The Tuesday 4-29-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 30, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Trouble Ahead? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new ABC News survey out today, taken among 1,000 American adults, says 41% approve of Mr. Obama's job performance, 52% disapprove...Not good news for the President...

In addition, Judicial Watch got a White House memo through the Freedom of Information Act that confirms the worst about Benghazi. The memo, written by the communications guy Ben Rhodes, was sent three days after the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The memo was written to prep Ambassador Susan Rice on what to say to the media. The instructions are these: 'The goal is to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy'...

President Obama should have told the nation the truth, but he did not. And that's one of the reasons his poll numbers are slipping. Some Americans no longer trust him...

With all the chaos going on, the Republican Party has a real opportunity next November to control both houses of Congress.
Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to discuss it.

Colmes pointed out that the President used the term "act of terror" the day after Benghazi. Holding steady against the administration, Monica claimed this memo confirms the White House deliberately chose to perpetuate a lie. O'Reilly urged her to use the word "myth" instead of "lie."

Colmes also maintained the demonstrations over the Internet video were at least a part of the reason for the attack on our embassy. Then O'Reilly admonished him, reminding viewers that there's a difference between the truth and propaganda. Even though Colmes is right and that is what they thought at the time.

Switching to the President's polling, O'Reilly asked Colmes to admit that Obama is losing credibility. Colmes declared people are tired of both parties and politics in general. In Monica's opinion, the reason Obama is suffering from such poor job approval ratings is because Americans want jobs, a healthy economy, and a strong foreign policy, none of which she believes we have right now.

And of course the Republican O'Reilly agreed, but went further: he thinks the polls can be explained by the overriding perception that Obama can't be trusted.

So basically, O'Reilly and Crowley put out a bunch of right-wing propaganda, and when Colmes tried to counter it he was told to shut up.

Then Cuttino Mobley & Jim Gray were on to talk about the owner of the Clippers.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling is banned for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA for making racist comments. He was also hit with a $2.5 million fine.

Gray, a FNC sports analyst, explained that a 3/4 vote by the Board of Governors can force Sterling to sell the team. They could make it so miserable for him that it would be impossible for him to operate the team. O'Reilly noted, however, that Sterling is the type of guy who might dig in and hire a battery of lawyers and draw this out for a few years.

Mobley, a former Clipper, revealed that during his time with the team, Sterling never did anything wrong to him, but admitted he didn't affiliate with him on a regular basis. He said players were aware of the controversy surrounding Sterling but because it didn't affect them personally and directly, they didn't care.

O'Reilly also reported on a statement by Dallas Mavericks owner Marc Cuban that what Sterling said was appalling, but taking his team away may be violating his Constitutional rights. But Gray got a text from Cuban right before air, changing his tune: now Cuban 100% agrees with the punishment doled out by Adam Silver.

Asked whether there will be continued fallout from this scandal, Mobley expressed his love for the game of basketball and said one man's opinion of race won't dictate how players run their lives. He concluded that ultimately the game won't suffer. Before wrapping up, O'Reilly said that as a fan, he has always thought race relations within the league were very good.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican woman Katty Kay from the BBC on to talk about the war on women, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Kay said any political party that ignores women voters does so at their peril. She asserted women are too smart to be used as political slogans and instead want results.

O'Reilly contended the Democratic Party is telling women that Republicans and white guys want to keep them down. He asked Ms. Kay if American women are being treated fairly in this country.

Kay said there are institutional barriers to women getting ahead, but she believes the confidence gap between the genders can be immediately addressed by women. O'Reilly said he was confused why women, who he clearly sees as the superior gender, would lack confidence.

Kay replied that women will only apply for a promotion if they have 100% of the skills necessary. In addition, they take criticism very personally - if they make one tiny mistake, they ruminate on it for days.

And as usual they ignored the main point, that women who do the same job as a man get paid less, O'Reilly mentioned it, but then said it was a myth, which is just ridiculous because it's 100% true. Both O'Reilly and Kay denied it anyway.

Then Benjamin Taylor was on to talk about an Arizona mom, Shanesha Taylor, who left her two young kids in a hot car while she went on a job interview. Ms. Taylor was arrested and charged with child abuse. However, many people around the country are coming to her defense, even raising money for her.

The mom's attorney, Benjamin Taylor, stressed that it was a mistake made by a mother who was focused on getting a better job for the benefit of her family. He pointed out his client is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and a loving mother.

While urging compassion for the woman, O'Reilly questioned her judgment leaving a 6-month-old in a 100 degree car and wondered if she is capable of supervising two babies.

Taylor assured O'Reilly that doctors said the kids were fine, and repeated that this was merely a mistake that doesn't rise to the level of a felony.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl talked about the disgraced L.A. Clippers owner, O'Reilly said if it were him, he'd move out of the country, but he also suspected the girlfriend who taped Donald Sterling broke the law.

Guilfoyle emphasized that California is a two-party consent state, but disclosed that these cases are never prosecuted. She did mention that if Silver loses his NBA team, he can sue the girlfriend civilly. Wiehl argued the girlfriend will say she had Silver's consent, but she's still got to prove it.

Proving O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge, because when that moron on the right dressed up as a pimp and illegally recorded people at planned parenthood O'Reilly supported that and did not call for him to be put in jail.

On Republican Congressman Michael Grimm from Staten Island, Wiehl laid out the tax evasion and wire fraud charges against him. He owns a restaurant in Manhattan and allegedly paid illegals in cash and didn't report income coming in.

O'Reilly stated that the prosecutor, who is a Democrat, didn't bring charges until Grimm was put on the ballot for November. Guilfoyle admitted the timing is very fishy because now no other Republican candidate can be put forth.

And Republican prosecutors do the very same thing to Democrats, it's called politics, you just never hear about it on the Factor because O'Reilly never reports it.

Then John Stossel was on to say if the American dream is dead. According to Stossel, the left wants you to believe that it is. But he wondered if all the rules and regulations in place today make it impossible for entrepreneurs in this country. But he maintained that if you're creative and daring, you can still find success, especially in the Internet sector where there are no barriers to entry.

In O'Reilly's mind, the left wants us to believe the American dream is dead so we'll all think the government has to take care of us.

Which is a lie from O'Reilly, the left does not think that, he just made it up. The left simply wants fairness, they want more of the money to go to the workers, and not the top 1%, who do not need it or deserve it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was simply O'Reilly promoting a new segment he is doing for the moron Dennis Miller.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law
By: Steve - April 30, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story. And remember this folks, O'Reilly supports all these voter ID laws the Republican party is passing, he even said they are good laws and people should have to show an ID to vote. Even though they are being struck down as unconstitutional. It proves O'Reilly cares more about Republicans blocking people who mostly vote Democrat from voting, than looking out for the folks.

O'Reilly is part of the problem, he could care less about the folks, unless they vote Republican. Here is the story:

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- A federal judge in Milwaukee has struck down Wisconsin's voter Identification law, saying it unfairly burdens poor and minority voters.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued his long-awaited decision Tuesday. It invalidates Wisconsin's law.

Wisconsin's law would have required voters to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls. The Republican supporters said it would cut down on voter fraud and boost public confidence in the integrity of the election process.

Even though actual voter fraud almost never happens, so they are trying to fix a problem we do not have.

Adelman sided with Democratic opponents of the bill, who said it disproportionately excluded poor and minority voters because they're less likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them.

Wisconsin's law was only in effect for a 2012 primary before a Dane County judge declared it unconstitutional.

The Monday 4-28-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 29, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Race And Racism In America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last week Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who defied the U.S. government by not paying grazing fees for his cattle, made some ridiculous comments about black Americans and slavery. He instantly lost any credibility he might have had. A short time later, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, 80-year-old Donald Sterling, was embarrassed when his mistress released tape recordings of him insulting black people.

Sterling's comments are just despicable and, like Bundy, he's finished in the court of public opinion. But why would these men say these things? First, both are ignorant. Second, both have a sense of entitlement, and that's the key. Cliven Bundy sincerely believes that he should be exempt from paying grazing taxes; Sterling thinks he can shoot his mouth off because he has bought his way out of past controversies.

There's no question that Sterling has a problem, but here's the headline: It's primarily his problem, not the country's problem. He doesn't represent anyone but himself, although he has brought pain to other people. The coach of the Clippers, Doc Rivers, is a fine man. You can imagine what this has done to him and his team, which has worked hard all season. Other NBA legends have been insulted as well. They have a perfect right to be angry and to demand that Sterling be punished, and he will lose control of his team.

The bigger picture is that there are bigots in every country and of every race. For example, what are we to think about the thousands of people who go to hear Louis Farrakhan rant against whites and Jews? Those folks represent a very small portion of the African American community. Same thing with Jeremiah Wright, who has made a number of anti-white comments. The vast majority of black religious people are good and decent, so it's not fair to draw any conclusions from Wright or Farrakhan, or Sterling or Bundy.

They are just misguided individuals. I believe that when most Americans see and hear racism in their own lives, they get furious. This country has come a very long way from the days when denying Americans opportunity because of their skin color was acceptable in some places. Now, racists pay a huge price. For the rest of his life, Donald Sterling will be a pariah. He will not be celebrated or welcomed anywhere except other than the lunatic fringe precincts.

There will be people who seek to exploit Sterling and Bundy. Al Sharpton immediately began threatening to boycott if Sterling wasn't dealt with the way he thinks he should be. Instead of allowing the NBA to investigate, Sharpton exploited the situation immediately, trying to bring attention to himself.

Racism will never be wiped out, it's a neurosis and a mental deficiency. But America is a place that no longer tolerates it in the public arena, as Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy have learned the hard way.
And now the facts, racism is generational, most racists are older Republican white men. O'Reilly just will not admit that because he is one of them. All Sharpton did was speak out against the racist, so he did nothing wrong. O'Reilly attacked him for no reason, except he does not like Sharpton.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about the Donald Sterling racism story.

Ham said this: "When Americans hear this stuff, it makes their stomachs churn, and that is a good point about our country. These things become national news because they are not common. Donald Sterling will pay a huge price."

And what Ham should have said is that when "most" Americans hear racism their stomachs churn, because a lot of Americans support and agree with Sterling, and most of them are old white Republicans.

Williams disagreed with the notion that racism is primarily an individual problem, saying this: "I think it's a country problem - we have a terrible history here of slavery and legal segregation. I think there are real repercussions from that history in the way we caricature black people and even Asians and Jews."

Then Brit Hume was on to evaluate the affed economic sanctions President Obama is placing on Vladimir Putin and Russia. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Hume said this: "What he's basically saying, is that Putin can have his way with Ukraine and that these graduated sanctions are intended to deter Putin from later actions against NATO members in the Baltic. To be really effective, major economic sanctions would necessarily involve the cooperation of our European allies, who are much more financially intertwined with Russia."

O'Reilly said he was worried that President Obama is sending the wrong message to the world's evil-doers: "This is showing weakness, it's a wrong-headed policy. Right now Putin and China and North Korea are saying they'll just do pretty much what they want. Appeasement and weakness never work."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on with his observations on the Donald Sterling controversy and racism in general. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "I think we've had remarkable success. We had legal segregation 50 years ago and now if guys like Bundy or Sterling say something outrageous, they're instantly done. If that doesn't speak to the incredible changes in the mindset of the country, nothing does. This is one of the most remarkable changes in the thinking of a country in world history - we decided as a society to step in and make racial discrimination illegal. We have come an incredibly long way."

O'Reilly reminded Krauthammer that not everyone shares his optimistic view, saying this: "In many liberal precincts that is not the prevailing wisdom. I heard people on another cable network all day long today saying that the country makes Sterling and Bundy the way they are."

Then Jesse Watters was on, he paid a visit to an Earth Day celebration in Manhattan. Here are some ststements he picked up from the people in attendance: "Happy Earth Day, it's the best day of the year" ... "I don't really know what it is, but I believe in global warming" ... "Global warming is not caused by Mother Nature, it's caused by God bringing judgment" ... "I drive a really efficient car" ... "I'm wearing my magical crystals, I love the Earth."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Silence Can Indeed Be Golden. Billy said this: "Actor Jamie Foxx's recent inaccurate comments about Bill reinforce an age-old adage: When you have no idea what you're talking about, it is always best to keep quiet."

P.S. For the record, Jamie Foxx was accurate, O'Reilly just refuses to admit it, because his ego is so big he can never admit anything bad is true about him.

Tea Party Scammers Are Stealing Your Donation Money
By: Steve - April 29, 2014 - 10:00am

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that several top tea party groups have spent "just a tiny fraction of their money directly into boosting" candidates, instead devoting most of their money to fundraising and consultants.

The questionable spending has been aided by media outlets like CNN and Fox News, which, in the words of one of the shady groups in question, have given the tea partiers "great television news coverage" to promote their efforts.

Over the years, CNN and Fox News have frequently promoted tea party events and hosted group spokespersons. CNN partnered with one dubious group for a presidential debate, while Fox News host Sean Hannity is a radio partner with another group. In turn, tea partiers have used the favorable coverage to increase name recognition and solicit more funds.

The Post wrote that the Tea Party Patriots (TPP), the Tea Party Express (TPE) and the Madison Project "have spent 5 percent or less of their money directly on election-related activity during this election cycle."

The spending "contrasts with the urgent appeals tea party groups have made to their base of small donors, many of whom repeatedly contribute after being promised that their money will help elect conservative politicians."

In other words, they are scamming you right-wing suckers into giving them money to get conservative candidates elected, then they spend 95% of that money on making their leaders rich, and getting time on CNN and FOX.

While candidates are receiving relatively little money, tea party leaders are cashing in. TPP leader Jenny Beth Martin is "on track to make more than $450,000 this year"; TPP national finance director Richard Norman "is paid $15,000 a month," and his firms have received "at least $2.7 million since June 2012"; and the Tea Party Express has paid "$2.75 million since the beginning of 2013" to the firm of leader Sal Russo, "while donating just $45,000 to candidates and spending less than $162,000 on ads and bus tours supporting their election."

The Post report follows years of scrutiny from other outlets, about lavish spending by tea party groups. In many instances, the criticism has come from other tea party groups, who have complained about the hypocritical nature of the consultant spending.

Mother Jones Stephanie Mencimer reported in 2011 that TPP's "coterie of consultants and fundraisers" have "sparked bitter complaints by affiliated tea party groups" who view the group as "morphing into the very type of slick, DC-centric special interest group they have been fighting against."

Politico's Ken Vogel reported in 2010 that tea party leaders "are suspicious of its [TPE's] big payments to Russo Marsh, view the bus tours as distractions from meaningful grass-roots organizing headed into the 2010 midterm elections and say the Republican ties of both the firm and PAC are wrong."

Despite years of reporting on the dubious nature of these tea party groups, media outlets like CNN and Fox News continue to give a publicity boost to the groups.

Despite their dubious spending and questionable practices, the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots have been able to recruit members of the conservative media to their events. Tea Party Express speakers have included Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, radio host and Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher, and radio host Mark Levin.

Tea Party Patriots speakers have included Mark Levin, Wall Street Journal writer and Fox News contributor Stephen Moore, radio host Dana Loesch, Fox News contributor Herman Cain, Media Research Center president Brent Bozell, and radio host Glenn Beck.

Sean Hannity Is even a Tea Party Patriots Partner. Fox News host Sean Hannity is acting as a de facto spokesperson for the group in fundraising emails and on his Premiere Radio show. Hannity hosted Jenny Beth Martin on the April 15 edition of his Fox News show, and said "we are partners on radio."

And of course O'Reilly says nothing about any of this, while claiming they are not a right-wing group, which is just laughable.

Howard Kurtz Slams Fox's Coverage Of Cliven Bundy
By: Steve - April 28, 2014 - 10:00am

Fox News host Howard Kurtz criticized his own network's coverage of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, blasting the network for elevating Bundy's anti-government agenda and turning the lawless rancher into a folk hero before falling silent when Bundy's racist remarks came to light.

Fox News darling Cliven Bundy rose to his folk hero status after he failed to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land, following decades of refusing to pay required grazing fees. Fox News and other right-wing media elevated the story with substantial coverage, championing Bundy and his supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials.

But when Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, Fox News fell silent, abruptly ending their incessant promotion of the lawless rancher. The New York Times first reported that Bundy had questioned whether black Americans were "better off as slaves" or "better off under government subsidy," and the media quickly obtained video of the racist remarks.

On the April 27 edition his Fox News show #MediaBuzz, Kurtz posited that Fox News "fell seriously short" in their coverage of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy once his "blatantly racist" comments were revealed, after having previously built Bundy up "as a symbol of resistance."

