his own TPM, as if he has lost his mind. O'Reilly said this: "I do not believe our capitalistic system is holding the ladies back. I believe some stupid men are, but that's something individual companies will have to deal with."

Which is pure insanity, because those men are the capitalistic system, and their companies will never do anything about it. The government needs to pass laws making it illegal to pay women less for the same job, but that will never happen because O'Reilly's right-wing friends in Congress keep voting against the equal pay for women act. Then he claims there is no war on women by Republicans, which is just laughable. You are looking at it in action, from O'Reilly, Dobbs, and the Republicans.

And yes, some women choose to stay at home and raise their kids, which has nothing to do with them being paid less for doing the same job. So O'Reilly's argument does not even make sense, especially when he admits it is unfair to women, then says life is unfair and you should just like it.

Then two Democratic strategists were on to disagree with O'Reilly, Mary Anne Marsh and Marjorie Clifton.

Clifton said this: "You made a lot of important points, but what's missing is whether the choices are actually real. The data does not reflect what happens once women get into the workforce and once they get the education. There are still gaps in pay and a lot of that has to do with bias in the workplace."

Marsh insisted that gender bias is obvious in America, saying this: "Women are the majority, yet they are woefully underrepresented in the places that matter - government and business. We have not elected a woman present, that's shameful! Women have a tougher time raising the money and they don't make enough to subsidize their own campaigns."

Then the old biased right-wing fool Lou Dobbs was on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with O'Reilly.

Dobbs said this: "The idea that women are somehow the target of oppression in this country is utter madness. Women getting education and advanced degrees vastly outnumber men. Can more be done? Yes, but the same can be said for men. Women are far more involved in rearing children than men, and that is an impediment to their careers and earning power. Women are a majority in our workforce and a majority in our population, yet they have protected rights."

Nobody said they are the target of oppression, what they are saying is that in some cases a women makes less than a man for doing the same job, and that is a fact that Lou Dobbs will not admit.

Then Heather Nauert was on for mad as hell, she answered letters from some ticked-off viewers, among the Sue Morgan of Michigan, who got peeved when "global warming" marchers left tons of garbage in their wake last weekend.

Nauert said this: "What a mess they left, and that has a lot of people upset. It's the hypocrisy, saying they want to recycle and get rid of pollution. They left behind seven-and-a-half tons of garbage for New York's sanitation to clean up."

Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly and Fox never even reported on the climate change march, so if you do not report on it you have no right to talk about it. Not to mention this, when Republicans protest these same people never say one word about the garbage they left behind. And btw, they also never mentioned how much money those 300,000 people spent in the city, which far outweighed the cleanup cost.

Another viewer, Arizonan Jerry Clark, is tired of hearing the phrase 'boots on the ground.' O'Reilly reassured Clark that he is not alone: "We are with you, Jerry, and anyone who says 'boots on the ground' here has to pay $100 to Wounded Warriors. It's a cliche that is banned here."

Are you kidding me? $100 dollars, that's nothing, it should be $1000, or $10,000, you are all millionaires.

Then O'Reilly talked about Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who has been in a Mexican jail for more than six months, ever since he claimed to have made a wrong turn and entered Mexico with three guns. O'Reilly spoke about the dire situation with his mother, Jill Tahmooressi.

Tahmooressi said this: "He is very despondent. He's in solitary confinement, and he is losing hope that he's going to get out of jail. He's not allowed a radio or television, he's allowed the Bible and one book, and he has no way to exercise."

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on, they talked about New York Yankees star Derek Jeter, who smacked the game-winning hit in his final appearance at Yankee Stadium.

"Obviously those were all actors, and this was done on a sound stage. Actually, he's an amazing athlete who kept his lifestyle private and stayed with one team for twenty years. Also, he's a conservative because he always hits to right field."

McGuirk complained that the hype surrounding Jeter is vastly overblown, saying this: "You guys have to take it down a notch because he didn't play well this year, he was almost hurting the team. And this game was meaningless."

And that was it, not one word about the GDP increasing to 4.6%, nothing about the stock market setting record highs, nothing about housing starts going up, and on and on. O'Reilly continues to ignore all the good economic news, because it makes Obama look good and he does not want to do that. Which is why all he talks about every night is ISIS and the Obama poll numbers.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly telling people to visit his website and read his insane 25,000 man mercenary plan to fight terrorism that will never happen and never work.

Gas Prices Near $3 A Gallon & O'Reilly Is Silent
By: Steve - September 27, 2014 - 11:00am

In fact, in one city about 15 miles from me here in East Peoria, Illinois gas is below $3 a gallon already. Gas prices in Chillicothe, Illinois today are $2.88 a gallon. Here in East Peoria it is $3.13 a gallon and dropping a little more every day.

Remember when gas was almost $4 a gallon, O'Reilly was screaming mad and blamed it all on Obama and his liberal economic policies. But now that gas is almost back down to $3 a gallon, O'Reilly says nothing, he is silent. So when gas prices go up O'Reilly blames Obama, but when they go down he dont. Proving once again he is a partisan political hack with right-wing bias.

NEW YORK (AP) -- The price of a gallon of gasoline may soon start with a "2" across much the country.

Gasoline prices typically decline in autumn, and this year they are being pulled even lower by falling global oil prices. By the end of the year, up to 30 states could have an average gasoline price of less than $3 a gallon.

The average in Springfield, Missouri, is already below $3, according to Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service and GasBuddy.com. Several other cities are on the brink.

"And there will be more, many more," Kloza said. Cities in high-priced states such as California and New York will not be among them, though, which will probably keep the national average above $3.

And that is not all, the economy is doing good, jobs are back, unemployment is down, and the stock market is at record highs. But O'Reilly says nothing, even though he blamed Obama for all of it when it was not so good, now that it is better he does not give Obama credit for any of it.

While at the same time lying to you that the liberal policies from Obama have hurt the economy and the entire country, O'Reilly said the economy is in chaos, and he also ignores the good Obamacare news. He used to report on Obamacare every night, when the website was having problems. Now that it is fixed and Obamacare is doing great he has gone silent.

These are all examples of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, it is 100% proof that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack, no matter how many times he denies it.

Colbert Raises O'Reilly Mercenary Force With Ninja Super Soldiers
By: Steve - September 27, 2014 - 10:00am

And btw, mercenary is defined as this:

1. (of a person or their behavior) primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics.

But O'Reilly claims they will have ethics and do the right thing, yeah right, when you hire a mercenary all they care about is money, and they will most likely do as little as possible for the money.

Stephen Colbert took on Bill O'Reilly's anti-terrorism mercenary army last night, and thought it was a good idea, but couldn't resist one-upping him.

Colbert was confident O'Reilly's idea would be a great one, "because only the best people kill whoever you want for cash."

And despite others on Fox telling O'Reilly it's a bad idea, Colbert was all on board with O'Reilly's "fantasy warfare league."

But Colbert found a way to go beyond O'Reilly's simple idea: with "mutant double ninja super-soldiers with laser nunchucks." Or a special forces team with half the guys named Snake. Or "an invisible bomb that only blows up bad guys."



Jon Stewart Says F-U To O'Reilly & Fox For Latte Salute Coverage
By: Steve - September 26, 2014 - 11:00am

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart on Thursday knocked the news media's coverage of President Barack Obama and his now-infamous "latte salute," taking particular aim at Fox News.

On Tuesday, Obama exited Marine One in New York, NY, hot drink in hand. He greeted the two Marines at the steps of the aircraft by saluting with his right hand, which, incidentally, was also carrying the cup.

"Are we surprised?" Republican strategist Karl Rove said on Fox News about the salute. "After all, we've got a chai-swillin', golf-playin', basketball trash-talkin', leadin'-from-behind, I-got-no-strategy, Osama-bin-Laden-is-dead, GM-is-alive, community-organizin' commander-in-chief."

Eric Bolling from Fox News, said the salute was disrespectful toward the U.S. military.

"F-U and your false patriotism," Daily Show host Jon Stewart said of the coverage, noting that Bolling had also made a joke about women in the military (which Bolling has since apologized for, twice).

"You don't really care about this," Stewart said. "You have no principle about this. You're just trying to score points in a game that no one else is playing."


And btw folks, notice that nobody at Fox (not even O'Reilly) ever mentioned that George W. Bush saluted the troops many many times with his dog in his hands, there are many photos of it if you want to do a google image search on it. They also never once mentioned that about half the Presidents never saluted the troops, including Abe Lincoln.

Ronald Reagan started the troop salute, before that the troops saluted the President, but he never saluted back. Fox never mentioned any of that, when they reported on the latte salute from Obama.

Google & Facebook Drop GOP Group ALEC For Climate Change Lies
By: Steve - September 26, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know about things like this because it makes Republican groups look bad, the very same groups he supports and defends.

Google plans to officially cut ties with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, the company's chairman announced Monday, declaring that the group is "literally lying about climate change" and so Google can no longer be associated with it.

The Internet giant would be the second major technology to part ways with ALEC in the last two months. Microsoft announced in August that it would end its relationship with ALEC, and that decision was linked to Microsoft's support for renewable energy projects.

"The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place," Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told NPR's Diane Rehm in explaining the decision.

"And so we should not be aligned with such people -- they're just, they're just literally lying."

He would not specify when Google would formally disconnect from ALEC. Microsoft and Google had been members of the group's communications and technology task force, according to CNET.

Other major corporations including Coca-Cola, General Motors, Bank of America, and Proctor & Gamble have severed ties with ALEC in recent years.

ALEC, founded in the 1970s, gained renewed national attention after Republicans won major victories in state governments in 2010 and the group's signature pieces of model legislation were introduced in statehouses nationwide.

It was described by Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, as "proof positive of the depth and scope of the corporate reach into our democratic processes."

Facebook is also cutting ties with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a decision that would follow the lead of Google, which announced its intention to break with ALEC this week.

Facebook confirmed plans of the split to the Guardian after the news was first reported in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"We reevaluate our memberships on an annual basis, and are in that process now. While we have tried to work within ALEC to bring that organization closer to our view on some key issues, it seems unlikely that we will make sufficient progress so we are not likely to renew our membership in 2015," the social media giant said in a statement.

The news comes a day after Google announced on Monday that the company's decision to fund ALEC -- a group which, among other things, works to undermine renewable energy progress in states and is known for its climate denial -- was a "mistake" and that the company would be cutting ties with ALEC at the end of the year.

The Wednesday 9-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 25, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama Tries to Rally the World Against Terrorism. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Speaking at the United Nations this morning, Mr. Obama tried to be both a tough guy and a statesman while dealing with the Islamic jihad. Whether he succeeded in accomplishing anything is up for debate but Talking Points believes he gave it a good try.
In other words, O'Reilly thinks he gave it a good try, but failed in his eyes. He even called for Obama to be tougher, so he got tougher, but O'Reilly is still not happy, and now calls him a fake tough guy. And he should know about being a fake tough guy, because he is one himself.

Then the conservative Cliff May and Jeanne Zaino, political science professor at Iona College, responded to the Talking Points Memo and debated whether Obama could rally the world to defeat Islamic terrorism.

May did not think the president's speech was successful, and argued Obama's strategy could be strengthening Iran and al Qaeda, saying this: "My guess is that after his speech you didn't have ambassadors from a lot of different nations coming up and giving him high fives and saying hey man, just tell me what I can do for you, I will get it done."

May also said this: "I think what I took away from the speech was not just that President Obama had a difficult time explaining the global conflict we find ourselves in, a jihad as you correctly called it. But he still has a hard time understanding the global conflict, the jihad and that's gets to a point very relevant to what you said and I really want to get it on the table."

Zaino disagreed, arguing that Obama was at his best in his speech at the UN, saying this: "I think today we saw a President that many of us for the second term have been wanting to see. He was forceful. He was not ambivalent. He was clear to the world community that this is the number one crisis or cancer as he called it that we face and he was clear about what he is going to do about it. And you know whether or not he is able to rally the world, we have to wait and see whether he is going to be effective doing that. I think for the first time in a long time to many of us the President that we have been wanting to see showing leadership and taking this as a serious issue that he is ready to confront."

Then Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen was asked if the State Department had a handle on how to confront Islamic terrorism.

Rosen said this: "I think they do, but it might not accord with your or my or other people's ways of going about it. There is more than one way to skin a jihadist cat if you will. And I think that the route that the President of the United States has chosen is one that's going to take a much longer time precisely because he feels it should be accomplished with Arab input as if multilateralism is the only way to conduct military operation."

Then O'Reilly asked Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron about Congress taking another break. Cameron explained that Congress is out of session until November so members of Congress and the Senate can campaign for re-election at home. Cameron then explained the incredible benefits members of Congress receive.

Cameron: "Congress is a great gig. They get up to 60 staffers, huge expense accounts, a base pay of $174,000. Leaders get a little bit more, actually. It can go up to $230,000 if you're the House Speaker."

"In the House they call it the members' representational allowance. The average is about $1.2 million a year. And you know you've got 435 members. Senators get an even larger expense account. "It's better if you are in the Senate. They get $3.2 million."

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk about conservative critics (who are mostly Fox News employees) have slammed President Obama for saluting two Marines with the same hand he was holding a coffee with.

MacCallum said this: "Veterans are not happy. Many of them. They think that the president doesn't respect them. Many of them. And this fed into that notion it doesn't help that he is dealing with a very differing opinion with chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense on whether or not we can have boots on the ground. All that said, I think this is a nonissue. You know, I don't want the president spending 20 seconds worrying about this latte moment. He has got a lot on his plate and we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about this moment."

It's only a story on Fox news, nobody else cares about it, and O'Reilly shows his bias once again by even reporting on it.

MacCallum also discussed a court ruling in Texas that makes taking pictures up a woman's skirt legal. Martha explained the ruling was based on the protections of the First Amendment. "So this is a case of a photographer who took 26 pictures of women and children mostly at a San Antonio water park. He was under the water taking pictures of, you know, floating legs and arms. It was determined by the parents they said what are you doing? They brought charges against him. He then countersued and said that he thought this law was unconstitutional. That it's his First Amendment right and is protected as an artist essentially that he should be able to take these photographs."

"He said you're going to have to ban every street photographer and anyone along those lines if you want to do this, but the court upheld his ban, his desire to ban this and then it went to the highest criminal court in Texas and the judge there agreed."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Neighborly Bartering. Billy said this: "Start a barter club where you live in your neighborhood. Every other Saturday morning for example you get some friends together, you put up tables and you display stuff you want to trade for things you need. Sometimes the trades will be equal so some money might change hands. It's like a flea market but neighborhood driven. I can almost guarantee that within a few months folks are going to come from all over because a barter situation is fun and profitable. You'll meet new people and save money on things you might need. Also, if you have a skill to repair things or do something, you can barter that skill."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, poor people already do the barter thing, but none of them set up tables to trade things, they just do it by word of mouth, Mr. clueless.

Military Experts Slam O'Reilly's Crazy 25,000 Man Mercenary Proposal
By: Steve - September 25, 2014 - 10:00am

And so far the only person he could find to support him is the former owner of Blackwater, no other (actual) military expert thinks it is a good idea.

Even the neo-con Charles Krauthammer (who always agrees with O'Reilly) said it was a bad idea and basically told O'Reilly he is off his rocker for suggesting such a crazy thing.

U.S. military experts and veterans are slamming O'Reilly's proposal to create an American-backed worldwide mercenary force to battle Islamic State militants and other extremists, calling the idea "an outrageous thought" that is "fraught with problems."

O'Reilly proposed the idea on Fox News Monday night, claiming the only credible plan to defeat the Islamic State had to include a mercenary force of 25,000 "English-speaking" fighters that would be recruited and trained by the United States. He added that the mercenary army would be comprised of "elite fighters who would be well-paid, well-trained to defeat terrorists all over the world."

He also promoted the idea on CBS This Morning.

Military leaders criticized O'Reilly's approach, citing the precedent it would set and the potential danger of having the United States support a mercenary effort that it cannot control in the trenches.

"I think that that's pretty much an outrageous thought," said Dennis Laich, a 35-year military veteran and retired U.S. Army major general who served in Kuwait and Iraq.

"The idea of mercenaries in the Middle East, depending on where they come from, is fraught with some history of failure ... If a mercenary military commits atrocity in the name of the United State is that a war crime? Will they be subject to the U.S. military code of justice? We take on a responsibility for their actions that we can't control. It's tactically unworkable and it's strategically and morally incompatible with fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution and military policy." Retired Lt. General Edward Anderson, a West Point graduate with 39 years in the U.S. Army, cited the lack of control over such a group.

"It would seem from a military perspective there are a number of issues there, one is command and control," he said in an interview. "My initial reaction is that I am not too enthusiastic about the idea. I can't think of a time when that has worked in the past, not on a scale you are talking about here."

He added, "my biggest concern would be who has the authority to oversee and direct the operations on a large scale for a force of 25,000? Especially if you are talking about multiple contributors, each of them has a loyalty to whoever they are coming from.

"In order to do something like this with ISIS you have to have a logistics piece, an intelligence piece and a communications structure - this is not easy and to think you are going to put together a band of mercenaries to do this does not sound reasonable to me."

Paul Eaton is a retired U.S. Army major general with 33 years in service and now a senior advisor to the National Security Network. He called O'Reilly's idea "a bad precedent."

"The use of force or entities that use force ought to be a monopoly of the state. My conservative nature is that wars are fought by men and women in uniform and the idea of a mercenary force with American fingerprints on it just doesn't appeal to me much. I would not want to see the United Sates in a situation where we're willing to throw money at raising a mercenary force because we're unwilling for whatever reason to send our sons and daughters."

Jamie Barnett, a former U.S. Navy rear admiral with more than 30 years of experience, also served as Director of Naval Education and Training at the Pentagon. He said the mercenary idea "is fraught with problems and dangers and expense."

"This is going to be a long-term fight," he added. "That would be expensive enough, but the idea of putting English speakers on the ground just invites problems. We need indigenous fighters who see this as their homeland. We need to concentrate on the approach we have done in the past, which includes training people to fight their own fights. It is not like we have an abundance of trust in anyone over there."

The Tuesday 9-23-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 24, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Bombing the Terrorists in Syria. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night bombs began falling on suspected ISIS and al Qaeda positions in the war-torn country of Syria. But what took so long? The reason for the delay is twofold.

First, the president is fearful of creating a wider-war because that will diminish his legacy of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when the American people began demanding action after ISIS beheaded two U.S. citizens, the president had no choice but to act.

Second, America's intelligence system is not working properly. The USA was caught by surprise when ISIS invaded Iraq and Washington seems befuddled by the danger we the people face. Former Obama administration officials like Leon Panetta and Robert Gates say the fault lies with a timid commander-in-chief, but because security decisions are shrouded in secrecy, we don't know for sure.

Mr. Obama had a good point when he declined to send weapons to the so-called Syrian moderates, citing the lack of clarity of exactly who they are. But now the fight is on because ISIS is so barbaric, so dangerous that it can no longer be ignored or allowed to prosper. Last night I called for a worldwide anti-terror mercenary army, which would be trained and administered by the USA under the supervision of Congress and funded by the coalition that President Obama is putting together.

The idea is to have a rapid deployment force capable of confronting Islamic terrorists anywhere in the world without the chaotic political nonsense that prevents effective action against these killers. That force will eventually have to happen.
Then O'Reilly talked about the possibility of an elite mercenary force with Erik Prince, the former Navy SEAL who founded the Blackwater private security firm.

Prince said this: "It's possible and it's doable. We're not going to crush ISIS with just air power, someone has to go clear them out of those towns, villages, and alleys. So finding a cheap and sustainable way to keep pressure on Islamists is about the only way we're going to do it. There is a huge number of good men who will answer the call and do a professional job."

O'Reilly also said that a mercenary force would be funded by a broad coalition of nations: "America is bearing the war on terror with our blood and treasure and that has to stop, we can't afford to do it all over the world. Even if we wipe out ISIS now, there will be another ISIS, they're not going to stop."

Even though it's all a pipe dream that nobody but loons support, and he does not know if it would be funded by a broad coalition, he is just speculating.

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

Powers said this: "There are many reasons I oppose this, and one of the main reasons is that what makes the military so great is that these are people who signed up to fight for their country, it's a very noble position. You would be luring people into this by paying them a lot of money."

Crowley, who is a right-wing nut, saw some benefit in the idea, but also identified a stumbling block, saying this: "You would have a continuing authority to go after the world's greatest terrorists without having every battle politicized. The problem is that the United Nations outlawed mercenary forces in 1989."

Then another right-wing nut, John Stossel was on to say why so many liberal Americans are focused on income inequality.

Stossel said this: "It's because we got richer. You can see it when children of the Rockefellers are at the anti-fossil fuel protests. Once you get rich, that warm and fuzzy we're-all-in-it-together idea of socialism feels good. It's also the media - reporters are hostile to free markets and economically ignorant. They think that if government ran more things everybody would have more money. But there's more income inequality in Haiti and Mexico and China."

Which is not only wrong, it's insane. It's not because we got richer, it's because the income gap from the top 1% to the bottom 99% got too far apart, and it's hurting the economy, not to mention making it harder for the average worker to just get by. It has nothing to do with us getting richer, it's about the income gap from the rich to the working man.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on with the latest on Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was swapped for five Gitmo terrorists back in May.

Wiehl said this: "The Army is refusing to tell us what's going on. They say there are 'outstanding issues' and that they're doing their own investigation, but the Army set a deadline of August 15th and blew past that without giving any excuse. So we have no idea what's going on."

Guilfoyle lambasted the Army for its lack of transparency, saying this: "They say there are no new developments since August, so why did they blow the deadline? What is the excuse for the delay? They keep pushing it back and won't tell us what the next step is."

O'Reilly speculated once again (even though he claims he never speculates) that the Army is stonewalling to protect the commander-in-chief, saying this: "I think the evidence is so overwhelming that Bergdahl deserted that President Obama would be embarrassed if the Army makes that declaration."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on with his response to the idea of a mercenary army to fight terrorism around the globe.

Krauthammer said this: "With that idea, you have gone from 'out of the box' to 'off the wall.' You want to create a French Foreign Legion, but we are not the French Empire policing West Africa in the 19th century. Do you really want to be responsible for a band of desperados? On one hand you'll have ISIS people who believe in something, and on the other hand you'll have people who are there just for the money. Who do you think wins?"

So even after Krauthammer told him he is nuts, he still insisted that the idea has merits, saying this: "This war on terror is ruining our treasury and our national morale, we need to have an alternative. The terrorists know there is no will to fight them in the West, this would change that mentality."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, stop making a fool of yourself, your idea is stupid and you are a moron.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was as usual not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting his new book.

O'Reilly Calls For Illegal & Immoral Terrorist Fighting Plan
By: Steve - September 24, 2014 - 10:00am

Basically, O'Reilly wants the USA to illegally hire trained killers to kill all the terrorists, and this is the same guy who claims to not believe in the death penalty, year right, and I'm Elvis too.

Monday night O'Reilly said that President Obama should raise an anti-terror mercenary army to defeat Islamic State militants and other terrorist groups around the world.

Even though the use of mercenary forces has been outlawed by the U.N. General Assembly and O'Reilly's expert guest denounced his plan on-air as a "terrible and immoral" idea.

On the September 22nd show O'Reilly claimed that the only credible plan to defeat the Islamic State had to include a mercenary force of 25,000 "English-speaking" fighters that would be recruited and trained by the United States.

O'Reilly said that his mercenary army would be comprised of "elite fighters who would be well-paid, well-trained to defeat terrorists all over the world."

O'Reilly also detailed how the mercenary force would be trained, recruited, and funded:



The current U.N. agreement prohibits the recruitment, training, use, and financing of mercenaries.

In 1989, the U.N. General Assembly agreed to outlaw the use of mercenary forces, as it deemed they violate principles of international law.

O'Reilly's guest, U.S. Naval War College Professor Tom Nichols, Ph.D., a national security expert, also refuted the host's plan, calling it a "terrible," "immoral" idea.

Nichols explained that "it is a morally corrosive idea to try to outsource our national security."

And remember this, O'Reilly was never in the military, has no military experience, and has never been in Congress or the Senate, so he has no access to the intelligence reports. He is simply a biased right-wing cable news tv host, who was totally wrong on Iraq, so it would be insane to listen to any of his crazy ideas.

If we did what he is calling for, it would create more terrorists than it gets rid of, and cost a fortune, which O'Reilly does not say how we will pay for, after saying we are broke. It's pure insanity, and a stupid idea that will never happen.

Krauthammer Just Put The Smackdown On O'Reilly
By: Steve - September 23, 2014 - 7:45pm

Now this was funny, even the far-right neo-con fool Charles Krauthammer disagreed with O'Reilly on his 25,000 hired gun terrorist army. He said O'Reilly has gone off the wall with that idea, that it will not work, and added that if you pay each man $100.000 a year it would cost $2.5 billion dollars, and that does not include the billions in cost for training.

So the military expert from the Naval academy told O'Reilly it's a crazy idea, and Krauthammer told him it's a crazy idea, and pretty much everyone but the guy who used to own Blackwater, said it's a bad idea.

So O'Reilly said yeah you are all right and I am a fool, haha, not! He says they are all wrong and it is going to happen. Wow, O'Reilly has lost his mind, it's time for him to retire and hit the horse track.

And btw, the Blackwater owner said it cost $1.2 million dollars a year to support 1 US military soldier in Afghanistan, so the $100.000 Krauthammer talked about it only 10% of the cost, that is just their salary, and it also does not include any medical costs.

O'Reilly is just a fool that can not admit his idea is worthless, he refuses to listen to any of the experts and still claims it will happen.

The Monday 9-22-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 23, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Stamping out Evil. The biased and dishonest right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I am tired of the phony rhetoric surrounding the ISIS terror threat. I am also tired of being misled by the Obama administration. Here is the truth: Syrian moderates cannot defeat the ISIS terror group. Last week Congress approved arming and training the Syrians, possibly to the tune of $500 million. If that money is actually spent, it will be another total waste.

So, what should we do? First of all, there is not a single credible military person who thinks ISIS can be defeated without ground forces. So we need ground forces. However, the American people, perhaps rightly so, do not want to send any more of our troops into these chaotic countries. But what about a mercenary army? Elite fighters who would be well paid and trained to defeat terrorists all over the world.

Here's how it would work: The fighters would be recruited by the USA and trained in America by our special forces. America would be in charge of selecting who makes the cut and how they are deployed, with an eye on a 25,000-person force.

American and NATO officers would lead the army, basing the first soldiers in Kurdistan. The force would be called the 'anti-terror army,' with the cost paid by the coalition that President Obama is trying to put together.

That means all countries that want intelligence and protection from the USA and NATO would have to chip in. If you don't pay, you get no help. Each soldier would sign a three-year commitment and, again, they would be well paid. Finally, it would help a lot if Congress would formally declare war on terrorism and stop trying to coax reluctant, sometimes cowardly countries into fighting terrorism.

Islamic terrorists are going to kill as many people on this Earth as they can, so an anti-terror force will eventually have to be raised. Let's see if President Obama has the foresight and guts to do it now.
And before I get to the show review, think about this. Over the weekend 200,000 people filled the streets in New York (Where O'Reilly works and lives) for the climate change protest, and (Mr. I believe in Climate change) Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, nothing, zero, nada. But if 32 Tea Party idiots have a protest O'Reilly reports it for a week, and has multiple segments on it.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, there will never be a mercenary army that will be trained to defeat terrorism, you are an idiot, and you should stick to being a biased hack on Fox who thinks people care what you say and think.

Then Thom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College was on to tell O'Reilly how wrong he is.

Nichols said this: "This is a terrible idea, not just as a practical matter, but as a moral matter. It's morally corrosive to outsource our national security, this is something America has to do for ourselves. You're asking these forces to operate as if they are part of the U.S. military, yet you're treating them like they are mercenaries."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed with Nichols strenuous objections, saying this: "What's immoral about it? The U.S. trains and supervises and decides where they go. It is a highly-trained, disciplined force that operates under the Geneva Convention rules, a force that would strike fear into every terrorist in the world." Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the Obama plan to fight ISIS and people who wrote books about it.

Williams said this: "These guys are selling books, and they're in a Monday-morning-quarterbacking mode. They were there back then and they understand that we could not identify whether those Syrian rebels were really rebels or growing into terrorists. There was no win in giving arms to people who might turn around and use them against the USA."

Ham (Who almost always agrees with O'Reilly) said his idea of a highly-trained and highly-paid international force is not a good idea, saying this: "There is a highly-trained and skilled force that can go forth in many of the places and do the work that needs to be done, and that is our special forces. The fact that people don't want our troops on the ground is not a reason to start a worldwide mercenary army."

Then Brit Hume was on, he claims that it is not the role of the National Football League to police the private conduct of its players. Which is not only ridiculous, it's insane, because the NFL has a personal conduct clause in the contracts with all the players. Hume is a clueless idiot.

Hume said this: "An accuser who may not be acting in good faith, has the power to damage someone, perhaps permanently. I worry when you get one of these firestorms going and it seems almost like a lynch mob forms. The critics are not only going after Ray Rice, they're after the commissioner of the league."

O'Reilly had this plan for the NFL: "This is a league with social implications, and if I were running a team I would have a zero tolerance policy. If you're arrested, you're suspended, and if you are convicted of a felony, you're done!"

Then Karl Rove was on, who has been surveying the upcoming November elections, and gave his latest predictions. Which is just laughable and wrong, he was wrong about everything in the last elections, he said Romney would win by a mile and the Republicans would win the Senate back, and he was totally wrong.

And O'Reilly still has him on as a political expert, when he is just a biased hack who should not even be working for Fox, because he has a conflict of interest by running the PAC for the Republican party. If someone at MSNBC was doing the same thing O'Reilly would scream bloody murder.

Rove said this: "If everything goes reasonably well for the Republicans, they will wind up with 52 or 53 seats. It could be more if a big wave develops. Republicans lead in six states and they're very close in four other states."

Rove analyzed the tighter races one-by-one and, to the surprise of absolutely no one, suggested that his GOP will prevail in all of them.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he went to north Boston, home of many prestigious universities, and asked some students about our troubles in the Middle East. Most of the kids were unable to identify ISIS or even where we are dropping bombs.

Back in the studio, Watters disputed the common claim that he goes out of his way to select particularly inane interview subjects. "We asked eight people what is going on, and half of them had no idea. I'd actually invite a random person to come out and witness what actually happens."

Earth to morons, most young people do not follow world news or politics, and most of them do not vote either, they are too busy going to school and working, and you are stupid to not know that.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Know What You Are Talking About When Protesting. Billy said this: "If you feel strongly about any issue, including environmental matters, let your opinions be heard. But do your homework and know what you're talking about."

Mainstream Media Ignores 200,000 Strong Climate Change March
By: Steve - September 23, 2014 - 10:00am

So much for that liberal media, where was it?

Marchers filled up an estimated twenty-five city blocks in what is being described as the largest action against climate change in history, but the mainstream television coverage has been invisible. The march went ignored by the Sunday morning news shows, which instead chose to focus on ISIS and the NFL.

Cable news provided no live coverage of the event despite the fact that it was taking place in the same city where all three networks are either located or have bureaus.

Would it really have been difficult for the so called progressive network MSNBC to go down the street and provide live coverage? A live stream of the march would have been much more interesting to viewers than the standard fare of talking heads discussing the midterm elections.

The media always seems to have an excuse for why they ignore progressive marches, but there is no escaping the fact that they ignored the People's Climate March because it was an event that drew progressive lawmakers and activists from all around the world.

The corporate run media doesn't want to discuss climate issues out of fear that they will alienate that climate change deniers in the Republican Party.

The climate change marches are happening around the globe, NBC News reported, "In London, organizers said 40,000 took part including actress Emma Thompson and musician Peter Gabriel. A march in Melbourne, Australia drew 10,000 people."

American television networks have decided that citizens don't need to be informed about the biggest march against climate change in history.

It never ceases to amaze me that a tea party rally with 50 people and 20 port-a-potties can get more mainstream television coverage than a progressive march that features hundreds of thousands of people in the nation's biggest city.

The UN Climate Change Summit begins on Tuesday, but if our media can ignore 200,000 voices, there is zero chance that they will ever take their responsibility to inform the American people about climate change seriously.

WSJ Thinks Family Making $400,000 A Year Barely Getting By
By: Steve - September 22, 2014 - 10:00am

And before you say, maybe they are right. Think about this, there is no family of four, they just made it up, it's all fantasyland talk.

O'Reilly loves to cite the Wall Street Journal, he even recently cited a poll they did, and he uses them all the time to try and prove he is right about an issue, even though they are a right-wing newspaper owned by the same company that owns Fox News.

They put out ridiculous partisan opinions, just like O'Reilly and Fox, and now they are trying to say a family of four making $400,000 a year is not wealthy, and just barely getting by.

To any of the 50 million Americans currently living in poverty, an annual household income of $400,000 probably sounds like a dream come true. Even to the millions of people among the rapidly-disappearing middle class, that kind of money sounds great.

Not so fast, says The Wall Street Journal.

In a recent video, posted on the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper's website, accompanying a recent feature titled "Six-Figure Incomes--and Facing Financial Ruin," the WSJ lays out the case for why a family of four living in Chicago on salaries totaling $400,000 -- almost 10 times the city's median annual household income -- could actually "just barely be getting by."

The family, the Journal says, has two kids and lives in a home worth $1.2 million. Their core expenses -- including a mortgage payment, property taxes, home maintenance, utilities, bills, auto insurance and $575 in groceries a week -- come to $190,000 a year.

And btw, this is not a real family they are talking about, it's a made-up family they pulled out of the air to use as an example of how a family might be just barely getting by on $400,000 a year in Chicago.

On top of that, they say the spend-happy family shells out $25,000 on vacations and $22,000 on restaurants, entertainment and club dues a year, plus $60,000 on a new car every four years -- adding up to $62,000 annually.

Wow, that's more than anyone I know makes a year with a family of 2 or 3, most of them make less than $50,000 a year, let alone spend $60,000 a year on vacations, restaurants, entertainment, and club dues. Factor in those expenses, plus spending on holiday gifts, school fundraisers and taxes, and the family is not even breaking even. Cue the money bonfire!

Tough out there, huh?

The video has been met with mockery. Jezebel's Erin Gloria Ryan described the video as either "a deliberately unsympathetic joke designed to agitate the stirrings of an American class war or ... one of the whitest whines of all time," while the Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik deemed it "reverse econ-porn."

And remember they are not talking about a real family, they are talking about a make-believe family they dreamed up in their head. That is how they try to say a family making $400,000 grand a year is barely getting by in Chicago.

O'Reilly & Varney Once Again Claim The Poor Are Doing Great
By: Steve - September 21, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly: "All the things that Poor People have proves America doesn't really have any destitution anymore."

Varney: "Generous welfare web keeps people in a gilded cage."



Fox News also thinks Having Necessities Like Air Conditioning Means You Aren't Really Poor. O'Reilly also lies That "You Can Make More Money Going On The Dole Than You Can By Working."

Even though you can get a used air conditioner for under $100, and brand new window units for $120 to $150. And for the record, O'Reilly and Varney are wrong, because nobody makes more money on welfare than they do working, most of their benefits are in health care, food stamps, prescriptions, etc, not actual cash. Not to mention, if you are a single man you get very little, but if you are a woman with a child or two you can get a lot.

O'Reilly and Varney think all lower income people are well off and they all have big screen TV's, satellite dishes, swimming pools, go to Casinos, go on lavish trips, have fancy new cars, etc. etc.

Which is all laughable, especially when people like O'Reilly claim they are doing worse under Obama, which is another lie.

They think everyone can just get out of their low priced housing, go to Fox "News" and get a job as a TV host, and start making millions of dollars a year. O'Reilly did it. Varney did it. Therefore, there's no reason anyone else can't do it.

And stop by a book publisher so you can sign a contract to write whatever "Killing" books O'Reilly and his ghostwriter haven't done yet. That's a side project which will also be worth millions a year. O'Reilly gets paid to pretend he writes books. Therefore, anyone can just start writing books and expect the checks to start rolling in.

Your problems are solved, thanks to Bill O'Reilly and Stuart Varney.

The Friday 9-19-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 20, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: How the Internet Makes Evil Stronger. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We are living in a dangerous, fast-changing world. Machines dominate the lives of Americans and are also very useful tools to terrorists. This week Bill Clinton said that ISIS, al Qaeda and other killers can now recruit online, instill fear online, and instantly publicize their homicidal exploits worldwide.

And yesterday ISIS showed pictures of captured British national John Cantlie, who was forced to make a propaganda video and is in grave danger of losing his life. The terrorists have an enormous amount of power right at their fingertips.

On the home front, Home Depot has just announced that is has been hacked, and 56 million shoppers now have their information in cyberspace. Hackers have stolen explicit photos from more than one hundred celebrities; Chinese hackers have stolen information from U.S. military contractors and American companies; and Edward Snowden stole national security secrets, which were put out on the net, endangering the lives of American operatives all over the world.

On a more personal note, millions of children are addicted to their cell phones, personal computers and laptops. They can access almost anything, they can see the worst kind of pornography and violence, and there is little parents can do to stop it. This is a huge problem. There is no question that for all the benefits of the 'net, evil is flourishing there.

As American children become adults, their interpersonal skills will be far less than in past generations. Narcissism thrives in cyber-space. It's all about me because I hold in my hand all I need to know. In the future, those who reject the online addiction will prosper, while those who succumb to it will fail. We are looking at a brave new world, and believe me, you're going to have to be brave to endure it.
Then O'Reilly had Internet safety specialist Katie Greer and cyber-terrorism analyst Morgan Wright on to discuss it.

Wright said this: "The problem with the Internet, is that it's good and it's bad. It has created trillions of dollars of wealth, but it's also caused a lot of grief for our kids. You can not throw enough money at this problem to solve it, it's going to take a cultural shift."

Greer lamented that high-tech malefactors are always one step ahead, saying this: "It's a cat-and-mouse game for law enforcement and parents, how do we keep up with this technology that is changing so quickly? Who will get there first, the good guys or the bad guys?"

O'Reilly said this: "Sick people who would have been shunned years ago now have the power to get the sickness out there to everybody. There is a tremendous deterioration of the moral fiber of the United States because of these machines."

Then Senator John McCain was on to analyze the threat posed by ISIS and the Obama administration's response. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

McCain said this: "This horrible terrorism has metastasized in Syria and Iraq. I have met with members of the Free Syrian Army and many of them have been killed because we refused to help them. Now we're telling them we will train and equip them, but we are sending them into an environment where Assad can kill them from the air. That's not fair to them, that's just wrong."

O'Reilly reminded McCain that his stance on the war in Iraq is weighing against him, saying this: "You were very bullish on the Iraq invasion and the campaign in Afghanistan, and a lot of Americans are saying that didn't work to our advantage. That has soured Americans from supporting more action in that chaotic part of the world."

Which is funny, because O'Reilly and McCain were both wrong on Iraq and now they want us to listen to them on Syria and ISIS, and that is just laughable.

Then for some reason O'Reilly had the Tea Party activist Scottie Nell Hughes on her take on widespread media coverage of the NFL domestic violence situation. And of course no Democratic guest for balance and who care what this Tea Party fool thinks about it.

Hughes said this: "The sorority house of the Hillary Clinton-ites are getting ready to demonize all men. They're trying to portray this as a very sexist society, and therefore if you don't vote for Hillary Clinton you're a chauvinist. Why is this all coming out right now? We're opening a Pandora's Box because we're not letting the judicial system take its path."

Even O'Reilly expressed skepticism about that crazy conspiracy theory, saying this: "You're putting a political component into a social situation, the guys in the NFL who have committed these crimes don't have any political agenda."

And that is what Tea Party nuts do, which is why nobody supports them.

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on for 'What the heck just happened?' And as usual no Democratic guests for balance.

They talked about Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's claim that President Obama has to destroy ISIS "before we all get killed back here at home."

McGuirk said this: "The Senator came off sounding like some shrill, bed-wetting Chicken Little, at a time when we need sober, level-headed assessment. You can't sound like a panicked teenage girl when leading the country off to war."