In a panel discussion, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis similarly criticized Fox's coverage, crediting the network with elevating Bundy's story and turning him into "sort of a folk hero."

Lewis criticized the substandard coverage as a "net-negative" for the conservative movement. Kurtz agreed, adding that this type of inferior coverage serves as "ammunition to Fox's detractors."

Though the network remained silent on Bundy's racist remarks for several hours, Fox hosts and contributors eventually condemned Bundy's blatant racism. But only after it was made public by the media.

Bill Maher Slams GOP For Having So Many Racist Supporters
By: Steve - April 27, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill Maher tore Republicans apart for preaching racism during the Obama years and appealing to racists. Then he talked about the racist Nevada rancher the Republicans all supported.

Maher said, "Was it that hard to predict for the last two or three weeks when the right wing was lionizing this guy that he was going to be a huge racist? I know this is a very sensitive issue with the Republicans. They absolutely hate to be called racists, and like I said, whenever a guy says something super racist either right before or right after, he always says I'm not a racist, and then says the most racist, All I said was that I want to kill all the n-words, and you want to go there. You liberals can find racism anywhere."

Maher then showed how Fox News called the New Black Panthers scary, but portrayed white militia members as heroes.

He closed the segment by saying, "The thing is that they say. I've heard conservatives say this over and over again when this issue comes up. They say, well, what am I supposed to do, tell racists not to vote for me? Yes. Exactly, and I've never heard one of them do that. Say don't vote for me."

Republicans can't tell the racists not to vote for them, because the racists are part of the Republican Party. The reason why Fox News and the GOP attract people like Cliven Bundy, Ted Nugent, and George Zimmerman is because they have spent the Obama years using racial divides as a political weapon.

The use of race has been an intentional strategic choice by the Republican Party. Republicans have always believed that they could defeat President Obama in the Democrats if they reminded voters often enough of the scary black man in the White House. Republicans may not all be racists, but in choosing a racist strategy, they have associated themselves with racists.

Republicans should not be surprised when their heroes echo back to them the same racist language that they have been filling their supporters heads with for years. The Republican Party is openly hostile towards women and minorities.

They have alienated everyone, but white men, and it just so happens that the white supremacist movement is heavily made up of right-wing white men.

Republicans shouldn't be shocked that after years of preaching race based politics their most ardent supporters are racists. You reap what you sow.

Republicans might be losing elections for years to come, because they decided to embrace the racists.

And to this day O'Reilly still denies there is a culture of racism in the Republican party, even though almost every day we find examples of racism by Republicans. O'Reilly denies it, because he is one of them, and he does not want to admit that most of the racists in America are Republicans.

O'Reilly Thinks He Knows More About The Law Than Sotomayor
By: Steve - April 26, 2014 - 10:00am

Despite having no apparent understanding of Supreme Court precedent, Bill O'Reilly (who is not even an attorney) still managed to accuse Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor of being wrong about civil rights law.

On April 22, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court effectively overruled an important strand of equal protection jurisprudence in Schuette v. BAMN, upholding a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that banned the consideration of race in admissions at Michigan's public universities.

The right-wing media were enthusiastically supportive of the decision as they simultaneously insulted the intelligence of Sotomayor, and O'Reilly was no exception.

On the April 24th O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly dedicated his "Talking Points Memo" segment to praising the Court's decision in Schuette.

O'Reilly's misunderstanding of that decision, as well the Court's prior case law, became immediately apparent when he erroneously claimed affirmative action policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because "if an individual American gets a preference, then he or she is not being treated equally with everyone else."

O'Reilly went on to argue that Sotomayor, who wrote a powerful dissent in Schuette, "is clearly wrong, constitutionally speaking."

But O'Reilly is simply wrong that race-conscious admissions violate the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, in a line of cases dating back to 1978, that such policies are consistent with the equal protection clause. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Court struck down the use of racial quotas, but also ruled that the use of race in admissions in the pursuit of a diverse student body is constitutional under the 14th Amendment:
This kind of program treats each applicant as an individual in the admissions process. The applicant who loses out on the last available seat to another candidate receiving a "plus" on the basis of ethnic background will not have been foreclosed from all consideration for that seat simply because he was not the right color or had the wrong surname.

It would mean only that his combined qualifications, which may have included similar nonobjective factors, did not outweigh those of the other applicant. His qualifications would have been weighed fairly and competitively, and he would have no basis to complain of unequal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this diversity principle allowing the use of race as one non-determinative factor among many in an individualized, holistic, and race-conscious admissions policy.

The Court has reaffirmed such policies in all of its subsequent affirmative action cases, such as Grutter v. Bollinger, last year's Fisher v. University of Texas, and even Schuette itself.

And O'Reilly wasn't the only one who was badly confused about civil rights law. In an April 24th segment on Fox's On the Record, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer argued that Michigan's ban on affirmative action merely "restated what's in the Civil Rights Act -- you may not discriminate on the basis of race, etcetera."

Krauthammer is also wrong. The Michigan amendment goes much farther than "restating" the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - it explicitly bans race-conscious admissions policies, something the Civil Rights Act does not do. In fact, the text of the amendment makes the distinction Krauthammer ignores, by both repeating the language of the Civil Rights Act as well as banning "preferences."

Krauthammer made the same mistake O'Reilly did. If Krauthammer went back and looked at the case law, he could read a detailed explanation of why the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Civil Rights Act was not "color-blind," but instead race-conscious legislation that allows affirmative action in higher education.

As former Justice Lewis Powell explained in his opinion in Bakke, Congress' intent in passing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act was to specifically address entrenched "discrimination against Negro citizens." From Powell's controlling opinion that explained how affirmative action pursuant to the diversity principle did not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act:
Senator Humphrey noted the relevance of the Constitution: "As I have said, the bill has a simple purpose. That purpose is to give fellow citizens -- Negroes -- the same rights and opportunities that white people take for granted. This is no more than what was preached by the prophets, and by Christ Himself. It is no more than what our Constitution guarantees."

In view of the clear legislative intent, Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment.
NRO Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru, while disagreeing with the holding of Bakke, admitted that since "the court decided that racial preferences for disadvantaged minorities are compatible with equal protection, then, they would have to be compatible with the statute, too."

Even Roger Clegg and Hans Von Spakovsky, frequent NRO contributors and long-time opponents of race-conscious laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appear to now admit that their color-blind interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, while perhaps deeply held, is the opposite of decades of Supreme Court decisions and federal implementation interpreting the law.

The Thursday 4-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 25, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Affirmative Action Debate. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In Michigan, voters struck down racial preferences for admission to state colleges and universities. That happened in 2006 by 58% of the vote. Of course it was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled this week 6-2 that the people of Michigan have a constitutional right to say no to affirmative action in education. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is angry about the ruling.

The Justice firmly believes that minorities in America do not have equal protection under the law. She believes that because of the past, when blacks and other minorities were kept back by the white establishment, they have never been able to catch up. Therefore, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should carve out a special place for minorities, whereby they would be given preference in some areas.

The problem is that by giving one person preference based on skin color or ethnicity, you harm another person. Hiring, admissions, and other circumstance should be based upon achievement. So if you are a poor person and you achieve a certain grade level, as Judge Sotomayor did, that should weigh heavily in your favor. Therefore, you take race and ethnicity out of it.
So of course O'Reilly agrees with the conservative ruling, because he is a Republican. George Washington, from The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights was on to discuss it.

Washington said this: He pointed out that O'Reilly is forgetting race has a tremendous impact - being poor and black is different than being poor and white. He accused O'Reilly and the Supreme Court of ignoring the reality of what blacks and Latinos face in this country.

According to O'Reilly, while minorities may have the deck stacked against them, to give certain skin colors preference in jobs and admissions, you'd have to overturn the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was passed specifically for all races, colors, and creeds to be treated equally.

Washington countered that the color blind theory O'Reilly advocates would end up excluding one half to one third of the black and Latino students from going to college.

Then O'Reilly talked about the conservative columnist David Brooks who said President Obama has a "manhood" problem in the Middle East - that is, he's perceived by many as not being tough enough there.

James Carville was on to discuss it, he said this "manhood" thing is getting out of hand, but he did concede that the President's foreign policy has been ad hoc. Yet, in his opinion, it has been out of necessity - for example, when Assad gassed his own people, he posited that the President was very tough but Congress didn't back him so he had to walk it back.

O'Reilly warned that Putin and the mullahs are likely to take advantage of Obama because they see him as Carter-esque. He also submitted the weakness the President showed towards Assad was a mistake. Carville reminded us that there was no public support for a bombing campaign in Syria, nor was there an appetite for it among the upper echelons of the military.

In another foreign policy arena, O'Reilly mentioned how the Chinese want to take a bunch of islands from the Japanese and Filipinos, and he's concerned President Obama won't be able to stop them. Carville wondered how Obama can be expected to end the historic animosity between the Chinese and Japanese.

Then Ed Henry was on to talk about Obama, while in Japan, President Obama answered a question about Russia and the Ukraine by saying further sanctions are teed up and ready to go.

Henry reported that the Japanese are very nervous China may move on these islands, and that watching President Obama deal with situation in Ukraine has exacerbated their anxiety. When Obama was pressed by a reporter about defending Japan, he got a little agitated, so everyone appears to be on edge.

Then Heather Nauert was on for mad as hell. She expressed anger over gasoline prices approaching $4 gallon with the President delaying approval of the Keystone pipeline. Nauert mentioned this is the time of year when gas prices generally go up, but they have gone up 36 cents since the start of the year. And even O'Reilly shot her down, saying that the building of the pipeline won't bring down gas prices.

Next, a viewer is mad as hell that the captain of the South Korean ferry took his duties to those young passengers so lightly. Nauert explained how the ferry company had the least experienced person at the helm, and for this negligence, 11 people have been arrested.

The approval of powdered alcohol by the government has some Americans quite livid. Nauert announced that while the freeze dried alcohol was approved by the feds earlier this month, approval was temporarily rescinded because of a packaging discrepancy. This innovation doesn't sit well with O'Reilly, who is of course against it.

One guy wanted to know why drug cartels in Mexico haven't been labeled as terrorist organizations and why we're not taking them out with drones. Nauert outlined our qualifications for drone strikes: they have to be against terrorists who pose a threat to us; no other government can be capable of addressing the threat; and there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed.

Finally, Factor producer Jesse Watters of Watters World fame is accused of having a smug air of superiority. Defending Watters' treatment of a bunch of potheads in Denver, O'Reilly said the Watters World mandate is to capture what's going on in a certain place - if the potheads seemed dumb, that's because they are.

And who wants to bet me that segment was edited to only show the most stupid people they found, anyone?

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the 9/11 Memorial Museum that is set to open in May at Ground Zero. Included in the space will be a short film about the rise of al Qaeda, to which some are objecting.

O'Reilly said you can't zero in on jihad or the killers because you're besmirching all Muslims. He asked when this nonsense is going to stop.

Megyn, who interviewed a critic of the al Qaeda film on her show, said they attribute any link between the terrorist group and radical Muslims as a misrepresentation. So O'Reilly concluded that this film is just a smidgeon of the museum and that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about honesty on the internet, which is a joke because his own website is full of right-wing lies.

Goldberg said there is no supervision on the Internet. Therefore, a bunch of websites have sprung up doing terrible things. Media Matters defames conservatives daily. Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson recently discussed how the website made her a target when she persisted with the Fast & Furious story.

Which is just ridiculous and un-proven. Media Matters simply reports what people say with text and video, and they also go after liberals sometimes too. They do not defame conservatives, they just quote what they say, it's called journalism. MM denied the charges by Attkisson and called her out, they said prove it, and she has been silent ever since.

O'Reilly asked if there's anything wrong the quid pro quo of taking money from people like George Soros to then harm the people he disagrees with on your website. Bernie made a distinction - it's not right to take money from wealthy people to defame their opponents, but it's acceptable to take money from partisans who want you to point out biases and inaccuracies of other side. He cautioned that there's not a shred of evidence that anybody gave Media Matters any money to defame Attkisson.

But O'Reilly is still convinced George Soros and his ilk ensure these Internet people have comfortable lives if they go after people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

Which is also un-proven and ridiculous, I do not get a dime from Soros or anyone to report on O'Reilly, and never have. I also do not know anyone else with a website about conservatives who gets any money from anyone to do it. O'Reilly just makes this stuff up and hopes people believe it, then claims he is the honest reporter who only deals in the facts, which is just laughable.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Time Magazine's "Most Influential." Billy said this: "The singer Beyonce is on the cover of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People issue. The Factor recently criticized her for her new video in which she cavorts around doing all sorts of explicit things. Could Time Magazine be jabbing The Factor? We'll have a report on this tomorrow evening. Here's a tip: don't miss it!"

No O'Reilly, you ego maniac their decision to pick Beyonce had nothing to do with you, jerk.

Fox Goes Silent After Racist Bundy Rant
By: Steve - April 25, 2014 - 10:00am

Fox News wall to wall promotion of Cliven Bundy abruptly ended after the Nevada rancher's racist rant was published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

Bundy's public feud with the Bureau of Land Management over his refusal to pay grazing fees received extensive support from Fox News, which devoted nearly five hours of primetime coverage to the story, including numerous interviews with Bundy and his family. Sean Hannity provided him so much positive coverage, Bundy praised the Fox News host as a "hero."

That praise fell silent after Bundy used one of his daily press conferences to engage in an overtly racist tirade, claiming black people "abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton" and suggesting that they were better off under slavery.

The day after Bundy's rant was published in The New York Times, Fox News coverage of Bundy ended rapidly.

By noon on April 24, Fox had mentioned the rancher only twice, and never covered his racist comments. On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy drew a parallel between Bundy's standoff and the situation of two Texas landowners, and Fox's Andrew Napolitano told viewers to "forget the battle in Nevada" to focus on events in Texas instead.

While Fox News did not cover Bundy's comments, Fox host Greta van Susteren spoke out on her blog, highlighting the Times' article and noting "Let me make this plain: I condemn what Cliven Bundy said about African Americans."

While O'Reilly said nothing about it, he ignored the racist rant from Bundy.

The Wednesday 4-23-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 24, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A Struggling Middle Class. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new study says that working and middle class Americans are falling behind their counterparts in Canada and even some in Western Europe when it comes to salaries.

The uber-liberal New York Times says it's because managers and executives are taking all the money leaving little for the workers.Talking Points submits that the socialistic trend is the real problem with wage growth in America.

In the real world, it is still possible for hard-working Americans to prosper. I oversee a thriving business thanks to the infrastructure Fox News provides. Because we are profitable, we are able to pay our workers good money.

Developing a skill set and a hard work ethic is not being encouraged in this country. Instead, the idle talk is all about inequality - that the system is rigged, telling working Americans that they are victims. Therefore, some don't strive as hard as they might.
And that is all right-wing spin from O'Reilly, because the actual article he cited does not say that, here is what they found:

Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.

Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group.

Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.

A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.

And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.

Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

Janet Gornick, the director of LIS, noted that inequality in so-called market incomes which does not count taxes or government benefits is high but not off the charts in the United States. Yet the American rich pay lower taxes than the rich in many other places, and the United States does not redistribute as much income to the poor as other countries do. As a result, inequality in disposable income is sharply higher in the United States than elsewhere.

In other words, the main reason the middle class is doing worse is because the top 1% are keeping most of the money, by not increasing the workers wages, and not paying people enough to live on. Not all that right-wing BS O'Reilly spewed out. He cited the article that reported on the study, then lied about the cause of the middle class getting worse.

Then Stuart Varney & Susan Ochs were on to discuss it. Ochs emphasized that it's important to recognize that people who are employed and working hard are still seeing stagnant wages. She stressed that corporate profits are improving while wages are at their lowest level.

Varney said that when he moved to America you got a job, worked hard, bought a house, and had a family - this pushed you into the middle class. But as he sees it, that work ethic has now been reversed under Obama.

Then John Stossel was on to promote some lame social media show he is doing for the Fox Business Channel. Which is not worth reporting so I am skipping it.

Then James Rosen & Carl Cameron were on to slam Hillary Clinton, because they are biased right-wing hacks and that is what they do.

When asked during a press briefing, a State spokesperson couldn't come up with a major accomplishment under the Clinton State Department. Rosen said that this is a serious problem for Clinton. He claims that he has closely examined her legacy and even her closest advisors answer in vague terms when asked what she accomplished. Bringing Iran back to the table to accomplish sanctions is the best they can come up with.

O'Reilly said that the Iran deal is, in fact, a big accomplishment, but he admitted that, in general, Secretary Clinton didn't do much but gallivant around the world.

Then O'Reilly asked Carl Cameron for an update on Eric Holder and Obama trying to sell the idea that hard drug dealers are not committing violent crimes. Cameron said the Justice Department has outlined new guidelines for qualifying for clemency, which could put thousands of drug prisoners back on the streets.

And of course O'Reilly still claims that non-violent drug crimes are violent, which is not only insane, it's ridiculous. Their crimes are even classified as non-violent drug convictions, and yet O'Reilly keeps saying they are violent crimes, which is just ridiculous.

Then Leslie Marshall & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about equal pay for women.

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly wrote a piece arguing the so-called pay gap between men and women isn't a bad thing because if women started making more money than men, they'd have a hard time finding suitable mates.

Obenshain concurred that women look to marry men who are more successful. She claimed this is a fact that's been proven in multiple studies.

Marshall called those women gold-diggers. She said women don't make as much money as men, which logically means more women are marrying men who make more money. O'Reilly asked Marshall this: does she believe the research that women would rather have a mate who makes more money than them? Marshall insisted most women would prefer to be treated equally in the workforce.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that.

She talked about 39-year-old Denise Keessee, an Oregon teacher, who was convicted of sexual abuse for having inappropriate relations with a 16-year-old boy in her special education class.

Then she talked about PETA, who is objecting to the fact that real eggs were used during the White House Easter egg hunt. Martha explained PETA's beef - 14-thousand little egg lives are tragically ended every year on the White House lawn.

O'Reilly asked if PETA has ever been to a diner. He also worried that if we can't eat chickens or eggs, it won't be long before chickens overtake the Earth. MacCallum said that PETA loses any credibility they had wasting time on this issue.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was O'Reilly promoting a ridiculous article in the Wall Street Journal that says O'Reilly is the first black prime time cable news host. Which is not only insane, it's laughable, because O'Reilly is white, and a racist.

O'Reilly: If You Oppose Gay Marriage, You Could Get Hurt
By: Steve - April 24, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly became the latest right-wing media stooge to frame gay rights supporters as bullies, baselessly alleging that support for marriage equality has risen so quickly because activists have threatened to harm and hurt opponents of same-sex marriage.

Even though he can not cite one example of anyone being hurt or any violence by gay people, while gay people are beat up and discriminated against every day by straight people that simply do not like them because they are gay.

During the "Impact" segment on the April 21st O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly hosted Fox contributors Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams to discuss the controversy surrounding the recent resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.

Eich stepped down after facing criticism over his donation in support of the virulently anti-gay campaign for California's Proposition 8. Eich became a right-wing cause celebre, with conservative media personalities using his resignation to peddle the myth that gay rights supporters are persecuting conservative Christians.

O'Reilly echoed that narrative on his show, saying that Eich's departure highlighted how "one of the reasons gay marriage has come on so strong in the USA is intimidation."

O'Reilly claimed that gay rights activists are threatening to "harm" opponents of marriage equality:
O'REILLY: If you donate money to a traditional marriage cause, okay, we're going to hurt you. We're going to hurt you. We're going to find out where you live. We are going try to take your job. Maybe do vandalism to your home -- big, big difference, is there not?

O'REILLY: Now there are threats and demonization. And that unfortunately, has put gay marriage over the top. That is the technique that turned the tide -- intimidation and harm. That's what won it.
When pressed for evidence of the "harm" against marriage equality opponents, O'Reilly was unable to cite specific examples of harassment:
WILLIAMS: The only people I've heard going to somebody's house and attacking - I just heard that in the comment from that editor at The Nation, but that's not real.

O'REILLY: No, it's been on websites. There have been websites who have put people's names on there. There have been a lot of that stuff.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, putting a name on a website is not hurting or harming anyone, and in fact, O'Reilly does the very same thing with Judges and people he does not like, as in liberals, then they get death threats and sometimes have to hire security. So it's ok for him to do it, but not anyone else.

And while it is true that the names of donors to Proposition 8 are publicly available, there's no evidence of widespread intimidation or harassment by marriage equality supporters. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), for example, has repeatedly tried and failed to demonstrate in court that supporters of Proposition 8 experienced serious "harm" from gay activists.

O'Reilly's latest insane rant even contradicts his earlier claims that supporters of marriage equality had won the battle of public opinion because of the strength of their arguments.

In March of 2013, O'Reilly conceded that "the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," echoing his earlier statement that conservatives were losing the marriage debate because their case accusing gay activists of using violence and intimidation to advance marriage equality is part of a broader conservative narrative that depicts LGBT people as being the real bullies, even as the LGBT community continues to be disproportionately targeted for hate crimes.

And O'Reilly is doing it while claiming to not be part of the right-wing propaganda machine who does not use right-wing talking points. He even claims to be a non-partisan Independent, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly's claims of alleged violence and intimidation by gay bullies speaks volumes not only about the right-wing media's aversion to facts, but to the formidable power of media narratives - no matter how baseless.

In other words, he is spewing out right-wing lies while trying to make gay people look bad. There is no violence, the Mozilla CEO resigned after public pressure, which is how the free market works. But when it works in a way O'Reilly does not like, then he lies that the gays are hurting people they disagree with.

The Tuesday 4-22-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 23, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Drugs & Crime. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder want to change the criminal code when it comes to some dope dealers. They believe that in some cases the drug laws in America are unfair. But the act of giving another person a substance that could kill them or alter their minds so they kill somebody else is surely an aggressive action.

I believe it's a violent action, but the president and the attorney general obviously do not. Since tough mandatory sentencing was imposed, the nation's crime rate has plummeted. In 2011, violent felonies were down 75% compared to 1993 because many drug gang members are in prison. The drug culture is not some benign opium den where people sit around contemplating their pipe dreams; drug trafficking is brutal, nasty, and inhumane in the extreme.

Yet some of these abusers are now being portrayed as victims and non-violent offenders. Talking Points believes that giving drug-involved people leniency will escalate the crime rate in America. But we are living in a very liberal time when sympathy for the devil is growing on a number of fronts.

Yes, America has the highest incarceration rate in the Western world, but that's because we're a nation that embraces drug abuse. If we don't deal with that reality, all of us are going to suffer.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, just because you believe in something does not make it true, selling drugs is not a violent crime, you hand the drugs to someone and they pay you, so where is the violence? There is none, and you are an idiot. Doing hard time for selling a little weed is crazy, and you are nuts.

Even Paul Larkin of the conservative Heritage Foundation disagrees with O'Reilly.

Larkin said this: "Yes, selling narcotics to people endangers their lives, but it doesn't necessarily involve violence. It's a mistake to mistake marijuana and other drugs with poison - even if we're talking about heroin and cocaine, you're still not talking about something that is necessarily poisonous. If the best policy is to soften the laws, then that's a policy worth pursuing."

And yet, O'Reilly still insisted that selling hard drugs is a violent crime, saying this: "The important thing to look at in criminal justice is protecting human beings. I see this as a violent action because I know people who have died from this and I have no sympathy for drug dealers."

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about Jesse Watters, who encountered one man who brought his 14-year-old daughter to the 4-20 potfest in Colorado.

Crowley said this: "I saw this segment, and I was yelling at my television. Marijuana is a gateway drug to harder stuff, and is this father going to be around if this girl gets hooked on stronger drugs?"

Which is ridiculous, because studies have shown that marijuana is not a gateway drug, proving that Monica Crowley is not only a right-wing fool, she is a lying fool.

Colmes said this: "She seemed like a mature young woman and she said she would not smoke marijuana, if she did, until she's 21. You have to know more about the family to make a blanket statement."

Then Scott Shaw, founder of a militia movement that supports Cliven Bundy was on.

Shaw said this: "My advice to him, is to stay true to his convictions. He has a problem with the government owning the land in Nevada and I fully understand that. We always hear that we're a nation of laws, but it turns out that we're only a nation of laws when it suits our federal overlords, who pick and choose what laws they're going to enforce. I wouldn't provoke a confrontation, but I would definitely defend myself if the government came and took up arms against me."

O'Reilly reminded Shaw that Bundy has broken the law, saying this: "The federal government does have the right to seize the man's cattle."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on, they examined Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling, which upheld a ban on racial preferences at Michigan universities.

Wiehl said this: "The court is saying, that state voters can decide that they do not want preferential treatment based on race or gender. That is the law in Michigan and about seven other states."

Guilfoyle said this: "There is no authority in the Constitution to undermine elections, and this was decided by an election. 58% of the electorate voted for this in Michigan and it's their right to do so."

Then they talked about the Arizona woman who went to a job interview and left her children in the car.

Wiehl said this: "She is charged with endangering these children, because a 6-month-old and a 2-year-old were left in the car. They were sweating and they probably were endangered, but this woman was trying to go for a job."

O'Reilly said this: "She made a terrible decision, but would I put this woman in jail? No. Would I place her under supervision? Yes I would."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on, he looked ahead to 2016 and what it would take for a Republican candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Krauthammer said this: "You let reality set in. People have a fuzzy picture of her, but when reality sets in and people look at her record this is not going to be an easy run to the presidency. When people begin to examine the real Hillary and her lack of achievements, then it will be a real race. She was asked at a forum a few weeks ago to name her proudest achievement as secretary of state, and she could not answer the question. I defy anyone to name a singular achievement. Why should she be president, other than the fact that she married a man who became president? All she's running on is the reflected glory of the 90s and zero achievements on her part."

Haha, now here is some actual reality. If Hillary decides to run, she will be the next President of the United States, and no Republican can beat her, unless they cheat or suppress the vote enough for the Republican to win. Hillary is not perfect, but every year Republicans get less votes, so they have to try and suppress the vote or buy elections to win now.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was simply O'Reilly promoting his website and telling people to sign up for paid memberships.

Fox News Idiot Sean Hannity Calls Nun A Communist
By: Steve - April 23, 2014 - 10:00am

On the Fox News Hannity special called The Power of Faith, the insane right-wing idiot called a Nun a communist. Why you ask, for simply saying the Paul Ryan budget hurts the poor, which it does, and everyone knows it.

Here is the video:

Nun Responds To Hannity Communist Comment
By: Steve - April 23, 2014 - 9:00am

And btw folks, O'Reilly has not said a word about it, but if a Democrat called a religious person a communist he would be all over it like stink on you know what.

Sister Simone Campbell said this: "Name Calling Is About All That Exists On That Side"

Here is the video:

The Monday 4-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 22, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Another Victory Over Terrorism. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today in Boston, 36,000 people ran the marathon without incident, clearly a victory over terrorism. We applaud the people of Boston who showed their true character by refusing to give in to terrorism. Generally speaking, that's the attitude of most Americans, but there is some trouble on the horizon.

Here in New York City, the very liberal Mayor Bill De Blasio has canceled undercover police operations targeting militant Muslims. The former NYPD deputy commissioner says that's foolish and cites examples of terrorists who were captured before they could kill because of targeted NYPD operations. But Mayor De Blasio, playing to his far left base, doesn't want militant Muslims under watch.

So once again, political correctness puts all New Yorkers in danger. Meanwhile, over the weekend dozens of suspected Al Qaeda who were watched by our intelligence agencies were killed by drones in Yemen, and last week the world saw pictures of Al Qaeda fighters brazenly operating in the open.

So here's a bulletin to Mayor De Blasio and others who are blase about terrorism: If these jihadists could kill us, they would, and your primary responsibility is to protect people, not pander to them. Talking Points predicts there will come a time when America is attacked again. All we can hope for is that the damage will be limited and that the foolish mistake of Mayor De Blasio is not involved in any way.
Remember this folks, O'Reilly and the right also predicted that there would be a big terrorist attack under Obama, and that has not happened in the 6 years he has been in office. So basically O'Reilly is slamming Mayor De Blasio for something that "might" happen in the future, according to him, which is just ridiculous. And more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.

Then Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News was on to tell O'Reilly he is wrong.

Siblani said this: "I don't even know if there are militant jihadists in New York. It's a figment of your imagination, Bill, and I praise and I thank the mayor for his actions, this is the American way. You are elected to protect the rights of people, not to harass them. If I know of someone who is trying to hurt our country, I would be the first to call the FBI."

O'Reilly reminded Siblani that the FBI has thwarted numerous terror attacks by using surveillance, saying this: "You are terribly naive because there are militant jihadists in this country and they sometimes use mosques to spread their word. We know there are a number of militant mosques, not only in New York but around the country."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Hume said this: "Clearly the law is not on the side of Bundy and the others who are resisting in his behalf, because the property where he's been grazing his cattle is not his. But 'Occupy Wall Street' occupied a square here in Washington where you're not supposed to stay overnight and there was not a peep from Harry Reid, so clearly there is a bias in his comments."

O'Reilly urged media outlets to at least be consistent, saying this: "The 'Occupy' movement and Bundy are very similar in that they don't like the system, so if you're going to condemn one you have to condemn the other."

Which is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever seen, it's just insane. The Nevada rancher is breaking the law and has been doing it for 20 years, the Occupy Wall Street protests were LEGAL. Americans have a constitutional right to protest, it's protected by the constitution. There is no comparison, and what it shows is that Hume and O'Reilly are biased right-wing idiots.

Then Juan Williams & Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about some gay rights activists who O'Reilly claims want to intimidate anyone who opposes same-sex marriage or other parts of their agenda. To which I would say they just want equal rights and they are doing what they can to make it happen.

Williams said this: "History has a very clear pattern. Look at what happened with Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty and the people at Chick-fil-A, who now say they're staying out of politics. But it's wrong to punish people for having a different point of view."

Ham said this: "A lot of the strategy of gay activists in the past has won hearts and minds, but this was a turn in the direction of bullying and is not good for them."

Then Pastor Cory Brooks was on to talk about how over the past two weekends 82 people have been shot in Chicago, 13 of them killed.

Brooks said this: "If we continue to collaborate and focus on the problem. I have no doubt we can solve the issue we are faced with today. We're dealing with young black men who are dropping out of school at an alarming rate, one out of ten has an 8th-grade reading level. There are dysfunctional families and an economic system where young black males are unemployed at an alarming rate. This is a time bomb that is rigged to explode at any time."

O'Reilly placed part of the blame on Chicago police officials, saying this: "I don't think the Chicago police are doing the job, and if the local police can't stop this the governor should put the National Guard in."

Then Karl Rove was on to cry with O'Reilly about President Obama delaying the decision on the Keystone Pipeline and Putin. And of course there was no Democratic guest on for balance, just the two Obama hating Republicans O'Reilly and Rove.

Rove said this: "Putin made a judgment that Obama is feckless and weak. He lied and told the president that Russia has no territorial goals in Crimea, and then a week later he was celebrating the annexation of Crimea. He's made the decision that he can roll Obama, so Obama will have to surprise him by being tougher than Putin expects. That means economic sanctions and strengthening NATO."

Rove also said this: "This is about votes and enthusiasm because Democrats oppose the pipeline. And then there's billionaire Tom Steyer, who has said he will put $100-million into Democratic campaigns if they oppose Keystone. This is cynical and completely political."

And now a reality check, it's about Republicans getting money from Oil and Gas companies to support the pipeline, so their wealthy friends can get richer. It is political, all the Republicans support it and all the Democrats oppose it. O'Reilly and Rove support it, proving they are both right-wing stooges.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he headed to Colorado, where pot enthusiasts gathered over the weekend on 4-20. Which is not news and I am not going to report on it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip. It was just O'Reilly using the tip of the day segment to get another biased cheap shot in on Stephen Colbert. And the only reason O'Reilly does not like Colbert is because he makes fun of (and calls out) Republicans for their hypocrisy and lies.

4-Day Work Week At Full Salary Is Working Great
By: Steve - April 22, 2014 - 10:00am

The 70 people who work at Treehouse, an online education company that teaches people about technology, only work four days a week at the same full salary as other tech workers. Yet the company's revenue has grown 120 percent, it generates more than $10 million a year in sales, and it responds to more than 70,000 customers, according to a post in Quartz by CEO Ryan Carson.

Carson has been working four-day weeks since 2006, when he founded his first company with his wife. He quit his job to start it, only to find that they both put in seven days a week. "I remember distinctly my wife and I were on the couch one evening," he recalled, and she said something like, 'What are we doing? I thought that starting a company means you have more time and more control, but it seems like we have less time and less control and were more stressed out.'"

They decided to cut back by not working Fridays, and after they hired their first employee, "we decided to officially enact a four-day week and we never looked back."