But Gutfeld defended Graham's warning, saying this: "He spoke of ISIS intentions, and they want to do exactly what he said. No one ever loses a war by overestimating the enemy. I would much rather overestimate that underestimate, which is what Obama did. And if you replaced 'ISIS' with 'global warming,' he would have gotten a standing ovation."

And finally, the Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly defending an attack against Megyn Kelly. These tips are worthless.

House Republicans Cancel All Votes And Go On Vacation For 6 Weeks
By: Steve - September 20, 2014 - 10:00am

After having done nothing the entire year, House Republicans have rewarded themselves by canceling all of their remaining votes and leaving town until after November's midterm election.

In a departure from their original schedule, the House plans to adjourn at the end of the day Thursday until after the midterm elections, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced.

Lawmakers will now have extra time to hit the campaign trail, leaving Washington until the lame-duck session in November.

The House was originally set to be in session through Friday to vote on consolidated packages of what the Republicans called jobs bills (that were in reality just more tax breaks for the wealthy) and measures to boost domestic energy that it has already passed by Republican majority. Now, members will be able to head for the exits as soon as the House finishes work on the energy package.

DCCC Chairman Rep. Steve Israel responded by putting Republicans on blast, "House Republicans are now abandoning any pretense of doing actual work for the American people, skipping town one day after doing the bare minimum required to keep the government functioning but blocking any progress for the middle class. House Republicans have proved yet again that they are only interested in doing their jobs long enough to stack the deck for special interests and launch political stunts."

House Republicans aren't even trying to fool the American people anymore. It doesn't matter that the jobs bills that the House was supposed to vote on were not really jobs bills. In House Republican speak, anything that provides a tax cut to the wealthy or guts a regulation is a jobs bill.

The reality is that House Republicans don't do what most people would consider to be actual jobs bills. In other words, if they passed any or all of them it is most likely they will not create any new jobs. It's the same old right-wing garbage, more tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations that has been proven to not create jobs, just make the wealthy more wealthy.

John Boehner is fond of saying that jobs are his top priority, but the Speaker couldn't even stick around town long enough to vote for his own fake jobs bills.

The best part about this whole deal for House Republicans is that they will still be getting paid for assigning themselves more vacation time.

The American people need a Congress that will show up for work. If you decided on your own to not show up for work, you'd be fired on the spot. Voters need to give House Republicans the same treatment in November.

If anyone votes for any Republicans this November you are stupid and you deserve what you get. They are corporate stooges, open your eyes folks, the Republicans only care about the wealthy and the corporations who fund their campaigns. They do not care about you, and if you vote for them you are an idiot.

The Thursday 9-18-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 19, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Confusion Over Protecting America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Former President Jimmy Carter, an avowed liberal man and not considered a warrior by anyone, now says 'we need to attack ISIS.' That's about as hawkish as I've ever heard Mr. Carter, who generally does not like confrontation. And then there's Secretary of State Kerry.

Confronted by Code Pink anti-war demonstrators, Kerry called out the peace group, saying this about ISIS: 'They are killing and raping and mutilating women ... they sell off girls to be sex slaves to jihadists.'

I've always wondered about the anti-war people, who will allow the worst atrocities to take place but still cloak themselves in moral garments. Last night on The Factor both Alan Colmes and Dennis Kucinich said they would have allowed ISIS to kill the innocent people stranded in northern Iraq, and thousands of Kurds as well.

Colmes and Kucinich reject any U.S. military action against ISIS, which seems strange to me. They are good guys, but how can you let innocent people die when you can save them, especially when the group committing the murder is committed to killing you?

As an historian, I know that failing to stop evil leads to more evil. Hitler could have been taken out earlier, but the 'peace for our time' crowd, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, failed to confront the Fuhrer. But let's get back to Jimmy Carter.

Whenever you have a guy like that convinced the country is being threatened, you've got to take it seriously. Even he wants to destroy ISIS, and you know what? He's right.
Before I write anything think about this show, think about this, on this show O'Reilly had 7 Republicans on (8 when you count him) and 1 Democratic guest, so where is that balance he talks about, and he even said in the media bias segment that he is fair and balanced and has no bias, which is just laughable. How is it balanced to have 7 Republicans on to 1 Democrat?

Now let me say this about ISIS and President Obama protecting the country. Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing idiot, because Obama has protected the country, no major terrorist attack has happened under his watch, and that's a fact.

ISIS is no threat to anyone inside the United States, and that came from a statement put out by the Department of Homeland Security. So O'Reilly is lying about both things, and liberals would support a war, if we were attacked and it was justified. Most of us (including me) think we should go by the constitution and protect our country when we are attacked, or if we know of a direct threat from someone.

Most liberals do not think we should be the police to the world, unlike O'Reilly, who wants to bomb and kill everyone he thinks is a threat to us. And when you randomly bomb people on foreign soil you create more terrorists than you are killing, making the problem even worse. Especially when he says we are broke, if we are broke where are we getting the money to attack all of them. Answer that O'Reilly.

The O'Reilly reported that Congress has overwhelmingly approved funding to train and arm anti-ISIS Syria rebels. Republican Representatives Marsha Blackburn and Sean Duffy, who voted for and against the bill were on to discuss it. And no Democratic guests were on for balance.

Duffy said this: "I don't trust the president to vet the Syrian rebels. His foreign policy has been a disaster in Egypt and Libya and Iran, and I don't trust him in Syria. Also, this president's heart isn't in the fight, he's done everything to tell America what he won't do to win."

Blackburn disagreed, saying this: "In talking with some of the commanders, I found that it is important to them to have the beginnings of a strategy. This is just the first step, the president needs to define this mission and so far he has not been able to do it. We need to annihilate ISIS!"

Then Jeff McCall & Paul Farhi were on to talk about media bias. And finally, a Democratic guest was on the show, but of course he was not on alone, he was paired with a Republican so as usual it was a 2 on 1 unbalanced segment. O'Reilly reported that a new Gallup Poll found that 60% of Americans generally lack trust in the media.

Farhi said this: "We in the media make mistakes, and when we make mistakes people remember. When CNN reports that a suspect has been arrested in the Boston bombing case, people remember we were wrong, and when Fox News gets the Supreme Court decision on health care wrong, everyone remembers. They tar all of us with the same brush."

The conservative McCall said this: "The public perceives the media as biased, and it's hard to put a lot of trust in the media if you perceive them as biased. A lot of citizens feel that commentary and analysis are filtering into the straight news programming. Even 15% of liberals feel the media is too liberal."

O'Reilly said he is not biased, which is just laughable. He is a 99% biased Republican. All his opinions are right-wing, and almost all his guests are Republicans, this show even proves it. He had 7 Republicans on to only 1 Democrat, and the Democrat had to be on with a Republican, he was not even allowed to be on alone.

Then Heather Nauert was on to answer mail from some angry viewers. One of them, Richard Hansen of California is mad because the media ignores violence perpetrated by women against men.

"The numbers are actually pretty even," she reported, "so he's on to something here. But when you talk about extreme violence, women are the victims a lot more often than men."

But what she did not tell you is that domestic violence against women is under-reported. Studies show that only 1 in 4 women ever report domestic violence. So comparing the so-called stats is just biased and dishonest, but O'Reilly agreed with her anyway and never said a word about all the women who are abused by men that do not report it.

Another viewer, New Yorker Tom Gullotti, is miffed because he had to show an ID when purchasing spray paint and Sudafed. "They don't want you to spray paint things," Nauert explained, "and Sudafed can be used to make crystal meth and other drugs. It's a federal law that you have to be over 18 to buy it."

Who cares, show your ID and shut up.

Then Laura Ingraham was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. O'Reilly said that when it comes to attacking ISIS and terrorism, men tend to be far more aggressive than women, and Ingraham dissected the gender gap. Which is like duh, thank you Mr. Obvious, of course men are more aggressive than men, we do not need to discuss it and we do not need a poll to tell us that.

Ingraham said this: "Gallup has been polling the differences between men's and women's views on military action since 1965, and the gender gap has been consistent and continues to this day. Women tend to be naturally a little more like mediators, and there's some pragmatism as well. People say they don't trust Obama, Kerry, or Hagel, but we should go in and follow the 'non-plan plan.' To me that makes no sense."

Ingraham said that men are inherently more capable of committing cruel and violent acts, saying this: "Some women are jihadists holding up heads, and women are capable of evil, but most of the terrorist actions across the globe are committed by young males."

Now tell us something we don't know, morons!

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Avoiding "The Orient." Billy said this: "Vice President Joe Biden offended some Asians this week when he referred to the Far East as "The Orient." You may not have been aware of the word's negative connotation, but it's best to avoid a term if an entire group of people finds it offensive."

But he ignores all the really racist and offensive things Republicans say about asians, blacks, gays, and mexicans, to use one quote from the Democrat Joe Biden. And in my world the term orient is the least offensive term out there, the stuff Republicans say is far worse and O'Reilly ignores it all.

Florida Republican Calls Blacks Animals With a Backwards Culture
By: Steve - September 19, 2014 - 10:00am

And they wonder why Democrats get roughly 97% of the black vote, give me a break, because of racist garbage like this. And of course O'Reilly never says a word about all this Republican racism against blacks, because he does not want you to know about it, and if he reports it he will have to admit it's real.

O'Reilly not only denies Republicans are racists, he also denies there is white privilege, even though we all know he is wrong, he still denies it, which is insane and just makes him look like a racist fool himself.

Here is the story:

Lakeland, Florida utility board member Steve Wade seems to have forgotten that describing African-Americans as animals and suggesting that African-American teen girls do nothing but get knocked up constantly isn't exactly the best career move -- but while he says he used the wrong word, he stands by his claims.

In a September 4 budget meeting, Wade said that Northwest Lakeland has a bit of a black problem. "Here in Lakeland we're seeing everything," Wade said.

"Our black community in the northwest section -- not just the gangs, but just a culture that has really gone backwards, almost like animals."

He continued, "It's not just the gang problem, it's the teenage girls. We've got to get them to say no and quit having these babies. The culture in that community is spreading into other parts of Lakeland."

Now get this, not only is he a racist fool, he is wrong, because the Ledger notes that, since 2009, the teen birth rate has declined from 59 births per 1,000 to 37 births per 1,000 among 15 to 19-year-old girls in Polk County, Florida.

And Wade offered no facts or stats, or studies for his claims, but he did later apologize. "When I used the word that I used and I apologize for that," Wade said. "As soon as it came out of my mouth. I knew that was wrong."

Wade also said that aside from the use of the word animals, his assessment is spot-on. "Except for me using the word animals, everything else was true," Wade said. "They aren't acting like human beings should be acting."

So he retracted the word animals, then called them less than human, which is even worse than calling them animals, What an idiot!

On Friday, the Utility Committee voted 3-0 to recommend that Mayor Howard Wiggs speak with Wade about his remarks.

The African-American Commissioner Phillip Walker disagrees wholeheartedly with Wade's assessment. "We don't have animals living out there," Walker said. "I live out there, and I don't consider myself an animal.

Republican Approval Numbers O'Reilly Never Reports
By: Steve - September 18, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly loves to report on polls about the Obama job approval and tell you how much Democrats are hated by the American people, without ever telling you that Republican numbers are even worse. He acts like everyone supports the Republicans so you should vote them into office, when the exact opposite is true, and when you go issue by issue the vast majority of Americans support Democratic positions more than they do Republican positions.

A new poll from the Washington Post shows that an astounding 72 percent of Americans say they are unhappy with Republicans in Congress.

Yes, you heard that right, 72% of the American people do not like what Republicans are doing, and yet O'Reilly supports it all and claims the American people are behind them and want what the Republicans are selling. When the opposite is true.

The poll, conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News and released last week, found that only 54 percent and 61 percent said they disapprove of Obama and Democrats.

Republicans approval rating has been terrible for years, and Congress as a whole is almost universally disliked.

According to the The Upshot, the GOP's chances of a Senate majority may come down to "who's more unloved, Obama or the GOP."

As November nears, Democrats are doubling down efforts to keep the Senate.

Last week, Obama told NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it makes a big difference if we've got at least one branch in Congress," even if they can't take back the House.

Just remember this folks, Obama and the Democrats are not perfect and have made some political mistakes, but the Republicans are far worse. We saw that with Bush and Cheney, they put us into a new great depression and almost crashed the economy. Do not forget what Bush and Cheney did, they sold out to the wealthy and the corporate interests and it almost ruined our entire economy.

O'Reilly and the right want you to forget about Bush and Cheney, and what they did, that is why they never mention either one of them. Do not forget, vote Democratic in the next elections.

The Tuesday 9-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 17, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Fighting and defeating ISIS, Part Two. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we told you last night, President Obama's strategy of arming disorganized Syrians to defeat a well-trained terror army will never work. The president knows that, but he's afraid to tell the American people the truth -- that sooner or later U.S. forces will have to engage ISIS. It's already happening. There are now close to 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, providing support for the Kurds and those Iraqi army units that will actually fight.

Believe me, these Special Forces are armed and if they see an ISIS terrorist -- a guy with a black mask -- they're going to take him out. Now we also told you last night that this counter-terrorism strategy is designed to tamp down public opinion. Because Iraq and Afghanistan have been so painful for Americans, there is no public will to deploy American troops once again in chaotic nations.

Everybody knows that. But again, it's going to happen, it's just a matter of when. As I said before, we are living in a dangerous world and many jihadists are maniacs. They'll do anything. Kill children, no problem. Enslave women, all day long. Behead innocent people on camera, they like it. When you have that kind of a scenario, there is no negotiating. There is only confrontation.

The quicker President Obama and the American people come to understand that, the quicker the jihad will be downgraded. Again, we need a Declaration of War and we need President Obama and the Pentagon to develop a smart, tough strategy against these animals.
Then Col. Tony Shaffer and Col. David Hunt were on to talk about their plans on how to confront the ISIS threat.

Shaffer said he would persuade U.S. allies in the region to send troops to Iraq and Syria. "We have effective forces, who want to fight. The Egyptians, the Jordanians and all of these other elements that are ready to go. We've invested in these folks for decades."

But of course the neo-con hack O'Reilly (who was wrong on Itraq btw) did not think Shaffer's plan was realistic, saying this: "Look, if that can happen, that would be great. I'm just not seeing it as a real possibility."

Col. Hunt said his plan relied on shutting down the Iraq-Syrian border. "I would go to Iraq first and build an economic, political, religious coalition of moderate Muslims before I went into Syria. But you have to seal the Iraq/Syria border first."

Both Shaffer and Hunt then agreed that the U.S. must also arm surrogate groups in Iraq to fight with guidance of American advisers on the ground.

But the cable tv news host still disagreed with his own military experts, saying he remained un-persuaded. "I don't think this ISIS group is going to go down with surrogates, I just don't."

O'Reilly said his plan would be to send assassination teams to Iraq: "This is one hell of a mess, all right. And even the finest minds are grasping for how to get these guys. And I would send in assassination teams, that's what I would do. I would use the surrogates, but their orders would be you kill every single ISIS person you can."

Now remember this, O'Reilly has never held an elected office, does not have access to the secret intelligence reports on Iraq, Syria, or ISIS, and never been in the military. He is just a biased cable tv news show host, and yet he is saying we should listen to him, and not the military experts, it's just laughable. Especially when he was totally wrong on Iraq and has no credibility on military issues.

Then O'Reilly quoted Pope Francis recent statement about ISIS: "In these cases where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say that it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor. I underscore the verb stop. I'm not saying bomb or make war, just stop."

O'Reilly asked Father Morris what Pope Francis meant by his statement. Father Morris compared the situation with ISIS to being in a room in which someone is trying to kill your mother.

Morris said this: "What the Pope is saying not only do you have a right but you have a responsibility to stop that person. And unfortunately when there's an unjust aggressor who's going in with a knife, for example, you can't just talk that person down. You stop them with the least amount of force necessary in order to keep them from doing a very bad thing."

Father Brisotti disagreed, saying the U.S. should do only things like cut off ISIS oil sales rather than fight a war. "I would come at it from the fundamental presumption would be against war coming from the Christian tradition and papal documents. We could organize to stop whoever is buying the oil that they're selling."

Then Monica Crowley & Kirsten Powers were on to talk about Texas authorities who recently charged Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson with felony child abuse. Peterson's legal woes came just days after video emerged of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice knocking out his wife with a punch. O'Reilly asked Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley what they would do about Peterson and Rice if they were commissioner of the NFL.

Powers said she would suspend both Peterson and Ray Rice for the season. "I don't think either of them would play this week or this year. I think that they should be suspended for a year." Powers also said she would reinstate Rice and Peterson next season if they successfully completed counseling.

Crowley agreed that both players should face year-long suspensions, but said she definitely would not support a lifetime ban for either Rice or Peterson. "I think nobody wants to be in the position that's even looking like they're condoning or excusing domestic violence, child abuse, any kind of crime. What I disagree with is that there are calls for permanent suspension, there are calls for banning some of these people for life."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on, he talked about how the president could convince the American people to effectively fight ISIS.

Krauthammer said this: "You're going to need a president who's committed, who's going to make the case, but who will say this, 'This is not a naked U.S. invasion. It's not going to be just American tanks rolling down as we did in 2003. But the most important element, the one that wasn't mentioned on this show at all, and has to be, is going to be the Anbar Sunni tribesmen."

Krauthammer also said this: "This is not as if this is a new script. The script was written by David Petraeus in 2008 and 2007. That is the only way this is going to work. You're going to have to have the Sunni tribes flip a third time. They supported al-Qaeda in Iraq at the beginning of the war and then they flipped. Petraeus did that during the surge, supported by American troops."

And that was the end of the show, no tip of the day, which is great because they are usually garbage and that's in the rare times when O'Reilly even does a tip of the day, usually he just promotes a book or a project he is doing.

Bill Clinton Truth Alert: Republicans Are Koch Brothers Clones
By: Steve - September 17, 2014 - 10:00am

Former president Bill Clinton pulled no punches when talking about the Republican Party. Clinton called Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans clones of the Koch brothers.

Former President Clinton described the Republican strategy, saying this:
CLINTON: Half the time, they're not even running against their opponents. They're trying to get you to check your brain at the door, start foaming at the mouth. The last thing they want you to do is think. Now, here's something I read the other day, and I read it twice to make sure that I wouldn't misrepresent it to you.

There was a rather revealing article in the press sometime over the last couple of weeks about a speech the Senate Republican leader who wants to be Majority Leader by getting you to erase all of our candidates for Congress and our candidate for Senate and see only the people they are allegedly clones of, taking orders from.

It was Sen. Mitch McConnell's speech to the Koch brothers political forum supposedly in secret. Again, this was highly informal and informative. First of all he said that when he became Majority Leader he wanted them to know that they would begin by using the budget to takeover the government, because the budget's the only thing that you can't filibuster. It takes a majority vote.

Since they were going to put an amendment on every single budget of every department to get rid of anything that had been done since President Obama had been in office or before they didn't like, and if he vetoed they would simply shut the government down over and over and over again. Now this is not an allegation. He was bragging on this like he was Einstein discovering the Theory of Relativity. He found the secret to permanent gridlock. Oh, happy day.
Clinton is correct. The Republican Party has sold itself out to the Koch brothers. The agenda they are pursuing is the Koch brothers agenda.

Republicans members of the House and Senate don't represent the people who live in their states. Republicans are representing the right-wing billionaires that are paying for their political campaigns. Republicans don't care about regular people anymore. Working people aren't in the field of vision for the Republican members of Congress.

Mitch McConnell's admission that the Koch brothers are the ones calling the shots in the Republican Party was confirmation of what anyone who has been paying attention to American politics since the Citizens United decision already understood. The Republican Party is only interested in representing the interests of their biggest donors.

The bad news for the Koch brothers is that there is nowhere left for them to hide.

Their secret political operation has been exposed. A vote for a Republican this November is a vote for the Koch takeover of the government. When powerful voices like Bill Clinton start calling out the Kochs and their puppets, the jig is up.

The American people are catching on to the Kochs, and even former President Clinton is sounding the alarm.

But of course O'Reilly has ignored it all, because he is a Republican, he supports the Koch brothers, and he likes what the Republican party is doing.