Carson has since started three other companies at which he's instituted this rule, Treehouse being the latest. While it's hard to quantify, he believes his company benefits from better output and morale. "The quality of the work, I believe, is higher," he said. "Thirty-two hours of higher quality work is better than 40 hours of lower quality work."

The impact on his employees outlook is also massive, he said. "I find I just can't wait to get back to work" after the weekend, and he suspects the same is true for others. On Mondays, "everyone's invigorated and excited." He recounted a time when a developer told him that his hope was to work at the company for 20 years. In the Quartz article, he noted that a team member gets recruitment emails from Facebook, but that his response is always, "Do you work a four-day week yet?"

And recruiting people in the first place is also easier thanks to the shorter week. "We regularly have new employees choose Treehouse over Facebook, Twitter and other top-tier tech companies," he writes. And the company is able to still pull in high sales and even $13 million in venture capital thanks to instituting higher efficiency, by, for example, strictly limiting the use of email.

Carson believes plenty of other companies could follow his example. "We have 70,000 customers, and I think if we can do it... couldn't more people do that? he said. Some businesses will still need to be open on Fridays, but he suggests "rolling employment," where some people work Monday through Thursday while others work Tuesday through Friday. "Is it possible for everybody? No," he concedes. "But I bet some huge percentage of companies can do it that just aren't."

There are some drawbacks. Not working on Friday, he said, means no day of slowdown before the weekend. "It's kind of like 100 miles per hour until Thursday at 6 p.m." And he acknowledges that less work may get done with one day off.

But there is some social science to back up the practice of limiting how much people put in at work each week. Research has found that putting in long hours, or more than 60 hours a week, produces a small productivity boost at first. But after three or four weeks of working at that level, it will actually decline.

The dominant work culture in the United States is one of overwork, though. We rank at number 11 out of 33 developed countries in how many hours we work each week. For professionals, nearly everyone is working more than 50 hours a week and nearly half are putting in more than 65.

Carson isn't the only one experimenting with shorter hours. Municipal workers in Sweden's second-largest city will soon work six-hour days to see whether it boosts efficiency and reduces costs if they need fewer sick days. Six of the ten most competitive countries, including Germany, have banned working more than 48 hours a week.

Bill Moyers Warns People The USA Heading Toward Oligarchy
By: Steve - April 21, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill Moyers took on income inequality on Moyers & Company Friday, citing statistics on the income gap and studies on the subject to warn that the United States is drifting closer and closer to an oligarchic state where a small group of wealthy people wield massive control over the political system.

And I would say we are pretty much already there, the 1% already control everything, and the Republican party helps them do it. And unless we vote Republicans out of office, it's only going to get worse.

Moyers blamed an "obliging Congress" for allowing this to happen, and mocked John Roberts for taking what some would view as politicians doing favors for fundraisers as gratitude for donors.

Moyers mockingly noted how it seems like more than gratitude when politicians work to directly impact the finances of the people who give them money at the expense of the middle class.

Moyers also declared that "inequality is what has turned Washington into a protection racket for the one percent," and warned that the claims the U.S. makes to being a democracy are "seriously threatened."

He concluded that "the drift toward oligarchy that Thomas Pinckeney described in his formidable book has become a mad dash, and it will overrun us and overwhelm us unless we stop it."

Obamacare Sign-Ups Hit 8 Million
By: Steve - April 20, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly did not say a word about it, because he is a biased right-wing hack who hates Obama and still does not want to admit it was a good idea and it is working fine.

In a remarkable rebound from the botched rollout of Obamacare, 8 million people signed up for private health insurance via the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act since October, President Barack Obama announced during a press briefing at the White House Thursday.

March and April saw an uptick in the share of young people signing up for private plans using the exchanges. These people, who are presumably healthier, are needed to balance out the medical costs of older, sicker consumers.

About 35 percent of people who signed up throughout the open enrollment period were under 35 years old, including children, Obama said. Twenty-eight percent were between the ages of 18 and 34, according to a White House fact sheet.

The official six-month enrollment period ended March 31, but the federal government and most states accommodated people trying to complete applications in April amid a last-minute surge for subsidized private coverage and Medicaid benefits.

"This law is working," Obama said. "This law won't solve all the problems in our health care system. We know we've got more work to do, but we now know for a fact that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit, raise premiums for millions of Americans, and take insurance away from millions more."

Note: I was personally put on Medicaid on 1-1-14, and I was able to keep my same doctor. I now get free health care and my medicine co-pay is only $2.00 for each prescription.

Duck Dynasty Ratings Fall To SIXTEEN-MONTH Low!
By: Steve - April 19, 2014 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about it, because he supported Phil Robertson and predicted their ratings would go up. When he is wrong he just ignores the prediction and never speaks of it again.

Despite the enthusiastic support from fans because apparently the word "Jesus" makes you wonderful no matter what you do, Duck Dynasty is not doing so well.

For the first time in over a year, the show has dipped below 5 million viewers.

The last show averaged 4.7 million, a 16 month low. While some may note that this is still a lot of viewers, for comparison's sake-last year, the show broke ratings records with 11.7 million viewers.

It seems that public opinion is catching up with Duck Dynasty and crew.

Republican Hits Obama Doll In Ad: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - April 19, 2014 - 10:00am

Now imagine what O'Reilly would do if a Democrat hit a George W. Bush doll in a tv ad, he would flip out and call for the ad to be pulled and for the Democrat to be defeated. But when a Republican does it to Obama, O'Reilly not only does not call for the ad to be pulled, he ignores it and says nothing.

Nebraska Democrats on Friday criticized a TV ad showing Republican governor candidate Beau McCoy knocking a Barack Obama doll off a fence post with his hand.

The ad opens with McCoy saying, "More Obamacare in Nebraska? That is the last thing we need." He then strikes a doll that resembles President Obama.

Even though Obamcare is working, and only right-wing fools are still trashing it. He should lose the election just for being opposed to Obamacare, not just for hitting the Obama doll.

"Beau McCoy hit a new low in his ad, where he is seen striking the president off a fence post," said Dan Marvin, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party.

"No matter what party you belong to, the depiction of violence displayed in McCoy's ad is completely disrespectful to the office of the presidency and sends the wrong message to our children."

Vince Powers, state Democratic chairman, called on McCoy to pull the ad.

In response to the Democratic Party, McCoy said in a statement that Nebraskans are tired of being pushed around by the Obama administration and the federal government. McCoy, a state senator from Omaha, voted against expanding the Medicaid program in the just-completed legislative session.

"We as Nebraskans know a one-size-fits-all mandate like Obamacare is the wrong approach for our state, which is why I led the charge this legislative session to oppose Medicaid expansion in Nebraska," McCoy said.

Arnold Nesbitt from Omaha Nebraska said this about it: "This ad is extremely disrespectful to the office of the President as well as the President. The striking of an image of the President reinforces the thought that violence is a means to an end and politicians will go to whatever means possible to try to win an election. This is not the type of person that I feel should represent and/or lead Nebraska."

Peer-Reviewed Study Shows The USA Is An Oligarchy
By: Steve - April 18, 2014 - 10:00am

The report by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities suggests that US political system serves special interest groups, the corporations, and the wealthy, instead of voters .

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says this: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favor special interests and lobbying oragnisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it."

The report also said that the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 percent.

The theory of "biased pluralism" that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes "tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations."

In other words, the wealthy, the corporations, and the wealthy special interest groups basically bribe Congressman and Senators to do what they want, instead of going by the will of the majority of the people. And O'Reilly supports it, calling it the free market in action, while claiming to be looking out for the little guy and the average working American.

The study comes in the wake of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial piece of legislation passed in The Supreme Court that abolished campaign contribution limits, and record low approval ratings for the US congress.

The Wednesday 4-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 17, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A Low Point for Getting High. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Once in a while the federal government can actually launch a successful health campaign; the anti-smoking posture the feds trotted out in 1966 has saved millions of lives. But smoking marijuana has been on the rise, as pot use is considered 'cool' in many circles and is politically correct. Now comes a new study in the Journal of Neuroscience that says smoking pot hurts your brain.

Data suggest that the ingestion of marijuana creates brain abnormalities, directly affecting memory, decision-making, emotions, and motivation. Since almost 20-million Americans are regular pot users, this can not be a good thing for the country. Almost all of us have seen the tremendous damage substance abuse causes, yet marijuana is painted as benign in many circles.

Some people can use booze and pot without much harm, but once getting high becomes a priority, a person changes for the worse. So why are we glorifying marijuana? There should be a campaign against pot just like there is against tobacco.

Talking Points is not the morality police, but the 'United States of Intoxication' is not a good thing. I know I'll get letters telling me to butt out, but my job is to look out for you. If you care at all about your health and well-being, you will read the Journal of Neuroscience. Are you motivated enough to do that?
Blah, blah, blah, get over it O'Reilly. Nobody cares what you have to say about smoking pot, you are just wasting tv time reporting on this story.

Then Matt Kibbe, a proponent of pot legalization was on to discuss it.

Kibbe said this: "I think smoking pot is bad, and I think drinking too much is bad and smoking cigarettes is bad. Where we might disagree is what the federal government can do to regulate and force behavioral changes."

Bingo, in a so-called free country adults should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Kibbe also said this: "I love parents and communities and peer pressure, but there are a lot of negative consequences when the federal government takes on these kinds of things."

But O'Reilly argued that a federal campaign could save lives, just like the anti-tobacco messages did, saying this: "The government is going in the wrong direction, it's not good for anyone to use pot to get high!"

Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the showdown in Nevada, where rancher Cliven Bundy is defying federal agents who want him to pay fees for using federal land.

Powers said this: "He has broken the law, but why are they harassing this man? The government shouldn't be sending in armed people and setting up 'free speech zones.' I don't understand why this guy is being forced off his land."

Obenshain said this: "It's interesting that the Bureau of Land Management was able to make an exception for one of Reid's largest donors, but it can't make an exception for Bundy, who doesn't contribute to Reid. The government is choosing which laws to enforce."

Which is a lie, and made up by right-wing idiots.

Then Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt analyzed the tense situation in Ukraine, where pro-Russian protesters have clashed with Ukrainian police. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

The biased Obama hating Peters said this: "President Obama is terrified of Putin, and this is already a done deal. Putin has won, the eastern provinces of Ukraine are gone, and the only question is how ugly the end game is going to be. He is not going to let go and Obama won't make him. President Obama believes you can negotiate with cancer tumors, he is a fool and a weakling."

Hunt said this: "You can't give aid to a non-existent government that is not functioning. Europe is not behind us, the American people don't want to do anything, and Putin has won so far."

The only fool is Col. Peters, he is a partisan idiot who insulted the President. O'Reilly said nothing, and if Peters does not like it he should move to Russia and hang out with his hero Putin. If he was a Democrat saying that about a Republican President O'Reilly would want to try him for sedition, but when a Republican does it he says nothing.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she cried about reporting MSNBC did about the Boston Marathon bombing.

MacCallum said this: "This came right after Joe Biden's moving comments in Boston. The piece never even answered the question that was posed in the intro, which was to find out some background about the Tsarnaev brothers. It talked about how kids wrestle and are raised to fight, as if that's supposed to be some excuse for blowing up people."

O'Reilly concluded with a parting shot at MSNBC, saying this: "I don't know why you would even want to do this a year later, we already had the background of these thugs. There's something wrong over there at MSNBC!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Woman of Steele. Billy said this: "If you happen to catch Sage Steele anchoring on ESPN, keep in mind that she is a no-spin sportscaster who had the moxie to go toe-to-toe with the ladies of The View this morning."

In other words, she is a Republican who disagreed with the women on the view so O'Reilly likes her.

Taxpayers Deliver $7.8 Billion Tax Bill To Walmart
By: Steve - April 17, 2014 - 10:00am

The Walton family receives $7.8 billion in tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies each year, and outraged taxpayers are demanding that Walmart pay up. According to a press release from Our Walmart:
Walmart workers and taxpayers in Phoenix delivered a $7.8 billion tax bill to Rob Walton, Walmart Chairman, in reaction to the news that the country's largest retailer and richest family received an estimated $7.8 billion in tax breaks and subsidies in 2013.

A report released yesterday by Americans for Tax Fairness showed how Walmart and the Waltons dodged taxes, exploited loopholes and took advantage of taxpayer subsidies, while many of its workers were forced to rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps and Medicaid.

The taxpayers hand-delivered the bill to Walton's home in Paradise Valley, outside Phoenix.
"Like most Americans, I work hard, pay my taxes and play by the rules. Why can't America's richest family do the same?" said Venanzi Luna, a Walmart worker who signed the bill.

"Our economy is out of balance and workers are struggling because people like the Waltons don't pay their fair share."

Walmart made a $16 billion profit in 2013, and the six Walton heirs, who own more than 50 percent of Walmart shares, saw their wealth grow to $148.8 billion, more wealth than 49% of American families combined.

Walmart takes in 18% of all food stamp dollars and generates $13.5 billion in revenue from food stamps. This isn't enough robbing of the taxpayer for the Walton family, because they also get $3 billion in individual tax breaks, and Walmart itself gets another $1 billion.

The next time Republicans talk about how America can't afford veterans benefits, or to extend unemployment benefits, they need to be reminded that a simple solution is right in front of their eyes. If Republicans would close the Walmart tax loopholes, and raise the minimum wage so that Walmart workers didn't have to rely on public assistance, the government would have tens of billions more.

Those low prices that Walmart advertises really aren't that low. Taxpayers are picking up the tab, and when one factors in the billions that all Americans have to pay to subsidize Walmart's profits those always low prices come at a very high cost to every American.

The Tuesday 4-15-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 16, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Voter Suppression. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The grievance industry believes that requiring IDs to vote is a right-wing plot to deny some Americans their voting rights. 33 states currently have voting ID laws, with more states considering it. The left denies any voter fraud, which is absurd. Just this month, North Carolina launched a huge investigation into voter fraud, with accusations that some folks voted in two states.

Also, at least 81 North Carolinians voted in 2013 after they died! Most precincts do have control over the voting process, but there is no downside to having one system for the whole country. Enter former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young and former President Bill Clinton, who propose that all Social Security cards have a photo ID attached, which would serve as a voter ID.

This makes sense because all Americans are required to have a Social Security card, but the far left still objects over 'privacy issues.' What privacy issues? Does a driver's license violate your privacy? This is a ruse because the grievance industry wants people to think the Republican Party is suppressing votes, and if you take that issue away they have one less thing to whine about.

Andrew Young and Bill Clinton, both Democrats, are doing the country a service. Let's get the pictures on the Social Security cards and stop the nonsense.
And as usual that is mostly right-wing propaganda, because Republicans are trying to suppress the vote for people who vote Democrat, it's a fact. They are trying to solve a problem we do not have, the voter fraud rate is less than 0.2%, so it almost never happens, and when it does it's rare and usually just a mistake, not illegals voting.

To prove it, Republicans are for voter ID and Democrats are opposed to it, that's all you need to know, and of course the Republican O'Reilly is for it. And as far as the far-left being opposed to a photo on your social security card, that is a lie, O'Reilly just made it up, because I do not know any liberals who oppose it, including myself. In fact, I think it's a great idea.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about the Social Security card idea.

Colmes said this: "The reason Bill Clinton and Andrew Young want to do this, is to stop the right from whining about people not having the right identification. Voting ID fraud doesn't take place at the voting booth, it happens when you register to vote."

Crowley said this nonsense: "Fraud is widespread and it is very real. A million people who are dead are still on registered voting rolls across the country. My issue with the Social Security card is that this would be the federal government doing this, I think it should be left to the states."

But even O'Reilly took issue with Crowley's "states rights" argument, saying this: "National elections are very important and Social Security cards provide a uniform ID for everybody in the United States."

Then the Republican Senator John McCain, who has urged the Obama administration and the West to help Ukraine fend off Russian aggression, was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

McCain said this: "I would rush defensive weapons to Ukraine, along with body armor, night vision, intelligence capabilities, and economic assistance. Their country has just been partially dismembered despite a solemn treaty, and Russia is about to do the same thing in eastern Ukraine and they may do the same thing in southern Ukraine."

McCain also said this: "Vladimir Putin has said the worst thing that happened in the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union, and he wants to restore the old Russian empire. But President Obama won't even give Ukraine defensive weapons, this is another total failure and lack of leadership and a fundamental misreading of Putin."

Then John Stossel for his right-wing perspective on the complex tax system. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Stossel said this: "This is the tax code, pointing to three massive volumes on the desk, and there are 75,000 more pages of explanations. So nobody can understand this stuff! You have to go to politicians and kiss their ring and give them money to get special breaks. Then there are subsidies that even the lawyers don't understand."

O'Reilly added that the IRS is hardly the only tax collector, saying this: "We're paying 40% to the federal government in income tax and more to the state, and then everything we do is taxed. I'm pessimistic and say this will never be reformed, things will not get better in the tax realm."

Please shut up about taxes, people are so tired of millionaires crying about taxes. You should be glad it's not 1980 and you are not paying 70% on the income you do not earn talking on tv for an hour a day while real working men and women pay taxes for doing real work at low wages.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl examined the showdown in Nevada, where rancher Cliven Bundy defied the feds who want him to pay grazing fees for using federal land.

Wiehl said this: "The federal officials, were met with hundreds of protesters who were in favor of Bundy. The government pulled back, saying it's a 'public safety' issue, but Bundy is still on the hook for $1 million in grazing fees and taxes."

Guilfoyle contended that Bundy and his supporters are on the wrong side of the law, saying this: "They say it isn't federal land, they say it belongs to the state and that they've been grazing on this land for years, but it does belong to the federal government. I think the government should settle this for something less than $1 million."

And of course they said nothing about the right-wing militia groups that showed up armed to defend Bundy. Now imagine what O'Reilly and the right would say if a liberal and his friends did that, he would call for the National Guard to wipe them out, and say we have laws and it's chaos if we do not enforce them.

Then Pastor Robert Jeffers was on to talk about the notion of an afterlife. Which should not be on a so-called news show, this is not news, it's religious garbage.

Jeffers said this: "We can't prove anything, but for every human desire there is a corresponding reality in nature - we get thirsty because there is water, we crave physical intimacy because there is sex. And the reason we may desire immortality is because it really exists. Then look at the near-death experiences that millions of people claim to have had, which suggest there is consciousness that transcends brain waves. But I think the most compelling evidence for life after death is that the body of Jesus has not been found in 2,000 years. That's not theology, that's historical fact. Something big happened in Jerusalem and I believe it was the resurrection."

Then again, maybe when you die you die, and there is no afterlife, it's all speculation and right-wing religious mumbo jumbo. This is not news and O'Reilly is a moron for putting that Pastor on the air to talk about this nonsense.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Taxman Returneth. Billy said this: "There's a website where you can enter some financial information and get a quick calculation of how large your tax refund will be. You can check it out at"

Two Old Right-Wing White Guys Discuss Racism Complaints
By: Steve - April 16, 2014 - 10:00am

This is classic O'Reilly, Fox News does a segment on racism with 4 white people, which is not only bias, it's not fair and balanced as Fox claims to be. So O'Reilly has Brit Hume on to discuss the segment on race with 4 white people, he said the segment was ok, even if it had 4 white people, then he was slammed for it on twitter and the internet.

So what does O'Reilly do, he has the old right-wing white guy Brit Hume on to decide if the segment with the 4 whites was wrong, or if it was unfair to not have any blacks on the panel. And what a shocker, Hume and O'Reilly (the 2 white guys) decided it was fair and ok, and there was no racism.

Which is just laughable. Because they still did not have any blacks on to discuss it, none, zero. How in the hell can you discuss racism if you do not have any blacks on to discuss it. And what makes it even worse is that it was on Fox and nobody was there to give the other side, it was biased and one sided, and this was from the so-called fair and balanced news network.

O'Reilly went on to agree with Hume's basic premise, arguing that if Obama had been white, then Hillary Clinton would have defeated him in 2008.

Which is 100% pure speculation, and there is no way O'Reilly could know that would have happened. Because one of the big reasons Obama beat Hillary is because he voted no on the Iraq war and Hillary voted yes. I would argue that even if Obama was white he would have beat her just because he voted no on Iraq. So O'Reilly violated his own no speculation rule to say something he has no proof would have happened.

Hume described Obama as an "appealing person who seemed to be non-divisive, not a race hustler in any way" and therefore Americans "were proud of him, proud to see him elected" and has received "perhaps more than he would were he a white man, the benefit of the doubt from a great many people."

Hume lamented that "being called a racist or labeled a racist, particularly if it's successful, is one of the worst things that can happen to you in America."

Then stop being a racist and making statements that defend racism and unfair segment on Fox with all white panels. This is real simple, try actually being a fair and balanced news network and have at least one liberal black person on when you talk about racism, then you will not be accused of being an unfair racist.

When you talk racism with 4 white people, you invite charges of racism, so dont do it, idiots.

The Monday 4-14-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 15, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Will President Obama Stop Putin? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is now becoming clear that Russia will try to seize part of Ukraine, an independent country. The Ukrainian government is desperately asking the West for help, but so far the response has been timid. Talking Points understands that President Obama does not want a military engagement with Russia because our allies will not back him up. Therefore, little is likely to happen to Putin.

There is no question that Putin is a villain who is violating international law. Russia wants to seize as much of Ukraine as it can, it doesn't really care about world opinion. And public opinion in America is pretty much non-existent, the level of concern about Ukraine is paltry. Once again, the situation mirrors what Hitler did in the 1930s, and back then the West did not want a confrontation with the dictator. 75 years later, we're looking at a similar situation with Putin.

The only question that remains is, how crazy is this guy? Eastern European nations like the Baltic states, Moldova, and even Poland are very worried. They know the USA is a paper tiger. Talking Points believes President Obama understands the situation but is not likely to confront Putin effectively any time soon.
And as usual O'Reilly says nothing about the majority of Americans who say we should stay out of it and mind our own business. If Putin wants to seize part of Ukraine let him, it is not happening in America and we should stop trying to be the police to the world.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it.

Williams said this: "I don't think Putin is Hitler. Not only did Hitler want to kill an entire race of people, he wanted to conquer all of Europe. Putin is trying to restore Soviet primacy in that part of the world, but I don't think he has any sense that he would go beyond Ukraine. And I think the Obama administration has been pretty strong here."

But of course Ham agreed with O'Reilly and disagreed with Williams assessment, saying this: "I don't think the administration has a cohesive view of what to do here. The battle was lost a long time ago at the beginning of Obama's first term when he abandoned missile defense systems in several Eastern European nations. That enticed Putin to think he can do these things and we're now stuck with options that are not great."

To begin with, who cares what O'Reilly, Ham, or Williams have to say about it, they are not foreign policy experts, or elected officials, they are just stooges who work for Fox. They do not know what the intelligence is, or what secret calls or deals the Obama administration is working with Putin, so they are not qualified to discuss it.

Then O'Reilly talked about racism and Congressman Steve Israel, who is head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, that has accused many Republicans of being "racist"

So what does O'Reilly do, have the far-right stooge Ben Carson on to discuss it, with no Democratic black guest for balance. Carson of course defended the Republicans and Fox, because he is one of them and he works for Fox.

Carson said this: "These accusations resonate with people, which is the reason they do it. And there are some major philosophical differences in our country right now. Progressive people believe government is the answer to many of our problems, while others believe rugged individualism and individual responsibility are important. Those are huge philosophical clashes."

Earth to fool, they resonate with people because they are true.

O'Reilly said that many Democrats are using race as a protective shield, saying this: "It's clear that President Obama's policies have largely failed, you see trouble almost everywhere. So in order to obscure that, Obama and Holder and the Democratic Party are making it personal."

Which is just ridiculous, the Obama policies have mostly worked, and there is real racism against Obama by the Republicans, especially the tea party, and that is a fact. O'Reilly and Carson will just not admit it, and it's why he does not have any black liberals on to discuss it.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Attorney General Eric Holder, who implied that he and President Obama are disrespected because of their race, Fox News analyst Brit Hume declared that the two men have actually benefitted from their skin color.

Hume said this: "The overwhelming majority of Americans believe African Americans should rise in our society, and that enhanced Barack Obama's prospects. He was an appealing person who seemed to be non-divisive and Americans were proud to see him elected. Therefore, he has gotten the benefit of the doubt from a great many people."

But there is still racism against them by the Republicans, Hume and O'Reilly just refuse to admit it.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on, he expressed total disgust with race- and gender-baiting by Democrats, including President Obama. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, making it a one sided joke of a debate by 2 old right-wing white men who both work for Fox.

Goldberg said this: "The one thing this president does well, is turn Americans against one another. He's doing it now because he has to desperately rev up his base ahead of the November elections. Democrats can't run on the economy or ObamaCare or foreign policy, so he resurrects this supposed 'war on women' and he goes before Al Sharpton's group and tells them Republicans are threatening their voting rights."

Goldberg also said this: "Eric Holder goes to the same group and implies that he and the president get harsh treatment because they're black. It is never a good idea for the president to stoke resentment, but this president told us there would be no more black and white America, there would be one united America. That Barack Obama doesn't exist any more and I don't think he ever existed."

And if you believe any of that biased propaganda you are a fool, nothing Goldberg said is true, it's all right-wing spin and lies. There is racism against Obama and other blacks from the right, and they are just pointing it out to try and stop it so they can have a debate on the issues, not debate hating people because of their skin color. If there was no racism they would not even mention it.

Then the moron Jesse Watters was on, he went to Cleveland and the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame for some stupid reason, which inducted some new members over the weekend. He asked some eminent rockers for their thoughts on the political atmosphere.

Here are a few of their responses: "I have no idea what you're talking about" ... "I never believed that musicians should get involved with politics" ... "It would be nice to have an election instead of an auction" ... "The biggest problem in this country right now is how alcoholics and addicts are treated."

Back in the Studio, Watters reported on one particularly contentious interview, saying this: "When we were interviewing Sheryl Crow and Bonnie Raitt, I asked them about Hillary Clinton and all hell broke loose. They said they wouldn't do political questions, and then they said this was an ambush and unacceptable. Just because there was one political question!"

And they were right, they know who and what you are and they are not going to fall for your tricks.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: When Things Get Tough. Billy said this: "Even when you are physically drained or mentally down, do everything in your power to tough it out and get things done. A big part of self-discipline is not giving in to adversity."

Obama Slams GOP For Bogus Voter Fraud Claims
By: Steve - April 15, 2014 - 10:00am

Obama: The 'Real Voter Fraud' Comes From 'People Who Try To Deny Our Rights'

President Barack Obama delivered a fiery speech against Republicans on Friday, charging that the GOP is threatening voting rights in America.

Appearing at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference, Obama cited a 2006 DOJ analysis showing that out of 197 million votes cast for federal elections between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for fraud.

"For those of you who are math majors, that is a percentage that is 0.00002 percent," Obama said, drawing cheers from the crowd.

Obama then pointed to who he considers to be the real perpetrators: the people behind these "bogus" claims.

"Let's be clear," Obama said. "The real voter fraud is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud."

The president pinned efforts to curb access to the ballot box directly on the GOP, declaring that the effort "has not been led by both parties. It's been led by the Republican Party."

For the remainder of the year, no political issue stands out more prominently for Democrats than their ability to motivate voters to turn out at the polls in November. Control of the Senate, now in the hands of Democrats, is at stake, as is Obama's already limited ability to push his agenda through Congress.

But traditionally weak midterm turnout by Democrats coupled with efforts in some states to limit early voting and to enact voter identification requirements have prompted the president and his party to raise alarms and step up their get-out-the-vote efforts.

Republicans have long argued that identification requirements and other voting controls are reasonable measures designed to safeguard the balloting process, not to suppress voter turnout. Democrats say photo identification requirements especially affect minority or low-income voters who may not drive and thus wouldn't have an official government ID.

Basically the Republicans are trying to solve a voter fraud problem that is not there, voter fraud is rare and almost never happens. The reality is that they are simply trying to suppress the vote among people who vote for Democrats, so they can win more elections. And O'Reilly does not condemn it because he is one of them and he hopes their plan works.

Real Obamacare Numbers 9.3 Million Not 7.1 Million
By: Steve - April 14, 2014 - 11:00am

And that does not count all the people that were added to Medicaid due to the Obama health care bill. Including me, I am now on Medicaid and my prescriptions only cost $2.00 each. O'Reilly does not talk about any of this, because he does not want you to know how good it is working now.

The long-awaited Rand Corp. study of Obamacare's effect on health insurance coverage was released Tuesday and confirmed the numbers that had been telegraphed for more than a week: At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the Obama health care law.

Let me repeat that for the idiots on the right, 9.3 million more people have health insurance now than they did 7 months ago, and that includes the million people who lost their old plans that were over-priced and not very good anyway. O'Reilly and the right predicted they would not even get the 7.1 million, leat alone the 9.3 million, and it would have been more if the website had worked from the start.

That's a net figure, accommodating all those who lost their individual health insurance because of cancellations. The Rand study confirms other surveys that placed the number of people who lost their old insurance and did not or could not replace it -- the focus of an enormous volume of anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- at less than 1 million. The Rand experts call this a "very small" number, less than 1% of the U.S. population age 18 to 64.

The Rand study was eagerly anticipated in part because of the dearth of hard information from other sources, including the federal and state governments, which are still compiling their statistics and may not have a full slate for months.

The number of people getting insurance through their employers increased by 8.2 million. Rand said the increase is likely to have been driven by a decline in unemployment, which made more people eligible for employer plans, and by the incentives in the Affordable Care Act encouraging more employer coverage. The figure certainly undermines the contention by the healthcare law's critics that the legislation gave employers an incentive to drop coverage.

Basically, it proves that all the garbage O'Reilly and the right were spewing out about Obamacare was lies.

And btw, this is for you O'Reilly: These figures are only the leading edge of a long-term trend. "It's still early in the life of the ACA," Rand said. Its experts expect more enrollments "as people become more familiar with the law, the individual mandates increase to their highest levels, the employer mandate kicks in, and other changes occur."

But their bottom line is that the law already has led to "a substantial increase in insurance coverage."

Your move O'Reilly, what say you fool.

Here Is What You Would Get If Republicans Gain Power
By: Steve - April 13, 2014 - 11:00am

Fox News Top Deceiver O'reilly Calls Colbert A Deceiver
By: Steve - April 13, 2014 - 10:00am

Last month Bill O'Reilly offered his rebuttal to the argument that income inequality is contributing to the current state of economic stagnation and the bitter partisanship in political circles. He dismissed any notion that there is a problem with having 400 of the richest Americans controlling more wealth than the rest of the 350 million of us combined. Instead, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The truth is there will never be equality in this world. That's impossible, an opium-laced dream. I will never have equality with my fellow Irishman Shaquille O'Neal he is bigger and stronger than I am by nature. I will never be as smart as Einstein, as talented as Mozart or as kind as Mother Teresa. Each human being is born with abilities, but they are not equal abilities.
Let me add this, Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. Because if the income equality was better, and the bottom 99% were getting a bigger slice of the pie everything in the country would be better. Crime would go down, the economy would be doing better, and people would not be so mad at how hard it is to get by and make a decent living. Colbert is 100% right and O'Reilly is 100% wrong, he is just too partisan and too stupid to understand or admit it.

Shaq being taller than O'Reilly has nothing to do with any of it, and that argument sounds like something a 5 year old would say. And it shows that O'Reilly does not have a clue what the income equality debate is about. It has nothing to do with artificial uniformity of human life forms, physically, intellectually, or emotionally. It is about society sharing responsibilities fairly. It is about insuring that powerful elites and faceless corporations are not permitted to exploit everybody else while shirking their own civic duties. Or as Stephen Colbert said:
COLBERT: Shaquille O'Neal is taller than Bill O'Reilly, therefore the richest 1 percent of Americans should control 40 percent of the nation's wealth.
Colbert's hilarious smackdown of O'Reilly really got to him. Because on Wednesday night's Factor show, O'Reilly devoted his opening Talking Points Memo to slamming Colbert. He called Colbert "a deceiver" and an "deological fanatic" who is "misguided in the extreme." Which is exactly what O'Reilly is, so he was also talking about himself. But O'Reilly was not done making a fool of himself, he also said this:
O'REILLY: Colbert can be dismissed as clueless, but the guy does do damage because he gives cover to the powerful people who are selling Americans a big lie, that this country is bad, that it intentionally oppresses many of its own citizens. That is a lie. That point of view is shameful.
Except of course Colbert never said or implied that the country is bad. O'Reilly just made that up, and in fact, it could be argued that as a so-called journalist on a so-called news network it is O'Reilly that gives cover to the powerful people who are selling Americans a big lie. While Colbert is a comedian on a comedy channel doing a fake news show, so nobody really takes him serious.

Colbert and millions of other Americans recognize that it is flawed with respect to the over-weighting of influence by upper-crusty plutocrats. Recent decisions by the right-wing dominated Supreme Court that give ever-more power to the rich are evidence of the wealth-centric bias that keeps average citizens from having an equal say in public affairs.