The Monday 9-15-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 16, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Taking the Fight to ISIS. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll says just 28 percent of Americans are confident President Obama will be able to defeat the ISIS terror threat. Twenty-eight percent. Sixty-eight percent have their doubts. The reason Americans are tentative about their commander-in-chief is that he has not been assertive in using U.S. power, and indeed seems to be somewhat ashamed of it.

But now with weekly beheadings by ISIS, the reluctant warrior must wage war. But not total war, tepid war. President Obama doesn't want to put Americans in harm's way; it goes against his liberal belief system. So he wants to form a big anti-terror coalition. The sad truth is, and has been, that only the United States can lead a fight against evil. Russia and China have power, but neither nation is interested in righting wrongs or protecting innocent people.

They want power, money, and a tight hold over their own citizens. ISIS --- they couldn't care less. If President Obama really wants to protect Americans and defeat ISIS, he must become a much stronger presence. He's wishy-washy up there -- Patton and U.S. Grant are rolling over. He's dispassionate, much too nuanced, not fully engaged.

Few nations will follow a leader who tells the enemy what he won't do and whose record of retreat dominates his resume. We need a presidential commitment to kill terrorists wherever they may be. To do that, the President and Congress must pass a declaration of war against Islamic terrorists.

We have to have an official document that says, 'here we come.' But we don't invade, nation build or arm corrupt, ineffective fighting forces. We fight smart, taking help from nations that are willing to give it, and bringing the fight to the enemy in a variety of ways.
O'Reilly is so full of it, O'Reilly says Obama does not want to put troops in harms way because he is a liberal, which is just laughable. Obama is trying to form a coalition, the same thing Bush did, that O'Reilly supported then. And the American people do not support troops on the ground, so Obama is just going by the will of the people, not his liberal ideology as O'Reilly claimed.

A lot of Republicans even do not want troops on the ground, only the far far right idiots like O'Reilly do. I heard one right-wing idiot even say that liberals would not support troops on the ground if we were attacked here in America, which is laughable, because we would. O'Reilly is simply a right-wing propaganda machine.

Then Brit Hume was on, with no Democratic guest for balance, and of course Hume agreed with O'Reilly and surmised that the reason President Obama is having difficulty forming an international coalition against ISIS is because his plan is "half baked" and that Obama is not "really committed to it."

O'Reilly said this: "That's why we need a declaration of war. It's a psychological" tool and also gives "the legal authority to hunt them down."

Brit said he believes the American people want Obama to do more to defeat ISIS. O'Reilly argued the only way the to defeat ISIS is for American forces to be embedded with Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers along with the use massive U.S. airpower.

O'Reilly said this: "You can talk a good game, but when you strip it away, every military analyst says the same thing. You are not going to get these guys unless you have some Americans on the ground helping the other forces directing them right in to get them. That's it."

Then Juan Williams & Mary Katharine Ham were on. O'Reilly said that a Wall Street Journal-NBC News polls shows most Americans do not believe President Obama will effectively wage war against the ISIS terrorists.

Williams disagreed, and said what Obama is doing to confront ISIS is both wise and widely supported by the American people. "What Obama is doing in terms of the air strikes, no boots on the ground, you know, creating a coalition, potentially having Muslims fighting Muslims, that's letter and verse what the American people want done. And the American people are reluctant warriors except to the extent that we don't want to repeat the errors of 10 years ago and get locked into some, you know ancient dispute."

Mary K. Ham said this: "I think the American people, they believe in American power, but their will does need to be buoyed. You have to make that argument, you have Obama who doesn't want to make the case to Congress. And you have a Congress who's happy to have him not make the case, because they don't want to have their names on it."

Williams ended the segment with a warning to O'Reilly, saying this: "Be careful not to become a warmonger my friend."

Haha, too late Juan, O'Reilly is already a warmonger, has been for years and always will be.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about why NFL fans continue to support NFL players who have allegedly committed domestic violence or child abuse. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Goldberg said this: "I interviewed a sports psychologist, a college professor. And he said that, with institutions in America crumbling and breaking down, starting with the family and religion, people go to other things where they find a sense of acceptance and a sense of belonging. And, very often, that something else is a sports team. And, as crazy as it may sound, the Baltimore Ravens and Ray Rice, to some fans, not all, ---- are family. And it's hard to abandon a family member even when you acknowledge that he did something terribly, terribly wrong."

Then Jesse Watters was on with another waste of time worthless segment, that is not news, so I am not reporting on it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly using the tip of the day segment to promote another stupid book he wrote that nobody cares about, except his viewers.

Paycheck Fairness Act Blocked Again By Senate Republicans
By: Steve - September 16, 2014 - 10:00am

And it's more proof the Republican party is in the back pocket of the billionaire Koch brothers. Because this is what the Koch brothers are telling the Republicans to do, block anything that could force them to pay their employees the money they deserve and have a right to get.

For the fourth time Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a bill that would strengthen federal equal pay laws for women.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would ban employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with each other, impose harsher penalties for pay discrimination and require employers to be able to show that wage gaps between men and women are based on factors other than gender.

The bill needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and advance to a final vote on passage, but it fell short Monday by a vote of 52 to 40. Senate Democrats have brought the bill to the floor four times since 2011, and each time Republicans have rejected it.

"The wage gap not only hurts our families, it hurts the economy," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said before the vote. "If it were reversed, I'd be standing here fighting for the men. It's not right."

Republicans say they oppose the bill because they believe it would discourage employers from hiring women, out of a fear of lawsuits.

Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda to justify letting employers discriminate against women and pay them less than men for doing the same jobs.

"At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the last vote on the bill in April.

Women working full-time in the U.S. earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn, according to the Census Bureau. A small portion of that gap, economists say, is due to employers paying women less than men for the same work.

Republicans are trying to engage women voters ahead of the November midterm elections, but their opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act and other equal pay measures has repeatedly been used against them in campaigns.

John McCain Votes To Preserve SC Ruling He Called Worst Decision Ever
By: Steve - September 15, 2014 - 11:00am

It's called voting with your party, instead of doing what's right for the country. Making John McCain one of the biggest hypocrites in America.

A proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling and give lawmakers greater ability to prevent large donors from corrupting government failed in the United States Senate on Thursday on a party-line vote.

Among the 42 Republicans voting no was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who in the past had been a campaign finance reform advocate.

The Citizens United decision found, for the first time in history, on another party line SC ruling 5 to 4, that the First Amendment's free speech protections guaranteed corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertisements.

McCain denounced the ruling as the Supreme Court's "worst decision ever."

In 2012, McCain promised that "there will be huge scandals...because there's too much money washing around, too much of it...we don't know who, who contributed it, and there is too much corruption associated with that kind of money."

He blasted the Supreme Court's view that corporations are people and denounced the Roberts Court for demonstrating "a combination of arrogance, naivete, and stupidity, the likes of which I have never seen."

Then voted to uphold their corrupt and partisan ruling, go figure, it was all talk.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) would have given Congress and the states the authority to "regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," as long as doing to did not abridge the freedom of the press, and would have allowed them to "distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections."

Like all constitutional amendments, it would have required a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states legislatures.

But McCain cast the deciding vote against the DISCLOSE Act in 2010, which would have required disclosure of the major funders of political ads. He has refused to back similar legislation to require transparency for outside political spending in every Congress since.

Fox News Ben Carson Is A Clueless & Biased Hack
By: Steve - September 14, 2014 - 11:00am

Last week on the O'Reilly Factor this clueless stooge (Ben Carson) told O'Reilly that he is not sure domestic violence is the "terrible plague" everyone says it is, and he basically defended Ray Rice saying this: "I'm not sure that demonizing people is ever the right thing to do."

Even Bill O'Reilly disagreed with Carson, saying this: "Ray Rice did a terrible thing, and battery of women in this country and around the world is out of control."

And now, here are some stats for the ridiculous Ben Carson. Stats that I found in 2 seconds with a google search on "Domestic Violence Statistics."

Every 9 seconds a woman is beaten:

More women are injured by domestic violence than are injured in auto accidents, muggings or rapes, combined.
1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime.
Women experience more than 4 million physical assaults and rapes because of their partners, and men are victims of nearly 3 million physical assaults.
Women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men
Women ages 20 to 24 are at greatest risk of becoming victims of domestic violence.
Every year, 1 in 3 women who is a victim of homicide is murdered by her current or former partner.

Earth to Ben Carson, do you see that? One in three women who is a victim of homicide is killed by her current or former partner, if you do not think that is a serious problem you are insane.

Now let's also remember this, the stats we have on it are what is reported, there is a lot of domestic violence that goes un-reported, so we do not even know about all of it. And that's not all, here are some more stats.

Every year, more than 3 million children witness domestic violence in their homes.
Children who live in homes where there is domestic violence also suffer abuse or neglect at high rates (30% to 60%).
A 2005 Michigan study found that children exposed to domestic violence at home are more likely to have health problems, including becoming sick more often, having frequent headaches or stomachaches, and being more tired and lethargic.
A 2003 study found that children are more likely to intervene when they witness severe violence against a parent – which can place a child at great risk for injury or even death.

So Ben Carson, are you telling me that the 3 million children who witness domestic violence every year is not a serious problem, if you are, I am saying you should not be put on tv as an expert for anything, ever.

More stats for Carson:

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, domestic violence is the third leading cause of homelessness among families.
In New York City, 25% of homeless heads of household became homeless due to domestic violence.
Survivors of domestic violence face high rates of depression, sleep disturbances, anxiety, flashbacks, and other emotional distress.
Domestic violence contributes to poor health for many survivors. For example, chronic conditions like heart disease or gastrointestinal disorders can become more serious due to domestic violence.
Among women brought to emergency rooms due to domestic violence, most were socially isolated and had fewer social and financial resources than other women not injured because of domestic violence.
Without help, girls who witness domestic violence are more vulnerable to abuse as teens and adults.
Without help, boys who witness domestic violence are far more likely to become abusers of their partners and/or children as adults, thus continuing the cycle of violence in the next generation.
Domestic violence costs more than $37 billion a year in law enforcement involvement, legal work, medical and mental health treatment, and lost productivity at companies.

And now the #1 stat on domestic violence:

#1 FACT: Most domestic violence incidents are never reported.

Domestic violence is one of the most chronically underreported crimes. Only about one-quarter of all physical assaults, one-fifth of all rapes, and one-half of all stalking against females by intimate partners are reported to the police.

But despite all that Ben Carson does not think it's a serious problem, which is just ridiculous, and Bill O'Reilly is just as bad as he is, for putting that fool on the air to say that crazy stuff. When even he knows it is a serious problem, he even disagreed with Carson, and yet he still put him on the air to say it.

Republicans Filibuster Constitutional Fix To Overturn Citizens United
By: Steve - September 14, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course the so-called journalist who reports what he calls hard news, never said a word about it. Because he was too busy slamming Obama for partisan political reasons.

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other Supreme Court rulings dating back to 1976 that invalidated restrictions on money in politics.

The party line vote was 54 in favor, 42 against, falling short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster and proceed to a final vote.

The Senate broke an initial filibuster on the measure on Monday. But many Republicans who voted to begin debate did not support the proposal and intended to ultimately block it.

The procedural motion on Thursday means the Senate won't move to an up-or-down vote, where it was even likelier to fail because it needed a two-thirds majority to advance.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), a fierce opponent of campaign finance restrictions, blasted Democrats for even bringing up the measure. Yeah because he is in the back pocket of the billionaire Koch brothers who oppose the amendment.

The proposal, offered by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), would amend the Constitution to restore the authority of Congress to establish campaign finance limits, the kind that were axed in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC and 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court rulings.

According to a Senate Judiciary Committee report this year, it would also overturn part of the landmark 1976 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld campaign contribution limits but invalidated restrictions on spending in elections.

"Since the decision came down in 2010, our campaign finance system has been under siege, buried in billions of dollars from outside groups and super PACs," he said.

"We have been fighting from day one to rid our political system of the poison of Citizens United. Folks want their senators to work together to find real solutions, not be bogged down in the endless gridlock of the Citizens United era."

It all boils down to this folks, when you allow unlimited money in politics all the wealthy people will control who gets elected with their money, and to hell with the average working men and women. That is not a Democracy, it's legal corruption and bribery.

It basically allows the people with money to decide who gets elected, because money wins elections. Which is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers wanted, and the Republicans are allowing it because they benefit from the money.

And O'Reilly ignores it because he is a Republican and he wants to see the Republicans win using that money to buy elections.

The Friday 9-12-14 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review
By: Steve - September 13, 2014 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the biased right-wing hack Eric Bolling filled in for O'Reilly. Bolling started the show talking about ISIS. Middle East experts Rick Grenell and Matthew Duss provided their analysis of the situation.

Grenell said this: "Some people believe that you should leave the hornet's nest right where it is, but the fact is that you're going to get stung. There are people who want to destroy America, they are plotting, and the lesson of 9/11 is that we cannot let the guy get into the plane before we deal with him."

Duss argued that military must be supplemented by diplomacy, saying this: "There's nothing wrong with getting tough with ISIS, but I think it is a problem if the only thing we do is air strikes. There has to be a much broader political strategy to accompany the military option. You have to address the grievances that contribute to young men joining groups like ISIS."

And of course Bolling disagreed with Duss's suggestion that we should try to understand the Islamists anger, saying this: "Are you suggesting that we sit down and talk to these people and find out what's making them mad at us before we fight back?"

Even though it is a fact that when you kill muslims on arab soil it leads to more people joining the terrorist groups, and it causes them to want to kill Americans on American soil in revenge. Neither O'Reilly or Bolling seem to understand that. Some terrorism experts even argue that we are creating more terrorists than we kill, and that killing more of them (which is what O'Reilly says we should do) actually makes the situation worse in the long run.

Then radio talk show host Richard Fowler was on to discuss if we are at war with ISIS, as Bolling claims we are. Fowler said this: "The word 'war' is a matter of semantics. The truth is that we're having a limited military strike in northern Syria and northern Iraq. We can all agree that it's the right thing to do, and the fact that we're arguing over the word 'war' is mind-numbing to me. ISIS is not a country, it's a group of people in the desert who are creating havoc."

And that is the truth, but Bolling disagreed saying that we are indeed at war and that should be clearly stated: "When you see beheaded Americans on video, that would be considered an act of war. And when we fly hundreds of sorties to bomb ISIS, that's war. They don't want to call it war because they don't want to go to Congress for a vote."

Then Bolling talked about Ray Rice story, Associated Press reporter Rob Maaddi was on, who broke the story that the NFL was in possession of the video.

Maaddi said this: "We don't know exactly who possessed that tape, but we do know that the tape was in the building of the NFL league office. Everybody is now going to try to figure out whether Commissioner Roger Goodell actually saw it or who saw it at the NFL."

Sports reporter Jim Gray said this: "It's inexplicable to me how Ray Rice and his fiancee could both be charged with misdemeanors on that night. Then there was the prosecutor, the district attorney, and the judge. There was a massive failure of judgment here on all levels before you even get to the NFL, the team owner, the general manager, and the coach. It all broke down."

Some Baltimore Ravens fans, including many women, are sticking up for Ray Rice and claim that he is being judged too harshly. Psychologist Bonny Forrest and attorney Steve Greenberg were on to discuss it.

Forrest said this: "From a moral standpoint, these players are role models for kids and we should be holding them to a higher standard. There is a domestic violence problem in the NFL and there should be a zero tolerance in the league."

But Greenberg argued that Ray Rice's original two-game suspension was fair, saying this: "The evidence that we have is that the police looked at this, the prosecutors looked at it, the NFL conducted an investigation, and everybody said this was the penalty Ray Rice should pay. But now, because they have to protect their brand, they're making him the fall guy because they're bowing to public pressure."

Then Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn were on, they were asked if President Obama was pressured into action against ISIS by coverage of the gruesome beheadings of two Americans. Even though that is a stupid question, because of course he was.

Kurtz said this: "The media coverage was the decisive factor in a surge of public support for military action against ISIS. Of course journalists need to cover the threat posed by these butchers and they needed to cover the beheadings, but the sheer volume of the coverage amounted to beating the war drums."

Ashburn agreed that the media has played a major role in stirring President Obama to action, saying this: "Without those videos I doubt that you would have seen the president in a prime time address saying we'll go after these people. Those images were the catalyst for the administration to finally take some action. President Obama is a reluctant warrior and the press is saying, 'Do something!'"

More Republican Racism O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - September 13, 2014 - 10:00am

A Republican State Senator in Georgia thinks it is a bad thing for blacks to vote early, but not a bad thing for whites to vote early, and they wonder why they are seen as racists, duh!

A Republican state senator in Georgia has vowed to end Sunday balloting in DeKalb County due to the fact that the area is "dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches."

In a longwinded email Republican State Sen. Frank Millar rants that Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal "appointee Interim CEO Lee May has disappointed those of us that hoped he could help bring the county together."

Millar goes on to note that DeKalb county happens to include a number of African American mega churches.

"Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election," Millar wrote in the email.

"Per Jim Galloway of the AJC, this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist. Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea - what a surprise. I'm sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb."

The Thursday 9-11-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 12, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Does the Obama Administration Really Know What's Going On? The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: While many people are small-balling President Obama's speech last night, Talking Points is taking a broader view. The president's speech was okay, he says he'll finally confront the ISIS threat. Good, I hope the USA can destroy these killers. But does the Obama administration really understand what's happening in the world?

Former White House spokesman Jay Carney, now working at CNN, said this last night: 'The United States and a lot of the world was stunned by the rapidity with which ISIS was able to move into Iraq and take territory.'

But many were not stunned by the ISIS ascent. I knew about it, and many others in the media and government saw the dramatic rise of Muslim terrorism inside Syria and across the Middle East. Talking Points can state with certainty that there is deep anger within the U.S. intelligence community because President Obama was indeed warned about ISIS.

He was advised explicitly that withdrawing all troops from Iraq would cause chaos, and now look what we have. So again the question is, does the administration know what's really going on? The next few months might tell the tale on that. If the terrorism situation gets worse, the president's legacy is doomed.
And now the facts, O'Reilly is a biased hack who hates Obama and slams him for everything no matter what he does. He said Obama needs to get tough in the speech, so he did, and he slammed him anyway. The truth is that Obama does not get as tough as O'Reilly wants so he slams him, even though he is a partisan cable news host, and does not have the intelligence reports or the expert foreign policy advisors that Obama has.

Then Republican Kate Obenshain and Democrat James Carville were on to discuss it.

Carville said this: "I think President Obama understands the nature of the threat, he knows we've been at war for 13 years and we'll be at war for another 13 years. We made a big dent in Al Qaeda and then these guys come up, somebody else always comes up."

Obenshain said this: "He wasn't clear that this is going to be a prolonged effort. It was an okay speech and I'm glad he has this new outlook, but he also referred to ISIS as a small group of killers. He is still minimizing the threat they pose to America."

O'Reilly concluded: "President Obama's main job is to protect us, and I believe that by being derelict in many foreign affairs situations he has not done that."

Even though he has protected us, and there have not been any major terrorist attacks on American soil. So not only is O'Reilly wrong, he is lying. While under Bush we had 9-11 and O'Reilly gives him a pass for that, figure that out, because I sure cant.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about some right-wing intelligence officials who worry that ISIS terrorists could sneak into the United States from Mexico or Canada. And as usual there were no Democratic guests on for balance, and no mention of the Homeland Security report that said ISIS is no threat to us here in the USA. And remember this, these same right-wing neo-cons said this about Al-Qaeda, then they did not sneak across the border for 9-11, they flew right in by plane.

Ingraham said this: "13 years ago we had vulnerabilities on the homeland, and today we have vulnerabilities on the border. Some of us have been talking about the border being vulnerable for twelve years - we have created a big magnet and we don't know who is in this country."

Ingraham also said this: "We're weaker than we were 13 years ago, our country is more pessimistic, and I'm not sure the American people are going to be all in with what it takes to defeat ISIS. You have to have the people with you, but the people don't want to get involved again in a long and protracted war in the Middle East.

And for once she actually said something that is true.

Then Dr. Ben Carson, the conservative Tea Party favorite was on with his ridiculous take on wife-batterer Ray Rice.

Carson said this: "I'm not sure that demonizing people is ever the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean I don't think appropriate punishment should be given. For someone to do something like that, it means there are some really deep psychological issues. There are consequences for bad behavior, but we need to recognize that we are all human beings."

O'Reilly was not nearly as willing to forgive Rice's abhorrent behavior, saying this: "Ray Rice did a terrible thing, and battery of women in this country and around the world is out of control."

Then the conservative Alfonzo Rachel was on to talk about the protesters who have returned to Ferguson, Missouri, where people are still angry over the shooting death of Michael Brown. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance, Notice that O'Reilly also failed to report the new witness who says Brown was killed when he had his hands up. O'Reilly ignores that story, but reports on the new protests.

Rachel said this: "If you want cops to not shoot black people, don't rob liquor stores and don't throw things at cops when you're protesting. I'm sad about the death of Mike Brown and I don't know what happened, but I know that there are certain things that lead up to this tension between cops and civilians. Doing things like robbing liquor stores and bullying people isn't going to help the situation. Black people have to take responsibility for our own lives so we don't invite this kind of stigma."

Which is just ridiculous, because the cop who shot him did not even know he had robbed a liquor store, and even if he had, he still does not need to kill an unarmed teen that seems like he was giving himself up when he was shot multiple times. Somehow those facts evade Rachel.

Then the right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg was on, he has been monitoring the media's handling of Ray Rice and the NFL, and analyzed the coverage. From a biased point of view, and with no Democratic guest on for balance.

Goldberg said this: "This is a feeding frenzy and a reign of terror. The speech police are out to destroy anybody who says things that they deem inappropriate. You, Bill O'Reilly, just made a comment about a woman spokesperson at the State Department, and you were called 'sexist.' What you did was the opposite of sexism, you treated her as an equal. This is something very important going on in this country and liberals ought to be leading the offensive against this kind of thing."

Except the media did not say that, one woman at the State Department did, and she is entitled to her opinion.

Goldberg also argued that Ray Rice, while deserving of punishment, should not be hit with a lifetime ban, saying this: "I think he should be allowed to come back into the NFL at some point. There have been drunk drivers who have killed people and they were allowed back! I'm not comfortable with Ray Rice having to lose his job forever."

And as far as I know I do not know of anyone who has said he should never be allowed back into the NFL, so Goldberg just made that up. All the people I saw talking about it only say 2 games was not enough, none of them ever said he should get a lifetime ban.

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about President Obama's Wednesday night speech on the ISIS threat. And of course there were no Democratic guests on for balance.

Gutfeld said this: "He realized that if you're actually going to get the country behind you in battle, you have to act like a conservative, you have to be tough. He essentially put on the conservative super-hero costume because nobody takes you seriously as a liberal when you're jumping into battle. But this is not how he envisioned himself as president, this is not him. He likes to play president, but he doesn't want to be president."

McGuirk gave the president a decidedly negative review, saying this: "He's acquiescing to the polls and what some might say is the hysteria, but he looked very tentative and unsure and not confident. On the upside, I was happy he wasn't wearing the jaunty seersucker suit last night, but I wish he had said we won't be sucked into another quagmire."

So what did you expect from two right-wing hacks, they never like anything President Obama does. They called for him to get tough and he did, then they complain anyway, with them Obama is damned if he does and damned if he dont, it's a no win situation. And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Natural Insect Repellent. Billy said this: "If you have an ant infestation, sprinkling some lemon juice around the area will make the little critters very unhappy and inspire them to search for a new abode."

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - September 12, 2014 - 10:00am

US job openings stay near 13-year high; hiring up

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of U.S. job openings remained near the highest level in 13 years in July, and companies also stepped up hiring that month to the fastest pace in nearly seven years, two signs the job market is healing.

The tally of available jobs ticked down 2,000 to 4.673 million in July, from 4.675 million in June, the Labor Department said Tuesday. June's figure was the highest since February 2001.

The drop was led by a decline in government job postings. Businesses actually advertised slightly more jobs.

Total hiring, meanwhile, jumped 81,000 to 4.87 million, the highest level since December 2007, when the Great Recession began under Bush.

That indicates companies are more likely to fill their open jobs.

O'Reilly never reports any of this good economic news, as he says anyone who thinks the economy is doing good is a liberal kool-aid drinker, and he ignores it because it makes Obama look good. O'Reilly ignores it for political reasons, because he is a biased right-wing hack who wants to hurt Obama so the Republican candidate will have a better chance of winning the White House in 2016.

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

The TPM was called: Protecting the Folks. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 47% of Americans feel the country is less safe than it was before we were attacked on 9-11, 2001. The Journal's lead editorial today explains why Mr. Obama's foreign policy has increased anxiety. He has tried to reason with the Russian tyrant Putin, even pulling missiles out of Poland and the Czech Republic as a gesture of good will.

In return, Putin has violated international law, attempting to demean Barack Obama and the West. Mr. Obama refused to help pro-democracy forces in Iran, believing that appeasing the mullahs would lead to detente. But Iran continues to defy the world on nukes. President Obama backed off from taking action against the Syrian tyrant Assad.

The result? Assad is still in power and the ISIS terror army controls much of rural Syria. Mr. Obama could not convince Iraq to allow U.S. troops to stay under a protected arrangement. The result? We pulled out and the Iraqi government under al-Maliki collapsed, allowing ISIS to occupy much of that country.

And finally, by announcing the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the president has emboldened the Taliban and destabilized hard fought gains made by NATO forces. All over the world the decline of American power is causing chaos. That is the backdrop for tonight's foreign policy speech by the President, himself under siege by the American people.

Talking Points said months ago that ISIS should be bombed inside Syria and everywhere else. I also told President Obama face-to-face that he would get nowhere with radical Muslim groups like the Brotherhood. And those words proved to be true.

No matter what he says tonight, it is doubtful that Barack Obama realizes the danger this country is facing. In this age of high-tech distraction, it takes a lot to wise up many of us. But most Americans now understand that President Obama's world vision is failing. It is up to him to turn that around.
And that whole talking points memo is right-wing spin. To begin with the poll is from the biased wall street journal. Then the facts show that Obama has kept us safe, there have been no major terrorist attacks under Obama, unlike Bush who had 9-11 happen while he was President.

O'Reilly says Obama did not convince Iraq to keep troops there, without reporting that it was Bush who signed the status of forces agreement that mandated the troops be removed and on what date, or the fact that Iraq did not want us to have troops there, O'Reilly ignored all that as if it was all Obama's fault, which is bias and ridiculous.

In O'Reillyworld it's all Obama's fault, because he is the current President, when the evidence shows all this stuff would probably have happened no matter who was the President. Somehow O'Reilly blames everything on Obama, but when Bush was in office he blamed almost nothing on him and defended him on all his screw ups.

Then the biased right-wing hack Karl Rove was on to discuss it. O'Reilly asked Rove if President Obama's speech can help him regain the confidence of the American people. And of course the biased Rove said no.

Rove said this: "His goal ought to be to keep himself from falling farther. The American people have made a pretty definitive judgment about this guy, 59% think America is less respected around the world compared to 2008. People don't see him as a strong leader and he can't change that by one magic speech, all he can do is hope to begin the process of stabilizing himself. He has ruined his reputation with the American people and that's hard to repair."

Which is all lies, because only Republicans think that, the rest of the American people understand the President is in a bad situation and that it is not his fault what the loons in foreign countries do, and that we should not be the police to the world, which will just invite more terrorists to try and do us harm.

Then the Democrat (who works for Fox) Bob Beckel was on to discuss it.

Beckel said this: "Never in my political career of 30 years, have I seen as much poll movement from two events, the decapitating of these two American citizens. The public took a huge turn in the polls and they blame Obama because he's the one in the Oval Office. But this strain of Islam has been around since 1720, this is nothing new."

Beckel also said this: "He ran as a domestic president and he wanted to keep foreign policy off the table. Now it's coming at him in massive numbers. But ISIS will soon be on the run and it will be a positive for him."

And btw, neither O'Reilly or Beckel mention this, the journalists were only beheaded after we started using drones to kill arab people, which O'Reilly called for and supported, if we had not done that those two journalists would most likely be alive today. They even said the journalists were beheaded as revenge for the drone strikes.

Then Steve Bucci, a Defense Department official under George W. Bush was on to talk about ISIS.

Bucci said this: "The unintended consequences of bombing Syria, could be that we help Bashir al-Assad, who we don't have any interest in helping. And the unintended consequences of the Special Ops guys doing unilateral missions is that we could lose some of these very valuable assets. I'd like to see the Jordanians, Turks, Saudis, and Qataris put in some people."

Bucci also slammed President Obama for waiting so long to take action, saying this: "This is the president's discomfort with foreign policy and with using American power, even when it's totally in our interest and the right thing to do. He dithers and waits and hopes the problem goes away, but in this case it got worse."

Yeah he slammed Obama for it, even though the majority of the American people opposed us doing anything, until after the two journalists were beheaded, O'Reilly and Bucci do not mention that.

Then Carl Cameron & James Rosen were on to discuss it.

Cameron theorized how Congress may work with the president to deal with ISIS, saying this: "Lawmakers of both parties, want the president to get Congressional authorization for air strikes in Syria, but the president and many in Congress think he technically has that power. Most Republicans support taking military action, but not a blank check, and many Democrats are already saying they want to know what the end date is."

Rosen turned to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent trip to Iraq, saying this: "He met with the new prime minister and other key figures there. What the Americans want from the Iraqis is for three big institutions to start doing business very differently - the oil ministry, the finance ministry, and the Iraqi armed forces. Secretary Kerry has moved on to Saudi Arabia, where he'll be negotiating the use of bases for the Iraqi opposition, and then he'll be in France for a conference on Iraq."

Then Martha MacCallum was on to slam Obama some more, with no Democratic guest for balance, just like the last two segments.

MacCallum said this: "Back in June ISIS had marched through Mosul, destroying churches and marching people off to executions. While they were trying to establish an Islamic state, the president tried to make it sound like they were the same folks we had been dealing with before."

MacCallum also tried to explain the president's apparent insouciance, saying this: "I think he believes we have been poking a hornet's nest and when that happens the hornets bite back. But clearly they're going to bite back no matter what we do."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly saying he is not a sexist.

O'Reilly Ignores Senate Vote To Overturn Citizens United Ruling
By: Steve - September 11, 2014 - 10:00am

This is real news, important news that everyone should know about, and O'Reilly has totally ignored it. Because he supported the ruling, and because he is too busy reporting on partisan garbage that makes Obama look bad.

By a vote of 79-18 on Monday, the Senate voted to advance a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United.

The amendment said this:
Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’
Monday before the Senate vote, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said this: "The major issue of our time is whether the United States of America retains its democratic foundation or whether we devolve into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires are able to control our political process by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests."

That all sounds great, but there is a problem. The vote was an election year scam by the Republicans. Because Senate Republicans have no intention of letting this bill pass. Republicans have no intention of ever letting a constitutional amendment be ratified.

What this vote today proves is the power of the issue.

Senate Republicans don't want to be publicly linked to the Koch brothers before an election. The Kochs are toxic, and Republicans are trying to trick voters into ignoring the right-wing billionaire dollars that are trying to buy the government.

Al Franken spoke the truth about it. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) came to the Senate floor and called it like it is, Citizens United is money laundering that was made legal by the Supreme Court.

During his remarks on the Senate floor, Sen. Franken said this:
FRANKEN: This is real, M. President: spending by outside groups more than tripled from the 2008 presidential election to the 2012 presidential election, when it topped a billion dollars - that’s billion with a b. What happened in the interim? Well Citizens United was decided in 2010 - the floodgates were opened.
And, worse still, the middle-class isn't just being flooded; it's being blindfolded, too - because these wealthy special interest groups often can spend the money anonymously, so voters have no idea who's behind the endless attack ads that fill the airwaves.

Here's how it works: if you have millions of dollars that you want to spend, you can funnel it through back channels so that it ends up in the hands of a group - typically one with a generic and benign-sounding name - that uses the money to buy ads, often without disclosing the source of its funds.

A study just came out which showed that, in the current election cycle alone, there's already been over 150,000 ads run by groups that don't have to disclose the source of their funding.

And get this: things are only getting worse. Earlier this year, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court was at it again, recklessly doing away with a law that prohibited people from giving more than $123,000, in the aggregate, directly to candidates in an election cycle. One-hundred-and-twenty-three-thousand-dollars. Who has that kind of money lying around to spend on elections?

The super-rich, maybe. But the middle class sure doesn't.

The majority of Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, voted with Democrats yesterday to advance a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. The vote was not a vote on final passage. It was a vote to move towards debate and vote on passage.

By not filibustering the bill Monday, Senate Republicans have given Democrats a platform this week to discuss the attempts by right-wing billionaires and special interests to buy the government.

Senate Republicans tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by casting a vote to move legislation forward that they have no intention of voting to pass. Republicans are hoping that you won't notice when they vote against the constitutional amendment later this week.

Sen. Franken was correct. Citizens United is money laundering hidden behind a Supreme Court provided excuse of speech. Billionaires have flooded the campaign system with dollars, not out of patriotism, but as an attempt to buy complete and total access to elective office holders.

The Koch name has become toxic, so Republicans are trying to cover their tracks. The Citizens United decision empowered right-wing billionaires to attempt a hostile takeover of the government. If you want your country back, you can begin by supporting the movement to overturn Citizens United.

The Tuesday 9-9-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 10, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Bad News for the President. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new poll asks whether the Obama administration is a success or failure. Among registered voters, 55% say failure, 39 % say success. So the question becomes, who continues to support the president?

In order to think the president is succeeding, you have to accept the following: The economy is a plus, American foreign policy is a positive, and we are becoming a stronger nation. Some Americans believe that, even though wages for working Americans continue to fall, there is conflict nearly everywhere overseas, and we are deeply divided at home.

So logic pretty much leaves the building when you talk about President Obama. The reason is that some Americans have a lot of emotion invested in him. African-Americans see the president as an historical figure, many poor Americans see him as a savior because of the entitlement rise, and some hardcore liberals are loath to criticize him.

As we reported last night, the president's leadership is shaky by historical standards. Most importantly, he does not want to use American power. Therefore he delays, and the problems get worse. The president knew about the ISIS threat for a year before he became engaged, and the only reason he finally acted was because the terror group beheaded two Americans on camera.

High tech makes evil much stronger: Terrorists use it, pedophiles use it, criminals use it. All of them can now spread their perversions quickly and efficiently throughout the world. To combat evil the world needs strong leadership to promote what is good and confront what is bad. Sitting it out is no longer an option.
And as usual O'Reilly is a biased hack, here is the proof. The truth is this, Republicans hate Obama and the rest of the people either like him or think he is doing ok. The economy is doing fine, and getting better all the time, the stock market is setting record highs, unemployment is down, and we are adding over 200,000 jobs a month.

O'Reilly ignores all that and will never report it, even though it's true. Obama and his policies also got us out of the depression George W. Bush put us into, the stimulus worked, and now things are getting better. O'Reilly refuses to admit that and does not give Obama any credit for it, simply because he is a Democrat and O'Reilly does not agree with him politically. That is the truth, not the nonsense O'Reilly spewed out in his biased talking points.

Then the Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry was on to preview President Obama's Wednesday night speech on the ISIS threat. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Henry said this: "What I hear, is that President Obama is going to lean forward on the idea of expanding this military campaign with air strikes beyond Iraq and into Syria. He's under great pressure to spell out the details. Former Congresswoman Jane Harman, who was at a dinner with President Obama, tells me he is ready to get much more aggressive."

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

Powers said this: "I think the overarching point, has to be reassuring the American people, explaining what the threat is and what kind of response we are going to have. I would address how we're going to protect the country because a lot of these people have American passports."

Crowley said this: "I would be very honest with the American people and talk about the real nature of this threat. We are in a holy war whether we want it or not. They call themselves the Islamic State and they are animated by the Koran. Then you lay out the objective and say we have to annihilate these people and decimate the Islamic State."

To which even O'Reilly disagreed with Crowley, saying this: "If you use the words 'holy war,' that's all the jihadist websites will use."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about former Congressman Ron Paul who wants America to stay out of foreign affairs, warning that it only leads to trouble. Stossel, a libertarian (aka Republican) like Paul, laid out his position.

Stossel said this: "The idea that we can take out their leadership is a mistake. We bombed Vietnam for years and we had ground troops there for years. I would say 25% of libertarians favor intervention, but most of us want to get out because when we go there it's a recruiting tool to create more terrorists. Why isn't the message, 'Europe, this is your problem!' They freeload off of us and we've had mostly failures in the last 60 years."

Wow! For once I actually agree with Stossel. We should mind our own business and let Europe, NATO, and the UN deal with it. Nowhere in our constitution does it say we have to be the police to the world, it says defend our borders from invasion and wars.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on for is it legal, where they ignored the Republican Governor McDonnell getting convicted for taking bribes verdict, instead they looked south to Dade County in Florida, where cops are involved in a heated lawsuit.

Wiehl said this: "In 2011, eleven police officers shot dead four armed bank robbers who had been involved in hundreds of home invasions. The families of the criminals have sued the cops and the county is saying they'll give $600,000 to each family. The crazy thing about this is that the families are being paid all this money, but what about all of the people whose homes were invaded by these men?"

Guilfoyle turned to Colorado, where she claims tax revenue from legal marijuana has fallen way short of expectations. "They had a projected income, but they got $21.5 million less than expected. And guess what else is happening there? They're selling more medicinal marijuana because it's taxed at a cheaper rate." Which is a lie, look at this story from Reuters:

Six months after marijuana legalization: Colorado tax revenue skyrockets as crime falls

Tax dollars are pouring in, crime is down in Denver, and few of the early concerns about social breakdown have materialized. Denver, dubbed the Mile High city, now has about 340 recreational and medicinal pot shops.

In the first four months, marijuana sales amounted to more than $202 million, about a third of them recreational. Taxes from recreational sales were almost $11 million.

Despite some critics fears of a pot-driven crime explosion, Denver police say burglaries and robberies were down by between 4 and 5 percent in the first four months of the year.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about what he expects in the Obama speech. And of course as usual there was no Democratic guest on for balance, just the biased right-wing hack Krauthammer and the biased right-wing hack O'Reilly.

Krauthammer said this: "What he ought to do, is start by saying, 'I screwed up in 2011 when I didn't leave any troops behind.' But you're not going to get that from Obama. He doesn't have to explain how bad these people are, and he should stop talking about what he's not going to do. He's got to say, 'Here's the mission, here's how we'll succeed, and I'm going to give the military the authority to pursue it.' Don't give us details."

Which is just laughable, because no President ever says he screwed up, ever. Bush was the worst President in history who screwed up everything, and not once did he say he screwed up and ask people to forgive him, it never happens and Krauthammer knows it. And btw, not once did O'Reilly or Krauthammer ever ask Bus to admit he screwed up.

Krauthammer also said this: "Putin is capable of starting the unthinkable, a European war. He's already stirring up trouble in Estonia and the Baltic states, and if he pushes that button it's not clear whether NATO will do anything. I think he'll digest Ukraine, which is now a broken state, and then he'll start to nibble at the Baltics."

Which is all speculation, the very speculation O'Reilly says he does not allow. He even says he has a no speculation rule, then he allows Republicans to speculate all the time, only liberals are not allowed to speculate.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Talking to children about evil. Billy said this: "With ISIS on the march and the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, this might be a good time to talk to your children and grandchildren about the existence of evil in the world."

Fox News Jokes About Ray Rice Punching His Wife
By: Steve - September 10, 2014 - 10:00am

Security camera footage of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching (and knocking out) his now-wife Janay Palmer made its way online today, and the cheery panel of Fox News Fox & Friends, ever the font of guileless turpitude, laughed about the assault right into the camera.

"The message is: take the stairs!" Brian Kilmeade chuckles as fellow panelist Anna Kooiman stifles a visibly uncomfortable laugh. "The message," Steve Doocy, corrects, "is when you're in an elevator, there's a camera." Fox & Friends, encouraging you to hit your wife in elevators without cameras since 2014.

Yes, you read that right, the people at Fox and Friends think it's funny for a guy to beat up his wife, they laughed about it and even made jokes, basically saying if you are going to beat up your wife or girlfriend make sure there is no cameras around to get it on videotape.