When money equals speech, the rich get more of it, and the poor can only buy silence. That's a position that fits squarely with O'Reilly's world view. Last year he actually lamented the fate of the rich as the ones who were really oppressed.

O'Reilly also sought to school Colbert on the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. saying that "Maybe Colbert should understand that Dr. King gave his life for equality of opportunity."

But that is a stupendously false and ignorant misreading of King's message. King gave his life in the fight for actual equality and freedom from oppression, not the "opportunity" of it. And the fight continues to this day with people like O'Reilly who defend a status quo that favors rich folks like himself.

And clearly O'Reilly does not have the intellectual or comedic ability to go toe-to-toe with Colbert. Basically Colbert put a truth smackdown on O'Reilly, and the best O'Reilly could do for a comeback was call him a deceiver and say he hates the country.

Which is all nonsense, and the standard crap O'Reilly spins out when someone nails him good. If you dare to disagree with O'Reilly, somehow you are a liar who hates the country, it's ridiculous. And frankly, you would think someone with a Harvard degree could come up with something better than that.

The Friday 4-11-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 12, 2014 - 11:00am

The far-right biased hack Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, her TPM was called: Changes in the White House. She said this:
INGRAHAM: Everybody was making nice at the White House today as the president thanked outgoing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for her fine work on the Affordable Care Act. Was Sebelius fired? Who knows? My question is, how on Earth did she keep her job until now. She oversaw one of the most abysmal product rollouts since New Coke, and for that alone she should have been fired.

And what did ObamaCare actually achieve? Many of the 7.5 enrollees are people who had their policies canceled because of ObamaCare. There have also been job losses, premium hikes, out-of-pocket costs soaring, doctors retiring early, and the list goes on. No corporate CEO or NCAA coach would have survived with a comparable win-loss ratio.

Obama kept Sebelius as long as he did for political reasons; he doesn't like to fire people because it admits his fallibility. After 'Fast and Furious' and Benghazi and the IRS targeting, why is Eric Holder still at the Justice Department? And why was Susan Rice promoted?

I suspect the real reason Sebelius is leaving has more to do with you voters. With the midterm elections looking grim for his party, the president could not keep the face of healthcare reform in place. And come Election Day, you have the chance to help rid us of a lot more people who are in over their heads.
And that my friends is total right-wing spin, from a right-wing hack who hates Obama and lies to make him look bad. Almost everything she said is either wrong or a lie.

Then Ed Henry was on to talk about the Sebelius departure, saying this: "It might not really have been up to her. They're saying that she approached the president in early March and offered her resignation, but the president did not ask her to reconsider, which suggests that the president did not want her to stick around. They didn't want to announce that in early March because they finally had some good news and didn't want to stunt the momentum. She took a lot of hits for this, but ultimately it's the person in the Oval Office who will take the heat."

Then Rich Benjamin of the liberal think tank Demos was on to talk about race in America, and Holder saying he is partly attacked because of his race. Which of course Ingraham and O'Reilly refuse to admit is true.

Benjamin said this: "This is not about attacking the Republicans, it's about protecting our democracy. The president sees it as protecting the fundamental right to vote."

Ingraham argued that the president and his top law enforcement official are cynically using race as an shield, saying this: "The attorney general is supposed to enforce the law without regard to party politics, but this week he turned his position into a battering ram against the Republican Party, using this sickening and cynical race card. I find that antithetical to what the civil rights movement was supposed to be about."

Earth to Ingraham and O'Reilly, there is racism in the Republican party towards Obama and Holder, and that is a fact, you two stooges will just not admit it. Because you are right-wing jerks that do not want to admit some of your people are racists.

Then immigration activist Francisco Hernandez was on to talk about former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a prospective presidential candidate in 2016, who called illegal immigration "an act of love."

Hernandez said this: "All these folks want to do, is have an opportunity to buy their ticket on the bus and get a piece of the American pie. Who can blame them, there is opportunity here. At least Jeb Bush has been consistent."

Ingraham argued that politicians should spend more time worrying about American workers, saying this: "There isn't comparable compassion for the middle class, the people who are not seeing their lives getting better. Those are the people who are affected by illegal immigration."

Which is just laughable, because nobody in the Republican party gives a damn about the middle class, they just say they do to get their votes, they they do everything possible to screw the working man and help the wealthy and the corporations. And Ingraham is a fool who helps them spin out their lies and propaganda.

Then Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein, a former aide to Hillary Clinton was on, and Ingraham asked him why she is qualified to be president. Which is a stupid question.

Goodstein said this: "She has a lot of accomplishments, and the paramount one is that when Barack Obama was saving the economy from the precipice, she was salvaging the U.S. reputation around the world. She got Russia to agree on sanctions against Iran, she got a coalition against Qadafi, and she was a beacon for women and children around the world. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are met with a tumultuous welcome every place they go."

But of course the far-right loon Ingraham refused to buy what Goodstein was selling, saying this: "I'm not saying she's not a nice person, but we're talking about accomplishments. The Middle East is still in turmoil, Eastern Europe is afraid of what Putin will do next, and China is on the move. We look feckless!"

Then Mike Huckabee, who may run for president in 2016, was on to stress the importance of traditional values, including traditional marriage. Notice that he is still working for Fox, which is ridiculous, they are letting him use his show for publicity to run for President, it's unethical and wrong.

Huckabee said this: "The position I hold, is the position that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden held in 2008. The president said in 2008 that he stood for traditional marriage because he's a Christian and that's what the Bible taught. I'd like to ask him whether he was lying then, whether he's lying now, or did the Bible get re-written."

Huckabee also said that traditional values are not at odds with pocketbook issues: "Of course we have to focus on jobs and the economy, but you can also talk about issues that touch people's basic sense of character and tradition and history."

Said the far-right bible thumping loon that will never be President.

Then Howard Kurtz was on to say a lot of reporters and producers seem to be protective of President Obama. Which is his opinion, and almost everyone else disagrees with that. Obama gets slammed in the media all the time, and that is a fact.

Kurtz said this: "There is a collision of several things. On one hand, some news outlets seem to be going softer on President Obama than, say, President Bush. And there is less investigative reporting, particularly in television, because it is expensive and time-consuming and you tick people off. The softer segments are easier to do and they're cheaper."

Republicans Unanimously Block Debate On Gender Pay Equity Bill
By: Steve - April 12, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because he is a Republican who agrees with them, and has even lied that there is no gender pay gap.

Senate Republicans voted unanimously on Wednesday to block debate from beginning on Democratic-led legislation aimed at narrowing the pay gap between men and women.

The motion to proceed to the Paycheck Fairness Act received 53 votes for, and 44 against, falling short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), is backed by President Obama. It would make it easier for a woman to sue an employer if she's getting paid less than a male counterpart for doing the same work. It would also prohibit employer retaliation against workers for talking about how much they earn.

Sounds reasonable to me, who could possibly be opposed to it, Bill O'Reilly and the the Republicans of course. Which is another part of their war on women, the same war O'Reilly denies there is, even though we have example after example proving it, including this one.

The Thursday 4-10-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 11, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is Attorney General Eric Holder Playing the Race Card? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Tuesday Eric Holder testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the IRS scandal and other controversies. Then, speaking before Al Sharpton's advocacy group on Wednesday, Holder asked, 'What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?'

The heavy evidence is that Eric Holder is using his skin color as a shield to avoid explaining to the American people why he has been so ineffective on a variety of fronts. It's long past time to stop this kind of nonsense. Richard Nixon was treated far more harshly by Congress than Barack Obama, and his Attorney General, John Mitchell, was ruined over the Watergate investigation.

The truth is that Eric Holder has been treated gently by the national press and has not been subject to much scrutiny. His first duty is to the people, not to his party or the president, but we get nothing from him. He holds back documents from Congress and he stonewalls time and again. That's the truth and it has nothing to do with skin color.
And as usual, O'Reilly denies any and all racism, which is what he does, protect whites from charges of racism. In O'Reillyworld there is no racism, no matter how blatant. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, black people are victims of racism every day, even rich and powerful blacks like Eric Holder. Who are you to say he is a liar?

Then black radio talk show hosts Eboni Williams and Richard Fowler were on to discuss it. And btw folks, O'Reilly and the right hate Eric Holder because he was part of the Clinton administration. So they already have a bias against him.

Williams said this: "To say Eric Holder has done nothing is just not true. He has a specific agenda regarding civil rights issues, and on that he has been very effective. He has brought challenges to states that have enacted illegal voting laws, and he's done a variety of things with the NYPD and stop-and-frisk."

Fowler said this: "He is contending that he and the president are treated differently because they happen to be African American. Race relations are not good, and that spills over to the president and the attorney general and the first lady."

O'Reilly accused Holder of bringing up race in a divisive manner, saying this: "We're talking about this country's chief law enforcement officer speaking in a public forum to African Americans and implying that the criticism of him is because he's black. He has nothing to back that up!"

Then James Carville was on to talk about the biased right-wing Fox News analyst George Will, who ranks the IRS targeting scandal right up there with Watergate and Iran-Contra. Which is just ridiculous, but O'Reilly agrees with him so he promotes that nonsense.

Carville said this: "He has everything to support that but evidence. Watergate and Iran-Contra were characterized by White House involvement, but there is not a scintilla of evidence of White House involvement here. This has nothing to do with the White House or President Obama."

O'Reilly said this: "If Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth, you know she's done something that she knows she's in trouble for."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, read my lips. There is NO evidence President Obama or anyone in the White House had anything to do with it, NONE. So it does not compare to Watergate or Iran-Contra. Move on to real news you right-wing hack.

Then Heather Nauert was on for mad as hell, she read e-mails from viewers. One of them, Debbie Rogers Bianchi of Oregon, is ticked off because Hillary Clinton and other liberals often portray women as victims.

Nauert said this: "We haven't actually heard Hillary Clinton say 'war on women,' but she seems to think there is one. She talks about how the clock is turning back on women's rights and warns that extremists want to go after women. They never talk about the advantages that women have in this country, they like to play victim."

Said the Republican who works at Fox, who read an e-mail from a Republican who watches Fox, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Myrna Bauman of Utah complained that derelict fathers often go unmentioned in stories about unmarried moms. Nauert said this: "40% of the babies today are born to unwed mothers, and in 1960 that figure was 5%. There are about 12-million deadbeat dads and this is obviously a sad situation."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the case of 16-year-old Pennsylvania student Alex Hribal, who slashed and stabbed 21 of his classmates Wednesday.

Kelly said this: "He has been charged as an adult, but his lawyers are pushing to get this into juvenile court. Something is odd about this case - his lawyers are saying his family is like the Brady Bunch, they had dinner together every night, he wasn't bullied, and he has no prior history of mental health issues. It doesn't add up, it's very rare for a boy of this age to just snap."

Then the far-right Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the reaction to Republican Jeb Bush's description of illegal immigration as "an act of love." And of course there was no Democratic guest on for balance.

Ingraham said this: "That was a very sloppy formulation by Jeb Bush. You could use that 'they did it out of love' argument for a lot of behavior that is not good for society. You could say you steal from a convenience store because you need food for your kids. What does that have to do with whether hundreds of thousands of people crossing our borders illegally is good for American workers, good for our public schools, and good for our health care and infrastructure?"

Ingraham also said this: "Jeb Bush believes it's a moral imperative that anyone who can get a toe across the border, as long as they're not a felon, should be allowed to stay here. We have borders that are supposed to mean something!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip. It was O'Reilly telling people to learn about Jesus. Hey O'Reilly, stop trying to force religion on people, if they want it they will find it.

E.J. Dionne: Republicans Were Wrong About Obamacare
By: Steve - April 11, 2014 - 10:00am

And I would add O'Reilly to the list, because he has said the very same thing Republicans were saying, that it was a disaster and in chaos, while everyone else knew it would work after they get the website fixed and work out the bugs. Proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing shill who pretends to be an Independent and impartial journalist.

Here are some quotes from the E.J. Dionne article in the Washington Post:

Is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong? Is there any cost to those who say things that turn out not to be true and then, when their fabrications or false predictions are exposed, calmly move on to concocting new claims as if they had never made the old ones?

The fact that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) hit its original goal this week of signing up more than 7 million people through its insurance exchanges ought to be a moment of truth -- literally as well as figuratively. It ought to give everyone, particularly members of the news media, pause over how reckless the opponents of change have been in making instant judgments and outlandish charges.

When the health-care Web site went haywire last fall, conservatives were absolutely certain this technological failure meant that the entire reform effort was doomed. If you doubt this, try a Google search keyed to that period relating the word "doomed" to the health-care law.

It should be said that the general public was much wiser. A CNN poll in November that at the time found a majority (54 percent to 45 percent) saying that the problems facing the law "will eventually be solved." Political moderates took this view by 55 percent to 43 percent, independents by 50 percent to 48 percent.

Only Republicans -- by a whopping 72 percent to 27 percent -- and conservatives (by 66 percent to 33 percent) thought the law could never be fixed.

Their representatives in Washington, moderate conservatives as well as the tea party's loyalists, followed the base's lead. In mid-November, for example, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told Fox News flatly that the law is "destined to fail," "fundamentally flawed" and "not ready for prime time."

House Speaker John Boehner predicted dire outcomes before the Web site fiasco. He repeatedly insisted, as he did in July, that "even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse."

Forbes magazine posted a piece on Nov. 22 under the headline: "What to do if and when Obamacare collapses." The op-ed modestly acknowledged that "it's too soon to write an epitaph for Obamacare," but then barged forward, since "its crises are piling up so fast that one has to begin looking ahead."

So let's say it out loud: The ACA is doing exactly what its supporters said it would do. It is getting health insurance to millions who didn't have it before. (The Los Angeles Times pegged the number at 9.5 million at the beginning of the week.)

And it's working especially well in places such as Kentucky, where state officials threw themselves fully and competently behind the cause of signing up the uninsured. Those who want to repeal the law will have to admit that they are willing to deprive these people, or some large percentage of them, of insurance.

Too many conservatives would prefer not to say upfront what they really believe: They don't want the federal government to spend the significant sums of money needed to get everyone covered. Admitting this can sound cruel, so they insist that their objections are to the ACA's alleged unworkability, or to "a Washington takeover of the health system" (which makes you wonder what they think of Medicare, a far more centralized program).

Or they peddle isolated horror stories that the fact-checkers usually discover are untrue or misleading. Thus the moment of truth, about the facts.

Another Great Reason To Boycott McDonalds
By: Steve - April 11, 2014 - 9:00am

Heather Levia wanted to help some firefighters by giving them a warm meal on a cold day -- but when she showed up to work the next morning she no longer had a job.

Levia, a 23-year-old single mom with twins, works two jobs and is putting herself through nursing school.

During her morning shift as a manager at McDonald's last week, while several local fire departments worked in sub-zero temperatures to put out a house fire, Levia says she saw a way to help.

Olean firefighters ordered 25 breakfast sandwiches and hash browns, and Levia says she pulled $83 out of her pocket and paid for it herself.

"Just because I appreciate everything they do," she explained.

Then a little bit later, another department ordered $70 worth of food. Levia sent her boss a text message to see if the company would pay the tab. She thought they might because they regularly give free meals to police officers who stop by.

"It's very common in our store," she said.

But Levia's boss said no, McDonald's would not donate the food. Levia then called the corporate office and got the same answer. So once again, she and fellow workers picked up the tab.

When word spread that Levia paid the bill, some firefighters called her boss and complained, thinking the restaurant made Levia feel obligated to pay for their meals.

Levia says after that, her boss told her, "You opened a whole bee's nest."

At her next shift, after eight years of working for McDonald's, Levia was fired. She says the reason given was she swore at a superior - something she denies.

"I did say this is freaking ridiculous. But it was not implied to anybody," she said.

Allegany firefighters say they never expected free food and were grateful for the gesture.

"It was a shock. We certainly regret the fact she lost her job. We can't speak on corporate policy because we don't know the background of it," said Allegany Fire Media Officer Gordon Scott. "It was a sad affair because a gentleman lost a home. And it's even worse because we know now that this gal apparently lost her job because of it."

Levia added, "It's just wrong. I wish the communities would change and help each other out. I wish that things didn't have to be the way they are. And if losing my job is going to speak out to the community, then that's what it's going to do."

The Wednesday 4-9-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 10, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: More Controversy Over Illegal Aliens. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is thinking of running for president. If he does, he says he will run as an all-inclusive guy on the Republican side. He recently made that clear when he said illegal immigrants are committing 'an act of love.' That has angered some hard-liners who believe foreign nationals breaking the law should be punished, not granted amnesty.