CNN's Carol Costello did little to hide her feelings about the comments made by Fox & Friends hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy about the Ray Rice domestic abuse scandal Tuesday morning. After playing a clip of the joke, in which Kilmeade said, "The message is: take the stairs," Costello said she wanted to throw up after hearing it.

The CNN host slammed Fox & Friends for aiming their commentary at Janay Rice instead of her husband. "When I watched that segment, I actually wanted to throw up and so did millions of others online," Costello said. "At least my friends at Fox apologized, sort of," she added, putting air quotes around the word "friends."

Costello's guest Jan Langbein, the executive director of the Genesis Women's Shelter, had an even stronger reaction to the Fox clip.

"I'm horrified," Langbein said. "I mean, 'take the stairs,' please. I am constantly surrounded by messages, and so are victims of domestic violence surrounded by messages, that this is somehow her fault or that if she had taken the stairs or done something else or not worn that outfit this abuse wouldn't have happened. It's not about her actions at all."

The Monday 9-8-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 9, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Leadership and President Obama. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In two weeks my new book Killing Patton will be in the marketplace. The book is about leadership, and Barack Obama should read it because we need strong leadership in America right now. On Sunday, when asked about playing golf after talking about James Foley's beheading, President Obama said, 'I should have anticipated the optics.'

But why did he not anticipate the optics? It is obvious to most people you don't play golf after announcing the gruesome beheading of an American citizen. Talking Points does not believe Barack Obama is a callous person. He has helped raise millions of dollars for wounded veterans, he cares about children at risk, and he has been a terrific role model for American families. But the president is not a natural leader and that is harming the nation.

The world needs to be inspired to take action against Islamic terrorists and the Russian villain Putin, but President Obama does not seem to understand that. He continues to meander around, making conflicting statements about ISIS, failing to punish Russia in effective ways. Savages are murdering innocent people all over the world, and they are not afraid of America.

Our allies are weak, selfish, not interested in global justice, so it becomes vitally important for America to lead the world. This week Mr. Obama will make yet another speech about how he will finally confront the ISIS threat. We hope he includes Putin in that speech and that finally, after all this time, Barack Obama will show some passion and some determination to eradicate evil in ways that are smart and effective.
And that is the OPINION of the biased Republican Bill O'Reilly, most other people do not agree with a lot of that, so what does O'Reilly do after that, have the biased Brit Hume on to discuss it. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Hume said this: "The mere act of this upcoming speech, is more leadership than he has heretofore shown, but the question is what he will be willing to do. This president tends to select the means to accomplish an end, and then bases his ends on the set of means that he has chosen. Instead of setting the goal and then choosing the tools, he picks the tools and then ends up with goals that are built around that. It's upside down, and he tends to minimize threats."

O'Reilly also claimed that President Obama's insouciance has damaged America, both at home and abroad, saying this: "He wanted to unite the country and failed on that, and we are perceived as weak throughout the whole world. It seems that his main intention is to give the impression that he's cool and has everything under control."

Then Juan Williams & Mark Katharine Ham were on to talk about an appearance on Fox News Sunday by Mitt Romney, who might run for President and he ridiculed President Obama's priorities and even took some shots at the president's affection for golf.

Williams said this: "I don't think there's any way he's going to run, but he sure sounds like it. The last time around he had trouble energizing the GOP base and right now Hillary Clinton would hold a big lead over Mitt Romney."

Ham said this: "This is his chance to come out and say, 'Can we remember that I was right about a ton of things?' But I don't think he'll run because he'll have the same problem message-wise that he did before."

And let me say this, nobody, and I mean N-O-B-O-D-Y thinks Mitt Romney would have been a better President than Obama, except right-wing loons like O'Reilly and his friends.

Then Jorge Ramos was on to talk about the subject of immigration, O'Reilly said this: "I want everyone to be treated fairly, but I don't want the chaos to continue. We need to have a system where it's impossible to physically get in unless you go through the process."

Ramos objected, saying this: "You want an impenetrable border, which is impossible because 40% of the undocumented people are coming in by plane." Ramos turned to so-called "white privilege," insisting that black Americans are the victims of systematic discrimination.

O'Reilly gave this rebuttal: "Asians are doing much better than whites, so is that 'Asian privilege?' You have to look at successful people and what makes them successful. Asians make more money than whites or blacks because they keep the family together, there is an emphasis on education, and there is parental supervision of children."

Which makes no sense at all, what Asians do has nothing to do with white privilege or how blacks are discriminated against, O'Reilly is just clueless and does not seem to even know what white privilege is.

Then a Benghazi report, that I will not report on, it's done and it's old news, move on idiot.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a large band of mostly black teens who went on a rampage in Tennessee Saturday, attacking and stomping at least three people. Kelly provided details of the disturbing story.

Kelly said this: "I don't know about the racial motivation, because reports from people at the scene say there were black victims and white victims. It doesn't seem that they were picking people by race, they were picking them by susceptibility and vulnerability. Early reports are that this is another episode of the 'Knockout Game,' where random gangs pick out some innocent victim and beat the hell out of them."

Then Jesse Watters was on for his worthless non-news segment, he once again hit the beach to interview some women about other women. Some of the females could not identify photos of Nancy Pelosi or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but were very familiar with Ellen DeGeneres and Beyonce.

So, ummmm, what does that prove, nothing. The whole segment was just stupid and a total waste of time on a so-called hard news show.

Back in the studio. Watters summarized his latest adventure, saying this: "We interviewed eight women, and not one knew Nancy Pelosi or Justice Ginsburg. Only two of them knew Hillary Clinton and they were harsh on her. But all of them loved Beyonce and Ellen - if Ellen ran for president, she would win!"

Who cares? And how is this news?

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: And Justice For All. Billy said this: "We need justice in America for everyone, even the rich and famous, so NFL player Ray Rice should be prosecuted for punching his then-girlfriend in an Atlantic City casino elevator."

Study Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18% of the Time
By: Steve - September 9, 2014 - 10:00am

Here is something you will never see reported by O'Reilly. A Fact-Checking Website Found That Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time.

It’s not exactly breaking news to find out that Fox News is mostly comprised of misinformation or flat-out lies. Anyone with even a shred of common sense can watch any of their featured shows and see that the entire channel is nothing more than a propaganda mechanism for the Republican party.

Punditfact, a branch of Politifact, has put together profiles for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News detailing just how honest each of these networks are. And while it's obviously not a completely comprehensive profile (it would be nearly impossible to fact check every single thing said on each network) it's a decent measure of their honesty.

And what do you know, Pundifact found Fox News to have only told the truth 18 percent (15 of 83) of the time for the statements they checked. And of that 18 percent, only 8 percent of what they said was completely True. The other 10 percent was rated as Mostly True.

A staggering 60 percent (50 of 83) of comments were found to be either Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire.

The other 22 percent were rated Half True. So in other words, pretty much nothing Fox reports on or comments about is 100% true, it's either spin, half true, partly true, or flat out lies.

Over half of what Punditfact has fact-checked on Fox News has been a lie and only 18 percent has been deemed factual.

And I'm sure any conservative who reads this article, or the Punditfact profiles, would dismiss the results as liberally biased lies.

Because anything that's not approved by Fox News or some other right-wing media source is clearly liberally biased propaganda.

Which is really a fantastic piece of rhetoric, isn't it? Fox News, and other right-wing media sources, can lie as much as they want. Then if any other source debunks the nonsense they're spewing, the conservative media simply dismisses it as lies perpetuated by the liberal media.

It's how conspiracy theorists manipulate their sheep. They perpetuate some kind of asinine conspiracy, then when it's completely debunked, they claim the information debunking it is all a part of the conspiracy.

And that's exactly what O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media does.

Which is why tens of millions of conservatives believe that Fox News is a fair and balanced beacon of truth, despite the fact that Punditfact found only 18 percent of their comments to be factual among a fairly large sampling of 83 relatively important statements made on the network.

O'Reilly Ignoring More Big News Stories
By: Steve - September 8, 2014 - 10:00am

Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and his wife Maureen were found guilty on corruption charges on Thursday.

Bob McDonnell was found guilty of 11 of 13 corruption charges against him. His wife was found guilty of nine of 13.

The couple were charged in a 14-count federal indictment with accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from businessman Jonnie R. Williams, Sr., who was CEO of Star Scientific Inc. until he resigned on Aug. 4.

The Washington Post has an interactive graphic detailing the gifts the McDonnells and their kids received from Williams, including an engraved Rolex, plane tickets, trips, dinners and loans.

And not only did O'Reilly ignore the verdict, he never reported on the trial at all, ever, even though he does a weekly legal news segment on his show, and when Democrats are on trial for corruption O'Reilly always reports on the trial and the verdict.

This was about political corruption, which is the #1 priority for the media, and yet O'Reilly never said one word about it over the months and months it was a story.

O'Reilly also pretty much ignored the story about Fast food strikes in 150 US cities on Thursday. He had one short and biased segment on it with Lou Dobbs and no Democratic guest for balance. Dobbs put out the lie that if they raised the minimum wage it would lead to less jobs and cause prices to skyrocket, which are both right-wing lies that O'Reilly did not even challenge, even though he claims to support raising the minimum wage.

Thousands of fast food workers across the United States were walking off the job Thursday morning, affecting restaurants in about 150 cities nationwide.

It was just the latest in a series of coordinated strikes that have taken place since November 2012, although Thursday's strike may be the first such action to include large-scale civil disobedience.

Organizers would not confirm on the record whether civil disobedience and arrests would take place in any of the cities affected by the strikes, but fast food workers have repeatedly vowed to take whatever measures are necessary in order to win a $15 hourly wage and union rights.

Thursday's strike is the first to take place since the fast food workers held their national convention in July in the suburbs of Chicago. At the convention, some 1,300 fast food workers agreed to a resolution vowing that they would do "whatever it takes" to achieve their goals.

Workers who had been arrested in May at a protest in front of the McDonald’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois -- the movement’s first major act of civil disobedience -- spoke to the audience about the experience of getting arrested, and encouraged other workers to take part in civil disobedience if necessary.

But if you watch the Factor for your news you would not know about any of this, because O'Reilly ignores it. While at the same time arguing that the rest of the media ignores important news stories for partisan political reasons, as O'Reilly does the very same thing.

More Michael Brown Shooting Story News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - September 7, 2014 - 11:00am

Two more witnesses to the Micheal Brown shooting have come forward, and their statements back up the other witnesses who say the cop shot Brown as he was running away and then shot him again when he had his hands up to surrender. And of course the biased racist right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly never reported a word of it.

On Saturday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch released a story regarding two workers who were at the scene when 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. One of the two workers agreed to discuss his account of the events with The Post. Both individuals have already been interviewed by St. Louis County police and the FBI.

The two were working at the Canfield Green apartment complex when the shooting took place on August 9th. The eyewitness accounts that both workers provided matchup with the statements from other witnesses at the scene.

What makes this story even more compelling is that both individuals are from Jefferson County and not from Ferguson. Neither knew Michael Brown and are not from the community at all. They were merely in the area working and witnessed Wilson killing Brown.

For these two individuals, there is no immediate attachment to Ferguson. Therefore, nobody (like Bill O'Reilly) can accuse them of trying to present their story for the purpose of serving a greater cause.

The person who spoke with The Post asked to remain anonymous. The man pointed out that he works for a company out of Jefferson County, which is roughly 30 miles south of Ferguson. Here is his account, he said he first noticed what was happening on the street after hearing a single gunshot.

He did not see that shot occur and cannot discuss the encounter between Brown and Wilson that led to that initial shot, which was fired from within Wilson's vehicle.

He says that he saw Brown run away from Wilson, who shot at him while he was fleeing. The worker then states that after Wilson had shot at Brown’s back, Brown turned toward Wilson with his hands in the air. That is when Wilson unloaded on him.

From the Post-Dispatch article:
His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.

The worker heard a gunshot. Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.

The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK."

He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded. After the third shot, Brown's hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched (about 50 feet away) if Brown's motion toward Wilson after the shots was "a stumble to the ground" or "OK, I'm going to get you, you're already shooting me."
This is extremely damning evidence and verifies what numerous other eyewitnesses have said.

That basically, Brown was executed by officer Wilson. There is really no other way you can put it. Officer Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away.

When Brown stopped running and gave himself up, Wilson continued to fire upon him until he made sure Brown was dead. So it is clear that at that point Brown did not pose any threat to the officer as he was initially trying to run away. It appears that the eyewitness accounts tell the story of a police officer who decided to take the life of an unarmed black teenager for no reason.

For all of those people who have sent Officer Darren Wilson money through various shady donation websites, who have publicly expressed support for him and have taken to the internet defending him, I would like to ask you something.

How will you feel if it turns out you were wrong and officer Wilson wrongly shot and killed Michael Brown?

How will you feel knowing you gave money to a man who killed an unarmed teenager, and is basically a murderer, if convicted and found guilty. You can not get your money back, so how will you feel then?

Under Bush O'Reilly & Fox News Did Not Blame Him For Beheadings
By: Steve - September 7, 2014 - 10:00am

After terrorists kidnapped and beheaded two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, while releasing gruesome videos of the act, Fox News focused much of its anger on President Obama, portraying him as a source of troubling weakness.

"The president stuck his head in the sand, and now we've seen two Americans have lost their heads," insisted Fox analyst K.T. McFarland.

Colleague Ralph Peters claimed of the president's foreign policy, "We have a president who has a real physiological problem: that he can't face responsibility and certainly not the responsibilities of his office," while Sean Hannity wondered if Obama's "radical indoctrination" had clouded his judgment.

On and on it goes, as the blame-America finger pointing takes up hour after hour of programming on Fox News. The conservative Charles Hurt on Wednesday wanted to know when Obama would stop acting like a community organizer and start hunting down the killers.

Charles Krauthammer condemned Obama for not rising to the occasion, while former Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Fox to claim world leaders see the president as "weak and ineffective" in the wake of the most recent beheading.

But they never said any of that in the spring of 2004, when Cheney was vice president and the stupid war he championed was raging in Iraq, two American citizens, Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, were also kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and were also beheaded for the world to see. But of course, Cheney didn't see that as a sign of President Bush's weakness and ineffectiveness, and neither did the White House's loyal band of professional defenders at Fox News.

Six years into Obama's presidency, it's stunning to see how radically different Fox presents the news and frames its commentary based entirely on which party controls the White House. When Bush was president, Fox talkers urged that Americans come together and support the administration as it battled lawless killers ("murders," "sadists," "savages") who decapitated Americans.

In 2004, Fox hosted long conversations about the beheadings and Bush's name was usually never even mentioned. He was a non-player in the story. But today, the beheadings revolve totally around Obama.

With a Democratic president, many of those same 2004 talking heads now turn their wrath, to Pennsylvania Avenue and use the deaths as a hammer to bash the president as being impotent, saying this: "He didn't prevent the deaths!"

Of course neither did Bush, but the Fox rules of propaganda were different for him.

Nick Berg was working in Iraq as an independent contractor fixing antennas. He disappeared on April 9, 2004. His decapitated body was found near an overpass in Baghdad, and soon a video of the beheading appeared on a website associated with al Qaeda.

Four weeks after Berg's murder, terrorists abducted Paul Johnson, a Lockheed Martin engineer who lived in Saudi Arabia. They demanded the Saudi government release all its al-Qaeda prisoners. Days later, on June 18, Johnson was murdered on tape. (After the beheading news broke, Bush made a brief public statement and then boarded a plane to attend a Bush-Cheney '04 campaign rally in Nevada.)

That day, Fox News host Oliver North appeared on Hannity & Colmes and announced that the media and Democratic politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, "had blood on their hands" because they had been denouncing the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib by American soldiers; torture that Johnson's killer's cited in his death video.

Unlike today, the Republican president Bush was completely blameless in the beheading deaths, according to Fox News. Democrats? Not so much.

Obviously, news of Americans being beheaded by terrorists ran counter to Bush's 2004 re-election claim of being able to protect citizens in the War on Terror. O'Reilly and Hannity at the time, who can't stop criticizing Obama today, were adamant that Democrats stop criticizing Bush.

In fact, O'Reilly and Hannity both used news of Johnson's death as a reason Democrats should stop attacking the president politically while the country was engaged in "World War III":
HANNITY: Richard, the shrillness of the rhetoric, a vice president of the United States screaming that -- Al Gore screaming Bush betrayed America. Are we taking limited resources and the president and his cabinet have to spend all that time fighting politically when they ought to be focused in on World War III?

It's time that we now unite a country, using this as the latest example that we have been warned. They want to kill us all?

RICHARD MINITER: I completely agree. I think politics should stop at the water's edge. We should go back to the Scoop Jackson Democrats where they would argue like heck about domestic policy, but during a war they would not attack the president or the military.
On that point, Hannity and colleague Bill O'Reilly were in complete agreement. From The O'Reilly Factor on June 18, 2004, commenting on Johnson's execution:
O'REILLY: It is becoming readily apparent that the United States, we, the people, have to unite. And if we don't unite, we're going to see this happen more and more, and then on a mass scale.

We've got to stop with the partisan garbage, because that's what it is, and we've got to stop with the selfishness and understand that this is a war. This is something we have never faced before. And stop the grand standing. And the politicians who exploit this for partisan benefit on both sides have got to be voted out of office. We have got to unite.
Contrast that with O'Reilly on the 2014 Wednesday night program when he urged Obama to "stop his confused posture, his stammering, stuttering" in the wake of the beheadings. O'Reilly attacked the president for wanting to "punt" on the crisis and said he would be doing Americans a "great disservice" if he refused to "formally declare war on Muslim terrorism."

Something Bush never did either, but O'Reilly did not care then because it was a Republican President.

Today, good luck finding calls on Fox News for unity -- the network is too busy trying to use the tragic murders to damage and destroy the Democratic president.

Conservative Media Coverage Of Michael Brown's Killing Was Shameful
By: Steve - September 6, 2014 - 10:00am

Over the past few weeks, there has been a considerable amount of attention paid to the events of August 9th in Ferguson Missouri. Unfortunately, the color of your skin or your political affiliation plays a big part in how you view the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, by Ferguson police offer Darren Wilson.

If you are Republican, you are likely to think the racial component of the shooting of Michael Brown is getting far too much attention. If you are black or a Democrat, you are likely to feel the opposite is true.

This divide suggests we don't live in a post-racial America like many would have you believe. The problem is that the typical white person's experience with law enforcement is completely different than the typical black person's experience. As a result, each group has a drastically different view of the events in Ferguson.

Compounding this issue is how the media covers such events. As Bill O'Reilly suggested, "Decent people step back and allow the facts to emerge."

While O'Reilly was directing his comments at the so-called "liberal media," if jumping to conclusions is an issue, O'Reilly might want to take a quick look at himself, Fox, and the conservative media outlets first.

Pat Roberts of the Christian 700 Club suggested Michael Brown might have been on drugs. Is that an example of letting all the facts come out before drawing a conclusion?

Never mentioned by O'Reilly.

Pat Dollard wrote and article claiming Michael Brown was part of a violent gang. Is that an example of responsible reporting?

Never mentioned by O'Reilly.

Charles Johnson and others indicated that Michael Brown might have a criminal record. Is that an example of unbiased coverage?

Never mentioned by O'Reilly.

Even O'Reilly's own employer, Fox News, couldn't help itself. After allowing any number of talking heads air time to chastise liberals for making a white cop killing a black teen a racial thing, they still managed to fall all over themselves to report the slightest modicum of evidence that supported the white cops story.

Making the YouTube video statements of someone who hasn't even been confirmed as a witness the headline of your 4 o'clock broadcast doesn't suggest that conservatives are exhibiting the sort of reasoned impartiality they keep preaching for others to practice.

These attacks by O'Reilly and the conservative media go beyond simple speculation. Rather than covering the facts surrounding the shooting of an unarmed teen, these organizations pivot quickly to assert a new narrative.

Even though the front page of the Fox News website was filled with stories related to Ferguson, and Fox has reporters on the ground, Fox's talking heads still insist that liberal news outlets have turned white on black crime into a cottage industry to boost ratings.

The old "liberal media" claim is just one of many slick tactics the conservative media uses to legitimize their viewers' prejudices. Another thing you'll notice, if watching, is the standard attack on Rev. Al Sharpton. It should be noted that by showing up, Sharpton is hoping to draw attention to the situation. If you think he doesn't deserve the attention, commenting on his words and presence every time he finds himself in front of a microphone is an odd way to show it.

Perhaps the worst narrative to come out of the conservative media recently was from Kimberly Guilfoyle, who offered this word of advice when discussing the events that occurred in Ferguson: "Don't commit crimes."

This is possibly the biggest lie that supposedly government-skeptical conservatives tell themselves. The protests in Ferguson are not about defending those who have committed a crime, but rather how police tend to treat every black citizen as a criminal.

So while everyone from President Obama on down can urge the residents of Ferguson to refrain from looting and vandalizing because it doesn't help the situation, nobody in the conservative media have set the same expectation level for those charged with keeping the peace, including O'Reilly.

Does anyone think that a police officer antagonizing protesters with the statement "Bring it! All you %@#king animals" helps?

Does anyone think a St. Louis County police lieutenant urging his offices with the phrases like "Let's have a black day," and "Let's make the jail cells more colorful" helps?

Does anyone think that police threatening to shoot and mace reporters helps?

Maybe instead of castigating the few bad apples masquerading as protesters, we should start by requiring the abusers, racists and bullies masquerading as police officers to be held accountable.

In the end the reality is that Bill O'Reilly and all his conservative friends in the media need this to be about race far more than the "liberal media," because in the conservative bubble, racism against blacks doesn't exist anymore. And there is no white privilege, according to the insane Bill O'Reilly.

But if you're one of those racist blacks or people with "white guilt" and can't see the forest for the trees, feel free to check out any of the dishonest/biased conservative media sites so you can get a thorough education in how the white guy is always justified in beating, mistreating and murdering the savage black criminal.

Bill O'Reilly and the conservative media instantly reported the story as if they were the cops attorney, as a defender for him instead of an impartial news outlet. They put spin and lies on the story and speculated about other stories put out by conservative blogs, even though O'Reilly has said nobody should believe the blogs because they do not have editors.

They instantly reported it as if the cop was innocent, even though the facts we did have showed he might not be so innocent. They ignored all the facts to only report what they wanted you to see, and they all acted like the blacks deserve it because they are criminals. This is not journalism, this is partisan hacks doing what the mostly all white Republican party supports.

In O'Reillyworld, and most of Fox, they think whites are justified in killing blacks because in their minds he had to have done something wrong or else the cop would not have shot him. Even though we hear about cops shotting people for no reason all the time. And most people who see things the way O'Reilly and Fox do are racists, yes that is a harsh thing to say, but it is true.

They not only defend the racist, they claim it is not racism and they are not racists, when they are. O'Reilly even denies there is white privilege, which is like saying water is not wet. It's ridiculous, just as ridiculous as O'Reilly saying he is not a racist, when he says racist things all the time.

The Thursday 9-4-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 5, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: With Chaos Overseas, What is President Obama Thinking? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to the polls, 70% of the American people believe the country is on the wrong track, and of course, President Obama takes much of the blame for that. He is in Wales trying to rally NATO to fight terrorism and to restrain the Russian tyrant Putin.

On foreign affairs, the President has problems. He's basically reactive; he allows bad agents to grow in strength until critical mass is reached. To this day, the President is still not taking the fight to ISIS or to Putin.

Talking Points believes that President Obama's main political priority is social justice. That's where his energies lie. The other stuff seems to be an annoyance to the President and that's why the world is a mess.

All presidents have priorities and interests and passions. The current president should expand his.
Then James Carville & Andrea Tantaros were on to discuss it. Carville said the poll showing most Americans think we're on the wrong track is because people look at the world and see it's messy and they think Washington is dysfunctional. He maintained that President Obama has had some pretty substantial accomplishments during his administration.

Tantaros said with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, there is a widespread belief that the President doesn't want to act on a threat against the United States.

O'Reilly thinks the President is being timid when it comes to dealing with ISIS. Tantaros accused the President of having disdain for the West when he suggested he's just going to manage ISIS instead of taking hard action. Carville countered that it's one thing to say Obama's soft on terrorism, but claimed it's too "idiotic" to respond to allegations that the President has disdain for the West.

According to O'Reilly, President Obama is going to bomb ISIS in Syria, it's just a matter of when, but he thinks the action should have already taken place.

Then Ed Henry and James Rosen were on from Wales, with no Democratic guests for balance, Henry is covering President Obama's meetings with NATO. Rosen said there's a lot of talk, but not a lot of action at these summits. Right now, it's about dealing with pushing back on Putin and winding back the mission in Afghanistan. ISIS is overshadowing it, but nothing substantive has come of it yet.

O'Reilly asked if NATO will become more aggressive in defense with Putin on the march and defying the West?

Henry said the big headline out of the summit so far is that they're going to send 4,000 troops to deal with Putin. While he doesn't want to dismiss the move entirely, he assessed that it will have a miniscule effect in deterring Putin. And once again O'Reilly said that President Obama looks weak to the world, to which Henry responded that he seems not to want to be the superpower of the NATO group.

And once again I would point out that is the opinion of the far-right crew, O'Reilly and his friends, it is not the opinion of the rest of the people. Most Americans do not want us to be the police to the world, a fact that O'Reilly never mentions.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about a new poll from the Pew Research Center on illegal immigration that shows 74% of Americans want better border security. And as usual no Democratic guests were on for balance.

Ingraham claimed that Americans believe illegal immigration is a threat to traditional values, but the Factor was quick to mention the American people are not blaming the kids for this surge across the border. He insisted Americans want these kids taken care of.

Yeah, those Americans are called racist Republicans, the rest of the people see it differently.

Ingraham then cited a biased Rasmussen poll showing 59% want to send the kids back as soon as possible. When you ask people whose kids go to public schools where these kids are being dumped off, they don't think it's fair to have resources meant for citizens stretched thin.

The Factor professed most Americans want a secure border and want illegal immigrants who are already here to be treated humanely. But Laura said most polls show Americans want to secure the border first, but they also want to cap the number of legal immigrants being let into the country.

Which is the right-wing spin on it, most Americans do not agree with Bill O'Reilly or Laura Ingraham on immigration issues.

Then the biased Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the media and their coverage of the ISIS story. And of course there was no Democratic guest on for balance.

Goldberg speculated that when the American people lose confidence in President Obama and members of his own party lose confidence, then yes, there will be some reporters who hold him more accountable than in the past. However, he scoffed at the suggestion that the media overall has turned a corner and suddenly gotten tough on him.

O'Reilly noted Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is the only one defending President Obama for being cautious and deliberate with ISIS. The Factor is concerned about the lack of sense of urgency, to which Bernie said it would be "cartoonish" for the media to defend the way Obama is handling ISIS at this point.

Then Bret Baier was on to talk about his dishonest and biased Benghazi documentary, which I will not report on, or discuss.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Always invite your adversaries to discuss any beef they have with you.

Billy said this: "Last night, the Factor questioned whether State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki has the gravitas for that job, saying she looks way out of her depth. Today, another spokesperson at State, Marie Harf, expressed anger, saying when the anchor of a leading cable news show uses personally offensive and sexist language when talking about her colleague, it's her obligation to say it's not OK. Here's the tip: always invite your adversaries to discuss any beef they have with you. Ms. Psaki and Ms. Harf are both invited into the no spin zone. "

O'Reilly Caught Lying About ISIS Threat & Juan Williams
By: Steve - September 5, 2014 - 10:00am

On the Wednesday Factor show Bill O'Reilly talked about the threat to America from ISIS, and how he thinks they are a threat and that Obama is ignoring them so it is a danger to America. Even though Obama is not ignoring them, he is using drones on them and has sent more troops to the area.

O'Reilly also implied that Juan Williams was the only person who is saying ISIS is not a threat to the United States, even though Homeland Security put out a statement saying ISIS is not a threat to anyone in the United States. And Stratfor.com, which O'Reilly has listed and a source he uses all the time, saying that are not a threat inside the United States.

This is on O'Reilly's very own website:
Factor Contributors

Get views and opinions from Factor regulars.

Bernie Goldberg
John Stossel
Judge Napolitano
Stratfor.com Intelligence Briefing
But on the Wednesday show O'Reilly makes no mention of the Homeland Security report, or the Stratfor.com report on ISIS. He tried to make it look like Juan Williams was wrong to say they are not a threat to anyone in the United States, and that he is the only person who thinks that, which is dishonest and biased reporting from O'Reilly.

Here is what O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: According to Juan, there's no proof ISIS has the capability to directly attack the U.S.
He made it look like Juan Williams is the only person who is saying it, when in fact a lot of people are saying the same thing. Here are some quotes from and AP article on it:

Homeland Security: Islamic State poses no specific threat within the United States

The United States is not aware of any specific threat to the U.S. homeland from Islamic State militants, the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday after Britain raised its international terrorism threat level.

Islamic State militants and their supporters, however, "have demonstrated the intent and capability to target American citizens overseas," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. He noted DHS has taken steps over the summer to strengthen security at overseas airports with direct flights to the United States.

Johnson said he has spoken to UK Home Secretary Theresa May about Britain's decision to raise its terrorism alert to the second-highest level. It is the first time since mid-2011 that Britain has been placed on this high of an alert level.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there was no plan to raise the U.S. threat assessment level.

And Alan Colmes told Greg Gutfeld this:
COLMES: "According to Stratfor, which analyzes geopolitical threats, ISIS couldn't even beat the Kurds in northern Iraq or the Shiites in southern Iraq. This is being ginned up for the purpose of getting American involvement. Wait until it's a true threat to the homeland of the United States."
Those are the facts from terrorism experts, not the opinions of partisan hacks who work at Fox News. They say that ISIS is no threat to anyone inside the United States, yes they are a threat to Americans overseas, but not here. So instead of getting the truth from O'Reilly, we get spin and lies, and then Democrats who report the truth are called communists and terrorist supporters, which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing propaganda to make Democrats look bad.

Open your eyes folks, Fox News is not a news network, they are a propaganda arm of the Republican party. They do noting but spin and lie to you to make Democrats look bad, that is their main goal, to make Democrats look bad so less people will vote for them. And this blog posting is example #1 million that what I say is true about Fox.

O'Reilly ignored the Homeland Security statement on it, and even ignored what his own intelligence agency (Stratfor) says about them. This is done on purpose by O'Reilly to fit his narrative and his position on the issue, O'Reilly is not reporting the facts as he claims to do, he is putting his spin on the story.

This is not impartial journalism, it's bias and spin. It's called cherry picking news you want your viewers to see, not all the news that is out there about it. It's called giving one side of the story in a biased way by spinning the facts and ignoring other facts, even when those facts say different, and they are even your own sources, you just ignore them when they say something you do not like or agree with.

Jon Stewart Destroys O'Reilly & Fox For Ferguson Shooting Bias
By: Steve - September 5, 2014 - 9:00am

This is a video of Jon Stewart destroying Bill O'Reilly and the biased hacks at Fox News for their ridiculous, dishonest, and biased reporting about the protests in Ferguson Missouri over the shooting of the unarmed black kid Michael Brown.

Here is the video, it is awesome and powerful, even though he is a comedian on the comedy network, he nails it better than any actual journalist ever could. And if you only watched this video, you would think Stewart is a real journalist.



And btw, O'Reilly attacked Stewart for what he said in that video Wednesday night, even though every word Stewart said is 100% true, and most of it was simply video clips of what O'Reilly and the people at Fox actually said.

O'Reilly tore into what he called "Stewart's distortions" and warned his viewers never to believe something ever told on a partisan-driven program like Stewart's.

And O'Reilly was not hit by lightning, haha. But he should have been, because he knows Stewart was 100% accurate, O'Reilly just can not handle the truth so he attacks Stewart and claims he is lying.

I challenge anyone to watch that video and show me one word Stewart said that was not true, show me, prove it, send me the proof Stewart was wrong, about anything. How can you say he was lying when he played the actual video clips of what O'Reilly and the others at Fox said, it's impossible.

O'Reilly should have just let it go, because the reply he had to what Stewart said just makes him look insane. It's like saying don't believe what your eyes saw and what your ears heard, believe me (Bill O'Reilly) when I tell you Stewart is lying. O'Reilly is either in total denial, or he is insane, maybe both. Because what Jon Stewart said is about as accurate as a person can be in reporting anything.

Fox Cuts Away From Obama Speech So Rove Can Slam Him
By: Steve - September 4, 2014 - 11:30am

Fox News cut off its broadcast of President Obama's important address in Estonia before a NATO summit to interview the partisan Karl Rove. Both MSNBC and CNN aired the entirety of Obama's speech, in which he said he has a commitment to defending the security of NATO nations.

Fox News (America's Newsroom) chose to air only two minutes of the speech before cutting to a commercial. When America's Newsroom returned, they had Rove on, who went on to slam Obama's foreign policy.

Rove went on to rewrite, spin, and misrepresent all of what Obama said in the speech. Which is nothing new from the dishonest partisan hack Karl Rove. Fox does not show the actual speech, because they do not want their viewers to know what Obama really said, they show a minute or two then have Rove come on and distort what he said.

That way when they later lie about what Obama said on all their other shows, none of their viewers will know they are lying, and actually believe it. Which is how Fox news makes a living, lying and spinning to their viewers.

The Wednesday 9-3-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 4, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What President Obama Should Do with ISIS. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The ISIS terror Nazis have murdered a second American, journalist Steven Sotloff. As with James Foley two weeks ago, they posted the beheading on the net for the world to see, proving once again that Muslim terrorists are as barbaric as the Third Reich. By killing two Americans, ISIS has declared war on the United States.

If President Obama does not formally declare war on Muslim terrorism, he is doing all Americans a great disservice. We need to send a powerful message to the world and stop the nonsense.

There is no question that Mr. Obama does not want to wage war; he wants to punt, to deflect the attack on Americans onto the international community.

All Americans should absolutely understand two things: 1) Muslim terrorism preaches that murdering Americans is a good thing. 2) President Obama has been far too passive in the face of grave threats to this nation.

President Obama is also calling for international consensus to deal with Putin. Once again, the President is not leading the effort to stop the Russian tyrant. He is waiting, taking meetings, considering.

Mr. Obama seems to be confused about how international terrorism can destabilize the entire world. It is obvious the President has not thought these things through, has no strategy to confront them, and is putting America in danger.
And that is total right-wing garbage, because ISIS has not declared war, and can not declare war even if they wanted to, they are a terror group not a country. Obama should try to get a coalition together, because we have NATO and the UN, and we should not be the police to the world. O'Reilly supported that when Bush put a coalition together to go into Iraq, which O'Reilly not only supported he defended it.

Now he wants Obama to just bomb them into the dirt, and if he does not he is not protecting America, which is just insane and totally stupid. Remember that O'Reilly is not a foreign policy expert, and he has no military experience, he is just a biased cable news host that was totally wrong about Iraq.

Then Monica Crowley & Juan Williams were on to discuss it.

Williams said there's no evidence the President is afraid of Putin or ISIS, and he is right. He also expressed concern that Obama is facing criticism for being too calm and acting with restraint because, according to Juan Williams, there's no proof ISIS has the capability to directly attack the U.S.

And Williams is right, O'Reilly is being dishonest when he claims only Juan Williams is saying there's no proof ISIS has the capability to directly attack the U.S. Stratfor.com is also saying it, Homeland Security is also saying it, and O'Reilly knows it. He even uses Stratfor for his own reporting, except now when they disagree with him, suddenly he ignores what they are saying.

The biased hack Monica Crowley said that words matter but actions matter more when it comes to presidential leadership. She shot down Obama's idea that we need to rally the international community, and instead pushed for a sustained bombing campaign and some boots on the ground.

And of course she just spins out the far-right talking points on everything, just as O'Reilly does, even though he claims to never use Republican talking points, he does all the time, and he is doing it now.

Then the biased Carl Cameron & James Rosen were on to discuss it, with no Democratic guests for balance.

James Rosen asked the State Department why the administration hasn't declared war against ISIS. Rosen said that the spokesperson sees no utility in placing new labels on the rules of engagement, which Rosen said means the administration doesn't view the murders of two U.S. journalists as acts of war.

Because it is not an act of war, they are crimes against American citizens. And only the right-wing nuts in the world think it is an act of war.

Carl Cameron responded to Congressman Louie Gohmert's (R-TX) call for a declaration of war against ISIS. Cameron posited that Gohmert and many members of Congress want the President to expand airstrikes beyond Iraq and into Syria. He forecasted that a bill authorizing the use of force beyond Iraq will be introduced soon.

Then Karl Rove was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. And O'Reilly never said a word to him about tv stations pulling some Rove political attack ads for being dishonest.

Instead they talked about a new George Washington University poll that asked people if the country is headed in the right or wrong direction. Just 21% of Americans believe we're headed the right way, while an astounding 70% say we're going in the wrong direction.

And what they do not tell you is that those numbers are about the same no matter who is the President, people almost always think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Because the congress and the corporations run things and they do what is best for them and big business, not the average working man who votes. That is why voter turnout is so low.

O'Reilly pointed out that with numbers like this, you'd think Republicans would dominate the midterm elections in November, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Rove predicted there's a 60% chance Republicans take the Senate, but cautioned that it's too early to tell because we're right at the start of the fall campaign. He said Republicans are more energetic and more enthusiastic, but as always, the election will be decided by independent or swing voters.

O'Reilly talked about confusion that Al Franken has a 99% chance of re-election. He questioned if Minnesota is so crazy the voters there don't understand Obama hasn't done a very good job and that Franken is his primary supporter in the Senate. But Rove contended Franken is downplaying his support of Obama while campaigning at home.

Then again, maybe they know that Obama has done a pretty good job and so has Al Franken, and they are just not buying the right-wing spin and propaganda about it.

Then O'Reilly speculated that President Obama doesn't really care if the GOP controls both the House and Senate because he'll just veto everything and use executive orders. Rove said that the President can't veto everything, and he'll also have to worry about Democrats who will say they can't stand with him on certain things, especially spending bills.

Said the two biased Republicans who were wrong about everything in the last election, and wrong on Iraq.

Then Mediaite Editor Tina Nguyen was on to say O'Reilly's comparison of blacks and asians was off base because statistics only tell part of the story.

Nguyen insisted it was comparing apples to oranges. She said a large percentage of the Asian population is not succeeding by the metrics provided by the Factor. While Korean, Japanese, Chinese Americans have college graduation rates above 50%, she informed the Factor that Vietnamese and Cambodians immigrants here have much lower graduation rates.

O'Reilly of course disagreed, saying you have to go with the aggregate statistics, and made the overall point that African Americans would be better served modeling their families and focus on education after what we often see in the Asian American community.

Which is of course ridiculous, because blacks are discriminated against far worse than asians are, so the comparisons by O'Reilly are insane. Just like his argument that white privilege is not real, it's laughable.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly slamming Jon Stewart for simply quoting him directly and telling the truth about why he came back from vacation for one day to slam the media and the protests in Ferguson. Stewart was exactly right, and O'Reilly just could not handle the truth.

O'Reilly was just mad that Stewart made him look bad, O'Reilly said he distorted what he said, when all Stewart did was play video clips of what O'Reilly said, that is not distorting what he said, it was reporting honestly exactly what was said by O'Reilly with video. In O'Reillyworld playing clips of what he said is distorting what he said, it's just laughable.

Obama Slams Republicans For Opposing Everything To Improve Economy
By: Steve - September 4, 2014 - 10:00am

President Obama went to Milwaukee, Wisconsin Monday and called out Republicans for their failed top-down economic policies, and also ripped congressional Republicans for saying no to everything.

At Laborfest in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, President Obama said this:
OBAMA: Most of the policies I'm talking about have two things in common. They're going to help more families get ahead, and the Republicans who run our Congress oppose almost all of them.

They oppose almost everything. I'm not making that up. I'm just telling the truth. It's just the facts. In fact, they oppose stuff they used to be for. No, it's true. I mean, they used to be for building roads, and bridges, and stuff. Now suddenly, no we can't build roads and bridges. Well, why not? Because I proposed it.

I am just telling the truth. The sky is blue today. Milwaukee brats are delicious. The Brewers are tied for first place, and Republicans in Congress love to say no. Those are just facts. The facts of life. They say no to everything.