What Jeb Bush says is true - many illegal aliens came here out of desperation to feed their families, so compassion must be in play. That being said, some illegal aliens are bad people who should be thrown out immediately. The Republican Party must compromise on the issue or it will lose the presidential election again in 2016.

But it's not all political. The USA should be a nation that understands oppression and welcomes good people from other countries in a lawful way. Talking Points has put forth a sane immigration plan to deal with as many as 12-million human beings. All of them must register with the federal government; the borders must be upgraded so illegal entry becomes extremely difficult; undocumented aliens must pay a fine, apply for citizenship, learn English, and pay taxes.

But once the reform is put into place, no other illegal alien would ever be put on a citizenship track. If you're caught, you're detained and deported! That is a fair plan and if the Republican Party gets behind it and comes up with a good economic message, it will be able to compete in 2016. If it does not, Mrs. Clinton will be very happy.
Haha, good luck with that, even if the Republicans do what O'Reilly says they will still not get the majority of latino vote. Because of the far-right who are a bunch of racist idiots. Even Laura Ingraham said Bush will not get the far-right vote with that talk.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Rove said this: "I would add a couple things. I would have the employer pay a fine as well as the individual, and we should make sure people pay a fee so we can monitor them while they're here. We have to make sure they're paying their taxes, don't run afoul of the law, and are working. If they can't get a job, it's time to leave."

Rove also evaluated Jeb Bush's kind words about illegal immigrants, saying this: "He said things that are correct, that most people who come to the United States illegally do so to take care of their families. But he got himself into a little difficulty with his language."

O'Reilly said this: "Whether you agree or disagree with Jeb Bush, I like his straight talk, but there are people who will not vote for him because of what he said."

And most of that is pie in the sky talk, because the far-right of the Republican party will never go for it, not to mention it's impossible to monitor 20 million people, let alone find them to pay the fee to pay for it, the whole thing is ridiculous.

Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the former CIA boss Michael Hayden, who implied that Senator Diane Feinstein was being "emotional" when she strongly condemned enhanced interrogation techniques.

Powers said this: "Where's the evidence that she's 'emotional,' She has an opinion, but that doesn't mean she's emotional. I would not see him saying that about a male in her position."

But of course Obenshain disagreed and portrayed the dustup as an example of political correctness run amok, saying this: "You're not allowed to call women 'emotional,' radical feminists are looking for any excuse to call Republicans a bunch of sexist pigs. But I think it's clear that Diane Feinstein has deep, strong emotions. When you call something 'brutal' and 'un-American,' as she did, you have strong emotions about it."

Then James Rosen & Carl Cameron were on to talk about Senator John McCain, who accused Secretary of State John Kerry of bungling U.S. foreign policy. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Rosen said this: "He is under fire not only from Republicans, but also from some of his Democratic allies. There's no doubt that some of his key initiatives are either dead or close to death. In Syria, U.S. policy is so nebulous as to be unrecognizable; in Ukraine, both the threat and the imposition of sanctions have proved inadequate deterrents to Putin; and his efforts to broker a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians have fallen into crisis."

Cameron reported the latest on former IRS official Lois Lerner, saying this: "The House Ways and Means Committee has sent a letter to Attorney General Holder, urging him to pursue three criminal charges against Lois Lerner. The letter says she targeted 'Crossroads GPS,' run by Karl Rove, in a way that no liberal group was ever scrutinized."

And of course O'Reilly fails to mention that the House Ways and Means Committee is a partisan group of Republicans, or that this type of prosecution is never done.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that. She talked about the 16-year-old boy who went on a rampage in Pennsylvania Wednesday, stabbing 19 of his classmates.

MacCallum said this: "Here we go again, with parents running to a school and children running out of a school. He was wielding two knives as he went through the hallways and he might be tried as an adult. As always, there are heroes and in this case the assistant principal took the boy down and a girl stopped the bleeding on one of her classmates."

MacCallum also watched footage of a California teacher wrestling a student to the ground after allegedly witnessing a drug deal, saying this: "The teacher was initially put on leave, but the superintendent now says she jumped the gun by putting all the blame on him. And the boy has denied all the charges."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Avoid Obsession. Billy said this: "Becoming obsessed with anything is never a good idea, whether it's a person, a sport, a game, or even a mysteriously missing airplane."

Thanks for nothing, Mr. obvious.

Obama Calls Out Fox News For Spreading Lies About Equal Pay
By: Steve - April 10, 2014 - 10:00am

At an event announcing executive action on equal pay Tuesday, President Obama called out Fox News for spreading lies about the pay gap.

The president said this:
OBAMA: Everybody who cares about this should pay attention to how the Senate votes tomorrow on this Paycheck Fairness Act, because the majority of senators supports this bill, but two years ago a minority of Senate Republicans blocked this from getting a vote.

Even worse, some commentators are out there saying the pay gap doesn't even exist. They say it's a myth, but it's not a myth. It's math. You can look at the paychecks, look at the stubs. I mean, Lilly Ledbetter didn't just make this up. The court when it looked at the documents said, yep, yep, you've been getting paid less for doing the same job.

The court then said, as Lilly said, it's been happening so long you couldn't do anything about it anymore, which made no sense, and that's why we had to sign another bill.

It's basic math that adds up to real money. It makes a real difference for a lot of Americans that are working hard to support their families, and of course, the fact that we got some resistance on this from folks up on Capitol Hill just fits with the larger problem. This vision that congressional Republicans seem to be continually embracing. This notion that you're just on your own no matter how unfair things are.
When President Obama referred to commentators who are claiming that the pay gap doesn't exist, he was talking about Fox News, including Bill O'Reilly who claims to be fair to Obama. Here is a collection of clips of Fox News claiming that the pay gap isn't real:

The Tuesday 4-8-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 9, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: More Destruction in America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night we chronicled how the grievance industry, being used by the Democratic Party as a political weapon, is causing trouble on a number of fronts. Right on cue, we have another disgraceful exhibition. After their basketball team won the national championship, some students at the University of Connecticut rampaged, causing destruction and putting other students and police at risk.

At the University of Kentucky, which lost the game, there was a similar scene of mindless vandalism. There is no political component, the mayhem is happening because of the breakdown of respect for property and authority. The main drivers of the destructive mindset are grievance and entitlement. The USA is being portrayed by powerful people as an unfair country that oppresses minorities, women, the poor, and so on.

The primary grievance right now is alleged 'inequality,' with progressives selling the myth that folks can not get a fair shake because the system is rigged. The left-wing media legitimizes that nonsense, and one of the biggest mouthpieces for the progressives is Stephen Colbert. Only about a million people watch his program, but he is the darling of the far-left Internet.

Colbert recently mocked me on the subject of inequality, but I strongly believe in fighting for equality and that institutional bias should be against the law. What I oppose is government trying to impose equality, because every human being is different. Like many ideological fanatics, Colbert is misguided in the extreme.

His analysis is delivered under the guise of comedy, but he's a true progressive. The guy does damage because he gives cover to powerful people who are selling Americans a big lie, saying this country intentionally oppresses many of its own citizens. That is a lie and shameful. America is not perfect, but we set the gold standard for opportunity.
Wow, O'Reilly is nuts. And all that mumbo jumbo is nothing but right-wing propaganda from an old Republican fool that is going senile. The system is rigged, the rich use their money to get the country they want, and the rest of us have to try and get by on the scraps. O'Reilly is one of those rich old white guys and he defends the other rich old white guys. But he dont see it that way so he slams anyone who disagrees with him, proving his right-wing bias once again.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "There is a grievance industry, and it's a grievance industry of rich people who are upset that their taxes are too high and that we're giving money to the poor. They don't like paying for food stamps and they're angry that we will be a non-white country by the year 2040. Fighting for gay rights and equality in marriage is not grievance!"

Crowley said this: "The left has been using the grievance industry and casting huge swaths of people as victims in order to do the 'hurt and rescue' mission. They cast you as victims, keep you in that victimhood, and then propose that only government can solve your problems. That justifies ever-growing government."

Which is not true, because the working men and women in this country just want to be paid a living wage, most of them do not want government welfare, they want a decent wage for a days work. But they are not getting it because the greedy corporations do not pay them a living wage and then they have to get food stamps and free medical care, that cost the other taxpayers money.

Look at Walmart, a new study shows that they could pay their workers $13.00 an hour and only have to raise prices 1.2 percent, so a 68 cent box of mac and cheese would go up to 69 cents, and it would cover the pay increase for every Walmart worker in America. Which would save the government $300 million dollars a year just in food stamp savings.

Every working taxpayer is paying for food stamps for a lot of the Walmart workers, when they made $18 billion dollars profit in 2013, which is just insane. But O'Reilly and Crowley never say a word about that. Walmart can afford to pay a living wage, but they don't because of greed, and it cost the taxpayers $300 million dollars a year, but O'Reilly never even mentions it.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Marijuana use in Colorado, where pot is legal, and it has led to scattered instances of illness and accidents.

Stossel said this: "These are sad things when they happen, but you are exaggerating these problems. You're an irresponsible scare-monger! The poison control center had an increase in calls about children eating marijuana-laced cookies, but they get thousands of calls about kids who swallowed toys or ate cosmetics. Statistics from Denver show that violence and crime are both down."

O'Reilly said this: "No matter how bad the social problems get, you will never cede the issue. This is going to harm children and it will cause more accidents on the roads."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to evaluate Attorney General Eric Holder's contentious testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday. Said the biased right-wing host and his two Republican legal analysts.

Wiehl said this: "He was asked the most simple questions about the IRS scandal, but he deflected and stonewalled, he made no comment about anything."

Guilfoyle said this: "He is not qualified to be in that position, he is a paid check-collector who is wasting the money of the American people."

Then they talked about a man who shot and killed his daughter's boyfriend, who was in their house at 2 AM.

Wiehl said this: "The father asked the daughter whether she knew the boy, she said no, so the father thought this was an intruder." Guilfoyle concluded that neither father nor daughter will be charged, saying this: "There's insufficient evidence to proceed with a murder charge against the father, therefore any charge against the daughter will fail as well."

Then the far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer was on, O'Reilly asked him if the history of Jesus should be taught in public schools. Which is a stupid question, because that is religion and of course it should not be taught in schools, that is what we have churches for, idiot.

Krauthammer said this: "I'm all in favor of teaching where the founders derived the principles that went into the Declaration and the Constitution. You would start with the Greeks and Romans, Locke and Montesquieu, and the Old and New Testaments. But I would not want my child taught about the nature of God and divinity at my public school, and Jesus is considered divine by Christians."

So even Krauthammer disagreed with O'Reilly, but he said this anyway: "You can't teach American history by avoiding Judeo-Christian tradition and the impact it had on the framers."

Yes you can Billy, because it's religion and it belongs in church or in private worship, not the schools, moron. If you want your kids to be taught religion send them to bible school.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Very Special Concert. Billy said this: "If you're anywhere near Long Island, come on out to a special concert by the Nassau Pops Symphony Orchestra on Sunday. The event will benefit the Independence Fund, which provides high-tech track chairs to severely disabled veterans."

Family Values Congressman Begs For Forgiveness After Affair With Staffer
By: Steve - April 9, 2014 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly has ignored the entire story because the guy is a Republican, but when Democrats have sex scandals O'Reilly reports on it non-stop, as he did with Bill Clinton and John Edwards, among others.

A married Republican U.S. representative apologized on Monday after a Louisiana newspaper posted a surveillance video showing a man it identified as the congressman kissing a woman from his office staff.

"There's no doubt I've fallen short and I'm asking for forgiveness," Representative Vance McAllister said in a statement issued by his office. "I'm asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve."

And it would not be that big of a deal to most people, except McAllister, who took office last November in a special election that he won by touting his Christian values, made the statement after the Ouachita Citizen in West Monroe, Louisiana, posted the video on its website.

He ran as a christian values family man, so that makes him a massive hypocrite and a liar.

The video shows McAllister walking into the frame and turning out the lights in front of an office doorway. The camera shifts into a grainy, low-light mode before a woman enters the frame. The two embrace and kiss passionately for about 30 seconds before leaving together, picked up by other security cameras in the building.

The woman was a married member of McAllister's staff.

The Citizen said it obtained the video, which appears to be captured by a hand-held camera pointed at a multi-frame security system monitor, from an anonymous source. It said the incident occurred on December 23, 2013, inside McAllister's district congressional office in Monroe, Louisiana.

McAllister, 40, has been married for 16 years to his wife, Kelly, and has five children. The U.S. Army veteran, who has business interests in oil, gas, pipelines and Subway sandwich shops, was a newcomer to politics when he ran to fill a congressional seat vacated last year.

After coming to Washington, he was best known for inviting Willie Robertson, the star of the hit cable TV series "Duck Dynasty" to be his guest at January's State of the Union address by President Barack Obama. Robertson, who heads the Duck Commander duck-call business also appeared in a campaign ad for McAllister.

McAllister's statement did not address the video directly, but he apologized for his actions.

"Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you're a husband, a father, or a congressman," McAllister said in his statement. "I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I've disappointed."

I don't want to make a political statement on this, I would just simply like to say that I'm very sorry for what I've done."

So let me get this straight, you get elected as an honest christian values family man who the people can trust, then it turns out you are a lying cheating sinner, so forgive you and forget all about it. Haha, yeah right, good luck with that. Bill Clinton had a sex scandal 20 years ago and they still talk about it.

O'Reilly Goes Off Script Talking About Football And Politics
By: Steve - April 9, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly got into a discussion about sports and politics, that he has no business talking about. He does the yearly interview with President Obama, right before the Super Bowl. Which I do not understand, Obama gains nothing, because everyone watching it has already made up their mind what side they are on.

But Obama does it anyway, and O'Reilly jumps at the chance to interview the President to get ratings and be more famous. For more details on the topic go to to read more.

They also get into the Olympics and Bob Costas, it's a very informative article that everyone should read.

The Monday 4-7-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 8, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Grievance Industry Taking on Momentum. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Back in the late 1960's the Vietnam War caused a huge division in America. The protests brought about profound change, and many of the radicals back then have become the authority figures of today, especially in the media. Now we have a new anti-authority movement, and it has been created by the grievance industry, which President Obama and the Democratic Party have used very effectively.

The grievance industry basically says that America is not a fair nation, that the deck is stacked against minorities, the poor, women, gays, atheists, Muslims, you name it. And the bad guys are white males, the Republican Party, and anybody who doesn't buy into the grievance industry. The politically correct national media has legitimized the grievance mongers instead of challenging them.

Thus race hustlers, ideological fanatics, and other folks who do harm are given power on TV networks and the political arena. These folks are ruthless - if you go up against them the push-back will be intense, and the liberal media will be on their side.

This awful situation is leading to chaos and confusion, and here are two stark examples of what the anti-authority movement can do: On Saturday night, thousands of college kids descended upon Santa Barbara for a big party, and it didn't take long for violence to break out. Talking Points is not saying there is a political component to that disgraceful display, but it is much easier to cause trouble when you do not respect people and property.

Example two: Dartmouth College in New Hampshire has a radical group of students who believe Dartmouth harms minorities. Some of these students decided to occupy the college president's office. The president, Phil Hanlon, handled the situation badly and allowed the students to stay in his office for two full days. If I had been the president of Dartmouth, I would have given the students 30 minutes to vacate my office or they would be expelled and charged with trespassing.

Those loons believe Dartmouth is a gulag, a place of oppression and bigotry for which you pay more than $65,000 a year to attend. Of course, those nutty students are part of the grievance industry. Everything the establishment does offends them, and now they have been empowered by President Hanlon.

The grievance industry is being driven by elements of the Democratic Party very successfully, as many Americans are now buying into the allegation that the USA is unfair, insensitive, and downright bad. So expect to see more of this madness in the future
In other words, O'Reilly is defending "Rich White Guys" against what he claims is the grievance industry. Which is just ridiculous and nothing but right-wing propaganda. And then to link the two incidents at Santa Barbara and Dartmouth to Obama and the Democratic party is even more ridiculous. One was just drunk kids, and the other was a legal protest that is protected by the constitution.

When Republicans do it O'Reilly loves it and supports it, as in the tea party protests, even though there was a lot of racism in them. But when liberals protest something O'Reilly flips out, calls it an attack on old white rich Republicans, and slams the so-called grievance industry. It's bias and a double standard, just like when O'Reilly slammed George Soros for giving money to Democrats and democratic groups, while saying nothing when the Koch brothers do the very same thing by giving money to Republicans and republican groups.