If we had a Congress that cared about policies that actually helped working people, I promise you we could have done everything that we talked about doing. But until we have that Congress, it's up to us to fight for those policies.
Many of the policies that President Obama talked about in Wisconsin are things that Republican Gov. Scott Walker has opposed. The president wasn't getting involved in the governor's race, but the similarities between what Republicans in Congress believe and what Walker has done in Wisconsin are unavoidable.

Scott Walker implemented the top down Koch philosophy. He tried to bust the public sector unions, and he promised that jobs would come if taxes were cut for the wealthy and corporations.

And he was wrong, Walker's term as governor has been an economic disaster for Wisconsin. Instead of creating the 250,000 new jobs that he promised, Walker's tax cuts for the wealthy have led to negative job growth. The ideological battle in Wisconsin mirrors what is going on in our divided federal government.

Republicans are saying no to things that work. They continue to oppose anything that could grow the economy and create jobs. The fairy tale that tax cuts for the rich will bring economic prosperity for all has been disproven again.

And btw, it's the same fairy tale O'Reilly spins out every other day, that cutting taxes for the wealthy leads to job growth, it does not, and that is a fact. But O'Reilly and the Republicans keep spinning that lie out in the hopes that someone will believe it, even though it has proven to be a lie over and over again.

Republicans have spent the last six years saying no to President Obama and policies that will grow the economy. And yet, we have still had economic growth, job growth, stock market records, and lower unemployment, now just imagine what it would have done if the Republicans actually voted for something that would have helped the economy.

This November will be the voters chance to say no to them. If you do not get out and vote to keep Republicans from keeping the majority in the House and let them get the majority back in the Senate, you are a fool and it's your own fault. If all the Democrats who are registered to vote actually vote, Democrats win every time, the only way Republicans can win is if Democrats stay home.

The Tuesday 9-2-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - September 3, 2014 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the biased far-right hack Laura Ingraham was filling in for O'Reilly, she started the show talking about President Obama and ISIS with the news that ISIS terrorists have released a video showing them beheading another American, journalist Steven Sotloff. She had the biased far-right hack Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "This video, like the one before it, was called a message to America, and directly addressed to Obama as a challenge to him. After the first video Obama made a statement and then went out for a round of golf. This is a president who refused to act on a year's worth of intelligence because he fits his understanding of the world to his ideology. He is pledged to basically withdraw the U.S. from the world because he believes America doesn't have the moral right to intervene in the world. He's been utterly passive, the passivity continues, and he is surrounded by sycophants."

Then David Schenker, a former Middle East adviser to President Bush was on to say how he thinks the USA should deal with the terrorists of ISIS. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Schenker said this: "The Pentagon is working all the time on plans, but the administration has not decided. They have to directly attack ISIS in Syria, which may involve some spotters on the ground and attacks from the air. Along the way, we should also be targeting the Assad regime in Syria. A good way of doing that would be to go after the vaunted air defenses that have prevented us from targeting the Assad regime in the first place."

Schenker also expressed hope that moderates in Syria will eventually fill any power vacuum, saying this: "The president has been promising $500-million to arm the moderate opposition, which doe not espouse a militant Islamic ideology."

Then Richard Fowler was on to talk about what Ingraham called the Democrats strategy of politics of division and trying to get blacks to turn out the vote. Fowler said this: "This is nothing new. Democrats have always depended on turning out Latino and African American voters, turning out their base is the same thing you see from the Republican Party."

Fowler also said this: "There is more educational inequality and income disparity, and that's why people should go out to vote. There's no question that we could have seen more Congressional action, but the Republican Party has not proposed any new ideas that will get African Americans to turn out and vote for them."

Ingraham asked this question: "No question there is racism, but is that really at the heart of what is facing the black community? Or is it a lack of economic opportunity?"

And I have the easy answer, it's both you right-wing idiot, they are victims of racism and a lack of economic opportunity, and a lot of it is simply because of their skin color.

Then Larry Sabato was on to talk about the chance of Vice President Joe Biden running for the Oval Office in 2016. Sabato said this: "Listening to Biden, I have always thought that he is like the people who send you emails and tweets in ALL CAPITALS. He's dying to run and there is no cure for presidential-itis. All you need to remember about Biden, other than the fact that he's already run twice for president, is that he was elected to the Senate at the age of 29! My guess is that within an hour he was humming 'Hail to the Chief.' This has been a long-term goal for Joe Biden, but it's really difficult seeing him defeating Hillary Clinton for the nomination."

And it's ridiculous to even talk about it 2 1/2 years from the election, especially when he has not even said he is going to run for President. Ingraham is a fool, and she should not waste time talking about it so early, and before they have even said if they are running or not.

Then Adriana Cohen was on to talk about the celeb nude photo hacking story, which I will not report on because this is tabloid garbage, not real news, especially when O'Reilly says the Factor is a hard news show.

Then Francisco Hernandez was on to talk about the case of 19-year-old Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, who is an illegal immigrant living in Oregon, and was recently convicted of a hit-and-run that killed two young girls. She received no prison time and was not deported because she was a minor when her parents brought her to the United States.

Hernandez defended the decision to forego deportation, saying this: "The parents of the victims, pleaded with the judges not to have her convicted or deported. So there is a lot more to this story and most of it is confidential. Immigration authorities can bring the case again if they so desire."

Laura accused Hernandez of having skewed priorities, saying this: "You're a terrific advocate for your side, but we have two dead girls and two felony counts. If you're a legal immigrant and you commit a felony, you are instantly deportable. But we have special status given to these so-called 'dreamers.' This whole 'dreamer' thing is a farce!"

Earth to Laura Ingraham, you are an idiot, it was an accident by a minor. Get a clue and then get a heart.

Then Howard Kurtz was on, he has been in a war of words with Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert over the media's coverage of the Ferguson rioting. In other words, Colbert made Kurtz look like a fool, so Ingraham gave him time of the Factor to respond, with neither Colbert to defend it, or anyone else.

Kurtz said this: "There are some humor-impaired people out there who think we are in a blood feud, but I've interviewed Colbert, I've been on his show, and I know he engages in some creative distortion for comedic purposes. I was trying to make a serious point about Ferguson and he took it out of context. It's good publicity so I hope when Colbert goes to CBS he'll continue to make fun of me."

Minnesota Police Taser Black Man For Sitting Alone Doing Nothing
By: Steve - September 3, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not reported this story, because he is a biased racist hack who does not care that police all over the country unfairly target black men and taser them for doing nothing wrong. And this guy had a job, he was a good citizen, doing nothing but killing some time in a public place while waiting to pick up his kids.

Hey O'Reilly, I challenge you to show me one case where this same situation happened to a white man, just one, what say you?

Cell phone video posted this week suggests that clashes between unarmed black men and police can happen over little more than sitting on a chair. Chris Lollie, 28, says he was waiting to pick up his children in a skyway in St. Paul, Minnesota, after working the night shift in a nearby restaurant.

A security guard told him the seemingly public area he was sitting in was reserved for employees. Lollie, suspecting he’s being singled out for his race, responded that there was no sign saying so. The guard called the police, who confronted Lollie.

The video begins while a female officer is questioning Lollie as the two of them walk down the skyway. In the video, Lollie calmly but firmly explains that he's waiting for his children and that he knows his rights. The conflict quickly escalates when a second, male officer arrives.

"I've got to go get my kids," Lollie tells the second officer, asking him not to touch him. "You're going to go to jail, then," the second officer says. "Put your hands behind your back or things are going to get ugly."

"I haven't done anything wrong," Lollie says over and over again, before the officer screams, "Put your hands behind your back!" and uses his taser on him.

Notice that he is leaving the area where he was sitting as they asked him to, but the cops kept following him and refused to let him walk away. Then they called in more cops, tasered him and put him under arrest. Honest cops would have just let him go, they decided to taser him.

Here is the video:



Police said Lollie was acting aggressively, and filed charges for trespassing, disorderly conduct, and obstructing the legal process, according to the Pioneer Press.

Which is clearly a lie by the police, and is more proof you can not always believe a police report or statement, and btw, all three charges were dropped last month after surveillance video and witness statements were shown in court.

Lollie told the Pioneer Press that throughout the ordeal, he was "trying my hardest to maintain my calm demeanor just because I know if I do anything outside of these bounds, they could really do some damage to me."

Like possibly shoot and kill him, for simply sitting in a chair waiting to pick up his kids.

McConnell Runs From Media After Secret Speech Leak About Koch Brothers
By: Steve - September 2, 2014 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about it, because he has not even reported on the speech, let alone report on McConnell running from reporters asking about the speech. This is after O'Reilly called for evidence the Koch Brothers are running the Republican party, saying if he found it or someone sent it to him he would report it, I guess he never found it, even though it's all over the internet.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been caught on video literally running away from reporters after audio of a secret speech that he gave to the Koch brothers was leaked.

In the leaked audio, McConnell admitted that the Kochs run the Republican Party, and that he will be carrying out their agenda if Republicans win the majority in the Senate. The leak of the secret speech combined with McConnell's promise to shut down the government if Obama doesn't do what he wants has led to McConnell literally running away from the media.

In an interview eight days ago, McConnell threatened government shutdowns.

The backlash caused by his annoucement of his strategy caused him to change his tune during an interview with CNN, "I'm the guy that's gotten us out of the shutdowns that some of our members have pushed us into in the past. That does not mean that you should send the president a total blank check with no restrictions at all on how the money is spent."

If McConnell won't shut down the government, he has no leverage. For this reason alone, it is likely that McConnell was lying to CNN in order to save his own hide. The leak of the audio from the secret Koch summit poses a gigantic problem for a thirty-year incumbent who is already viewed as being too close to Washington.

Sen. McConnell is running away from reporters because he was caught red-handed. He can claim that the things he said on the tape are nothing new, but to hear him expressing his need for the Koch brothers in a way that he hasn't done for Kentucky voters is a damning indictment of McConnell's priorities.

If you want the Factor for your news, you do not know about any of this, because O'Reilly ignores it all for partisan reasons, which is the same thing he complains about MSNBC and CNN doing, when he does the very same thing.

O'Reilly also ignored the story about the McConnell campaign manager, who resigned over the Ron Paul presidential campaign bribery scandal in 2012. Nothing about any of this has been reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on the Factor about any of these stories of government corruption, which is O'Reilly's favorite topic, but only when it involves liberals, when it involves Republicans he is not interested.

Darren Wilson Fundraisers End With No Explanation
By: Steve - September 1, 2014 - 11:00am

This is a little strange, all the fundraisers for the Ferguson Missouri cop Darren Wilson, who shot the unarmed 18 year old black kid were suddenly ended with no reasons given. They raised almost a half a million dollars, and then they just shut em down.

A fundraiser for a Ferguson, Missouri police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager has vanished, the LATimes pointed out.

There had been two major GoFundMe pages raising money for Darren Wilson, who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown earlier this month. Combined, the fundraisers had pulled in almost $500,000. This weekend, seemingly out of nowhere, the campaigns stopped.

Matt Pearce, who covered the unrest following the shooting on the ground for more than a week, first noticed the shutdown.

The online donation campaigns have generated some controversy for defending Wilson, especially after some visitors left racially offensive remarks in at least one of the comment sections, which have since been removed.

Both pages appear to have stopped taking donations around the same time on Saturday, and the pages organizers did not explain why. If a visitor attempts to donate, a message appears that says: "Donations are Complete! The organizer has stopped donations."

In a statement provided to the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, a spokeswoman for GoFundMe said the website had not halted the donations.

In a Facebook post, the Support Darren Wilson confirmed that their online fundraiser had ended but vowed to continue raising money for the St. Louis County cop.

According to the page's moderators, the decision to end the fundraiser was "made by those closest to Officer Darren Wilson looking out for his best interest." The group said that any donations that were already made would go directly to Wilson.

The Times was not able to reach the anonymous founder of the "Support Officer Darren Wilson" page, a user called "Stand Up," who has raised $235,750 and who has not been officially certified as a verified recipient on the donation page.

In contrast to the other Wilson page, little information has been given to donors about who is running the anonymous fundraising effort.

In a message to visitors two weeks ago, the anonymous Wilson fundraiser page wrote that it was working with Shield of Hope to become a verified recipient. That has not happened. The fundraiser also gave out a pseudonymous Gmail account to users seeking more information, but did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

In its statement to The Times, GoFundMe's spokeswoman said the anonymously run donation page had also been removed from its search results, adding that "this campaign no longer meets GoFundMe's stated requirement of having a valid Facebook account connected."

Wilson shot and killed Brown on August 9th, 2014. In the weeks following the shooting, protests erupted in Ferguson and across the country, many in support of Brown. The movement in support of Wilson has grown, however, with protesters staging rallies against media coverage and selling 'Support Darren Wilson' T-shirts.

Here's the Facebook group's full statement:
First off, we want to say again how much we appreciate ALL of the support for Officer Darren Wilson. This page and everything we have done, up until this point, would not have been possible if it hadn't been for everyone here.

Secondly, we understand your questions, concerns and frustrations with both GoFundMe accounts. Please note, NOBODY shut down the GoFundMe account because of any petitions floating around trying to close it and GoFundMe did not close them either. That decision was made by those closest to Officer Darren Wilson looking out for his best interest.

We are doing our best daily to keep you updated (to the best of our ability) with all truths that come to us. That is our number one priority, to always be honest with our supporters.

Rest assured, if you donated to either GoFundMe it will go to Officer Darren Wilson. We are constantly trying to find the best ways to support Officer Darren Wilson as we know our supporters want to keep helping as best they can.

Bare with us as we are going through these changes. We will continue to be open and honest with our supporters. We will not do anything unless it is in the best interest of Officer Darren Wilson.

Thank you all, so much!

WE ARE DARREN WILSON!
In other words, something fishy is most likely going on with these fundraisers, and of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it. Because he is a biased hack who does not care about the truth. But of a liberal was doing this he would be all over it and demand some answers from the people who are running those fundraisers.

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - September 1, 2014 - 10:00am

Former Iowa state senator pleads guilty in Ron Paul endorsement-for-pay scheme

A former Republican Iowa state senator pleaded guilty Wednesday to concealing campaign expenditures and obstructing justice as part of an endorsement-for-pay scheme that roiled the Iowa Republican caucuses in 2012.

Kent Sorenson, of Milo, Iowa, admitted in federal district court that former Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign secretly paid him $73,000 after he dramatically dropped his backing of Rep. Michele Bachmann in late 2011 and endorsed Paul's White House bid, saying at the time that Bachmann was no longer a viable candidate.

An attorney for Sorenson, F. Montgomery Brown, said in a statement that his guilty plea was part of his process "of taking complete responsibility for the series of compounding errors and omissions he engaged in."

David A. Warrington, who served as general counsel to Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, did not return requests for comment.

In December 2011, after two months of secret negotiations with Paul's campaign, he met with a Paul political operative at a restaurant in Altoona, Iowa, and agreed to change his allegiance. The operative gave the state senator's wife a check for $25,000 to secure Sorenson's support.

Paul's campaign chairman at the time was Jesse Benton, who is now running the re-election bid of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Benton did not respond to requests for comment. Jesse R. Binnall, an attorney representing Kesari, also declined to comment.

After Sorenson publicly switched his endorsement, Paul's campaign routed the state senator a total of $73,000 in 2012, transferring the payments through a film production company and another company to conceal the intended recipient, according to court filings. Sorenson wanted the payments kept secret because of Iowa Senate ethics rules that prohibit sitting senators from accepting payments from a political campaign.

Last year, when a state independent counsel was investigating allegations that Sorenson switched his endorsement for money, the state senator lied under oath that he had been paid by either campaign, the court filings said.

On Wednesday, 42-year-old Sorenson pleaded guilty to one count of causing a federal campaign committee to falsely report its expenditures and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the first count and up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the second count, but prosecutors plan to recommend he receive a reduced sentence for accepting responsibility.

UPDATE - 8-30-14 -- McConnell's campaign manager resigns over Iowa bribery scandal

Jesse Benton, the campaign manager for U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, will resign his post as a bribery scandal from the 2012 presidential campaign threatens to envelop Benton and become a major distraction for McConnell's campaign.

Benton told the Herald-Leader that he met with McConnell Friday afternoon and offered his resignation, which McConnell "reluctantly accepted."

Benton said he offered his resignation, effective Saturday, with a "heavy heart."

And that's not all, there are two other Republican scandals O'Reilly has totally ignored, and one involves his Fox News friend Karl Rove.

8-30-14 -- TV station pulls anti-Shaheen ads off air

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A super PAC's negative ads against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen were pulled off the air Wednesday after the New Hampshire Democrat's attorneys flagged inaccuracies in the spot.

Ending Spending Action Fund, a conservative outside group, claimed in ads that "Shaheen's wealth has surged while in public office." Her financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate show the opposite, with her personal wealth dropping by at least $562,000 and perhaps as much as $1 million.

The anti-spending group's 30- and 60-second ads had aired on Boston's NBC affiliate, WHDH. Boston's media market covers the population-heavy southern tier of New Hampshire and campaigns often buy airtime on those stations.

"Scott Brown's Wall Street buddies put up an outrageous attack ad against Jeanne Shaheen that's being pulled off the air because it's dead wrong and completely false," Shaheen campaign manager Mike Vlacich said. A spokeswoman for Ending Spending did not immediately respond to a message seeking reaction.

8-30-14 -- News Outlet: Karl Rove Twisted Our Reporting For His Anti-Dem Attack Ad

The Colorado Independent criticized Fox News contributor Karl Rove and his political group for twisting its reporting into a misleading attack on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.

Rove is the co-founder of Crossroads GPS, an IRS 501(c)(4) group that funds attacks against Democratic candidates across the country. The Associated Press reported on August 19 that GPS plans to spend more than $6 million on television ads in Colorado.

The group's latest Colorado ad attacks incumbent Sen. Udall for supporting health care reform, with a narrator claiming that "on the Eastern Plains, patients now outnumber doctors 5,000 to one." The group cites the Independent for the statistic.

But the news outlet responded that GPS is misrepresenting its work. Reporter Tessa Cheek, whose reporting was quoted by GPS, wrote that the commercial added the word "now" to deceptively suggest the patient-to-doctor ratio is a result of the ACA when in fact it "has nothing to do with the new law":
The difference is the word "now," and it's the difference between true and, well, not true, because "now" makes the 5,000-to-one figure look like an outcome of the Affordable Care Act. The figure has nothing to do with the new law.

"All of that data is pre 2014 Affordable Care Act implementation, so pre-Medicaid expansion, pre-ACA rollout," confirmed Rebecca Alderfer, Colorado Health Institute senior analyst and an author of the report we cited in our article about the systemic challenges facing rural health care expansion.

In addition to being unrelated to the ACA time-wise, the figure is also not directly about insurance. Specifically, it reflects the number of primary care doctors in relation to the number of people living in their area. It's not a figure that speaks to the number of insured people or the number of providers who will accept their insurance.
In other words, Karl Rove is running dishonest political ads to lie about Democrats, and he uses his job at Fox News to keep a public profile so he can raise more money to be a lying corrupt partisan. O'Reilly not only does not say anything about any of it, he helps him by putting him on the Factor as a regular political analyst. Without ever disclosing the dishonesty by Rove, or the conflict of interest.

And that's not just one example, Rove and GPS have been airing false and hypocritical ads against Democratic candidates all over the country, when every ad they run is dishonest, because that is what Rove does. GPS previously aired an ad that, as FactCheck.org wrote, "leaves the false impression that a Colorado woman 'had to go back to work' to pay for health care insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Even though she told a local TV station that her decision to get a job had nothing to do with the health care law."

Those are all stories about political corruption by the Republican party, and one of them is about a current Fox News employee, Karl Rove, and a regular Factor guest, but O'Reilly has ignored it all. Not a word about any of it, even though this is the exact type of political corruption O'Reilly jumps all over when it involves a Democrat. But when Republicans do it, he says nothing, he is silent.

Now imagine if one of the senior political analysts at MSNBC was doing for Democrats what Rove was doing for Republicans, while at the same time working for the MSNBC News Network. O'Reilly would lose his mind, have segments about it every night, and call for MSNBC to fire him. But when Rove does it for Republicans at Fox, O'Reilly says nothing, nada, zip, zilch.




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