And not only has O'Reilly not slammed the Koch brothers for trying to buy elections, as he did with Soros, he defends the Koch brothers and claims they are great Americans. Because they are giving to Republicans, which O'Reilly supports.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham were on to talk about a Muslim man in Michigan who took offense when his children were handed a flyer at school inviting them to an Easter egg roll. And of course O'Reilly flipped out asking Williams and Ham to discuss it.

Williams said this: "What is this guy afraid of? We are a pluralistic society, we have lots of people of lots of faiths. This is just an Easter egg hunt, Jesus was not a bunny rabbit! The kids are invited to participate in a community activity."

Ham said this: "Some parents are pushing back and saying this is not a big deal. We should sometimes focus on those guys instead of the first person who has an issue with every single thing."

O'Reilly said this: "On the flyer the word 'Easter' does not even appear. It says 'egg hunt' and 'relay race' and 'egg toss.' They took the word 'Easter' out."

Okay, so you have one crazy guy who got mad at the flyer, how is this news for a national news show?

Then the biased Republican Brit Hume was on with his take on the recent uprisings in eastern Ukraine, where some people want to join Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Hume said this: "This certainly fits the pattern established in Crimea. Agitation leads to a referendum and then you have intervention. If that pattern holds, it looks like that's what Putin will do. When the first Russian is killed or beaten up, he'll find an excuse for intervention."

Hume then talked about the possibility of a Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush matchup in 2016, saying this: "The way Jeb Bush is acting suggests a much greater interest in running this time than in any previous cycle. It has long been thought that the most talented politician in the Bush family is Jeb - he's very bright, very decent, and while he's not as conservative as some, he's certainly no liberal."

Earth to Brit Hume, if the Republicans nominate Bush they are idiots, because after what his brother did in his 8 years he will never win, and it will guarantee a victory for Hillary. I predict Bush will not run, and if he does, he will not win the Republican nomination.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about Brendan Eich, who helped found the innovative high-tech company Mozilla, and was forced to step down as CEO because he donated $1,000 to an anti-gay marriage initiative back in 2008. O'Reilly kept saying he was fired, which is not true, he resigned. Goldberg even said O'Reilly was wrong to say he was fired, but O'Reilly said Goldberg was a fool.

Goldberg said this: "If you lose your job because you have an 'incorrect' position on same-sex marriage, that's a pretty good example of liberal intolerance. This is what liberal orthodoxy looks like - on certain issues you are expected to march in lockstep, and if you don't you will be purged. You may lose your job and you will certainly be called a bigot. Liberals worship at the altar of diversity, but they won't tolerate diversity of opinion on issues that matter to them."

Proving Goldberg is an idiot, because liberals are tolerant, of minorities and gays, and most things. What they do not tolerate is bigotry and racism. If you are a bigot or a racist they call you out. What happened is the people wrote to Mozilla saying if you have an anti-gay CEO we will not use Mozilla products, so the CEO resigned. It's called a legal protest against a person at a company, no laws were broken, and in fact it was the free market in action. But O'Reilly and Goldberg hated it because a rich white guy lost his job over it.

Then the dumbest segment of the night was on, Jesse Watters hung around outside a Miley Cyrus concert the other evening, and showed some young attendees a few photos. Tellingly, most of them were unable to recognize Joe Biden, John Kerry, or Vladimir Putin. On the other hand, they were unanimously able to identify singer Katy Perry.

Back in the studio, Watters revealed more about his not-too-aware interviewees, saying this: "One of them was a male nurse, another was going to fashion school, some were in school and some were not. I want to interview their teachers now."

This is not news, it's garbage on a so-called hard news show. And btw, notice that O'Reilly never sends Watters to a Toby Keith concert to make them look like fools. These Watters segments are worthless and should not be on a news show.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Give, and You Will Receive. Billy said this: "Always keep in mind that when you're generous to others, the benefits will eventually flow back to you."

SNL Does Great Parody Of Fox & Friends
By: Steve - April 8, 2014 - 10:00am

In fact, the parody was so good it's not far off from being totally accurate, they are almost that dumb and misinformed.

The Anna Kendrick episode of "Saturday Night Live" saw another installment of "Fox & Friends," and this time the upbeat and clueless hosts hammered the horrors of Obamacare.

Kendrick made an appearance as one of the regular Americans who have been sidelined by the new healthcare laws; apparently, keeping your doctor isn't an option if that doctor has a restraining order against you.

Brian Kilmeade complained, "It's tough to sign up for things, I've tried for years to sign up for the NAACP!"

In addition to the horrors of the Affordable Care Act, the Friends also tackled climate change with a visit from Neil deGrasse Tyson (Kenan Thompson), who made a valiant attempt to explain science to them.

Here is the video, and it is great:

Republican Senator Finds Out He Is At The Wrong Hearing
By: Steve - April 7, 2014 - 11:00am

The Republican Senator Dan Coats from Indiana showed up at an appropriations subcommittee hearing Wednesday, but there was just one problem: he went to the wrong one. Feel free to make your own old-man jokes here.

Coats asked a question of the person testifying at the hearing, only to be handed a slip of paper and saying this: "I just got a note saying I'm at the wrong hearing. I've got the right room number, but the wrong hearing."

The Washington Post reports Coats, a former U.S. ambassador to Germany, had thanked the witness for responding to his query about the Indiana National Guard and was about to ask a question when a staffer handed him the piece of paper telling him he was at the wrong hearing.

David Cohen, a Treasury Department undersecretary, responded: "Well, that would explain why I didn't know anything about this letter."

Coats, who first served in the U.S. Senate from 1989 to 1999 before coming back in 2011, is quoted as saying in The Post report that such a mix-up had never happened to him before. And he eventually got to the defense hearing.

Bill Maher Slams John Roberts Supreme Court Ruling
By: Steve - April 6, 2014 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly said nothing about it, even though Roberts promised he would not make partisan rulings in his confirmation hearing. But when liberals on the court win a partisan ruling 5 to 4 O'Reilly goes nuts and calls it judicial activism.

Bill Maher did not mince words about his dismay surrounding the Supreme Court's recent decision on campaign contributions.

Maher blasted the court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling on his show Friday night. He specifically went after Chief Justice John Roberts reasoning that large donations are not reflective of "quid pro quo corruption."

"Either he is a liar or he is too naive to hold any important job including, and especially, this one," Maher said. "This is like a legal ruling written by the little mermaid."

As HuffPost's Paul Blumenthal explained Friday, the McCutcheon decision expanded the realm of ramifications for campaign finance reform. Previously, the 2010 Citizens United ruling had only addressed the "potential corrupting influence of independent political spending by corporations and unions."

"Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in 2010. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."

Now, that definition of corruption has been extended to independent campaign contributions. Republicans were pleased with the decision, with the RNC calling it an "important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees."

Several Democrats, headed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), paralleled Maher's sentiments on the ruling.

"This is a court that knows essentially nothing about elections. It's the first court in a long time on which no one has ever run for office," said Whitehouse, comparing the five justices who ruled for businessman Shaun McCutcheon to "the ultimate amateur who says, 'I know how to eat, so I can open a restaurant.'"

The Friday 4-4-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 5, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why America is Changing So Drastically. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Everywhere I go folks ask me what has happened to their country. We have gone from a traditional country to a secular society where politically correct thought dominates, especially in the mass media. It is quite clear that the founders based our justice system on Judeo-Christian tenets, which is why a sculpture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments adorns the Supreme Court building.

But today you could never put Moses and the Commandments on a public wall anywhere, the secular progressives would scream. Enter Jesus, the most famous human being who has ever lived. If you're a child attending a public school and living in a secular home, chances are you know little or nothing about Jesus because the schools are frightened to mention his name.

There's a big difference between philosophy and religion, and Jesus was a philosopher on this Earth. Some believed he was the messiah, others did not, but his message of brotherhood was philosophical. Don't you think American kids should know the philosophy behind our justice system? No, secular progressives have wiped that out.

Here's the bigger picture: When you have a secular progressive society, behavior changes. Fewer judgments are made, more lenient criminal sentences handed out, abortion and drug use become more acceptable. With a progressive president and a very left-leaning Democratic Party, you have an acceleration of secularism.

The outcome is likely to be a much weaker nation with less discipline, less motivation, and less generosity because the secular religion preaches that it's all about 'me.' So the next time you ask me where your country went, I'll tell you to read this Talking Points.
Here is what has happened to America, it left the Republican party behind, it's called progress. Religion should be in church and part of your private life, not in the schools or the courts or government, and not forced on people. If people want religion, they sure can find it O'Reilly. America had moved to the left, and will continue to do so, which O'Reilly hates because he is a right-wing stooge.

Then Laura Ingraham was on with her biased take on secularism.

Ingraham said this: "There is a new dogma, especially in our public schools, but it's a secular humanist dogma. Global warming and redefining marriage are the new dogmas, and most of the educrats have that world view. I wouldn't want a lot of these people to teach a Christian history because a lot of the biases against Christianity would make their way into the teaching. In the minds of the secular humanists, Jesus is about old-fashioned judgment, and they don't want to be judged!"

Then liberal radio talk show host Richard Fowler was on to talk about religion.

Fowler said this: "If we decide to put Jesus in textbooks, then we also have to put the Allah and Confucius in the textbooks. Our nation is becoming more and more diverse and we need to have education that reflects that diversity."

O'Reilly told Fowler that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, saying this: "Allah and Buddha didn't have any effect on the Founding Fathers. You can not teach American history without understanding what Moses did and what Jesus did."

Which makes no sense at all, and as usual O'Reilly makes stupid arguments to back up his ridiculous claims. What happened 200 years ago has little to no effect on what happens today. And the founding fathers did not want religion in schools, courts, or government.

Then Heather Nauert was on for mad as hell, she read angry emails. One of them, Mississippian Steve Norton, is upset because people overlook Fort Hood when claiming there has not been a terror attack since President Obama has been elected.

Nauert said this: "Fort Hood was not a terror attack, because there were no co-conspirators." D.T. Smith of Minnesota is peeved at liberal politicians who don't believe welfare recipients should be drug-tested. "In Michigan there will be a pilot project in three counties," Nauert said, "and if someone on welfare is suspected of being a drug user they can be tested. Their cash benefits could be taken away for six months."

You people are fools, they already tried this in a couple states, and the drug use rate was less than 3% so the testing cost more than they saved from catching people on drugs. Not to mention this, it's a free country and if someone wants to do drugs they should be allowed to, and it should have nothing to do with if they get welfare or not. The government gives money to corporations but they do not want them drug tested.

Then it was recently pointed out that while about 6% of applicants to Harvard get accepted, far fewer applicants to Wal-Mart get hired. Bernard McGuirk and Brian Kilmeade crunched the numbers.

McGuirk said this: "This is apples and oranges, mocking the statistic. "Only about 4% of the population is on welfare and only about 1% is in prison, so I'm not sure what the point of this is."

Kilmeade bemoaned the fact that so many people are desperately seeking security, saying this: "People apply to Wal-Mart because no one wants to go out on their own, no one wants to start their own business, they want safety and security. Where are the people who want to open their own deli or hardware store?"

Earth to Kilmeade, people are not opening their own deli or hardware stores because of walmart, the internet, and the economy, they fail and file bankruptcy.

McGuirk also had some fun with the news that some pro football teams will allow fans in high-priced seats to get a pre-game personal visit from a cheerleader, saying this: "This is not your father's NFL. There are no more concussion-causing hits, there are openly gay players, and now the babes are going up to twerk for the drunks up in the stands!"

Then McGuirk and Kilmeade returned to nominate their pinheads as the week's most ridiculous people. Kilmeade picked Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, who grumbled about how tough it is for a member of Congress to live on just $175,000 a year. "Moran makes three times more than the average person in his district. He makes the same as a pediatrician or a dentist or a psychiatrist."

McGuirk went with Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, who testified about the Benghazi attacks. "This guy is a total weasel. He was covering up for Hillary Clinton and he says he didn't 'deliberately' mislead or downplay the role of terrorism. I don't believe a word of it."

O'Reilly named Iran President Hassan Rouhani and explained why: "He is sending to New York City as the United Nations ambassador a man named Hamid Aboutalebi, who was one of the hostage-takers back in the Carter administration. This is an insult to every single American!"

Notice that was 3 Republicans in the pinhead of the week segment, no Democrats to name any pinheads on the right.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Some Friend-ly Advice. Billy said this: "Good friends are hard to come by and it helps if you're a good friend to others. That means making time, being loyal, and being honest."

Colbert Slams The O'Reilly Income Inequality Logic
By: Steve - April 5, 2014 - 10:00am

Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly attempted to make the case that income inequality in America is no different than the physical inequality he has with Shaquille O'Neal, for instance. Last night, Stephen Colbert broke down O'Reilly's so-called "airtight logic" and came to the defense of his "papa bear."

In addition to his Shaq comparison, O'Reilly also said he'll never be as smart as Albert Einstein, as talented as Mozart or as kind as Mother Teresa, but Colbert thought that list was too "modest."

According to Colbert, O'Reilly will also never be "as emotionally mature as a toddler" and "will never hold a small stack of paper together as well as a binder clip," among other analogies.

"Some people are better at some things than other people are at that thing, so trying to achieve equality is unnatural," Colbert explained.

Going back to the original example once more, Colbert concluded with this: "Shaquille O'Neal is taller than Bill O'Reilly, therefore the richest 1 percent of Americans should control 40 percent of the nation's wealth."

In other words, Colbert was basically saying the O'Reilly argument against income equality is ridiculous and made no sense.

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

The TPM was called: More Horrible Violence. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Once again Fort Hood in Texas was the scene of horrible violence. 34-year old Army Specialist Ivan Lopez apparently went berserk Wednesday, shooting three people dead and wounding 16 others before committing suicide. Lopez was having emotional and mental problems; he leaves behind a wife and children.

Some irresponsible pundits will blame this on guns, others on untreated mental illness, and others on a bad culture. But what this is really all about is freedom. There are more than 325-million of us in the USA; we have freedom of movement, we have the freedom to protect ourselves with firearms, and we have the freedom to act crazy without much accountability. Because of freedom, it is very difficult to get any mentally unstable person off the street.

If you are a loon in China, you will be removed from society and the ACLU will not be able to help you. But here, in an open society, we tolerate all kinds of bizarre behavior, and a portion of any population is going to do violent things.

There is nothing we can do to stop those people, nothing except give up our freedom. The mass killings at Fort Hood are unacceptable, and if I had a solution I would give it to you. But random violence will always be with us; evil human beings armed with freedom make that terrible scenario inevitable.
Then O'Reilly had Col. David Hunt and Col. Ralph Peters on, he asked them if most soldiers on military bases should carry their weapons.

Peters said this: "That would be absolutely nuts, If our soldiers carried their loaded weapons at all times, that assassin yesterday would not have had a .45 handgun, he would have had a loaded assault rifle. Do we really want a soldier to have a loaded M16 on his shoulder if he's having a marital spat? When you have an incident like this, you want trained responders who know what they're doing, you don't want every finance clerk firing his M16."

Hunt concluded that not much can actually be done to deter rogue soldiers such as Ivan Lopez, saying this: "We could use much more help in mental health, and the only other possibility to discuss would be considering arming some leadership on the base. This is a random act of violence that is almost not preventable."

Then Psychiatrists Keith Ablow and Daniel Bober were on to talk about the Fort Hood carnage from a mental health perspective.

Ablow said this: "You can cure mental illness, so I wouldn't be defeatist about this. But we have disassembled our mental health care system. This shooter was in treatment, but we know in other cases of mass shootings the quality of care was lousy. To get a dangerous person hospitalized is a fight."

Bober contended that mass shootings are no more commonplace than in previous eras, saying this: "If you use the FBI's definition of mass shootings, there has not been an increase in mass shootings over the last 40 years. So we really have to be careful about who we pin the blame on. While we could improve the mental health system, I don't know that there's much more we could have done in this situation."

Then Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was on to talk about the worthless and partisan Benghazi hearing, which I will not report on because it is not news and is an old story that Republicans will never let die.

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk again about the teachers union in Michigan who was defending 39-year-old Neal Erickson, until he was convicted of raping one of his male students and was demanding $10,000 in severance pay.

MacCallum said this: "The union has withdrawn its grievance, and they just want this to go away. But if the union had a shred of decency, they should have been the first to say this guy should not get severance."

MacCallum also viewed a political TV ad that has gone viral, in which Iowa Republican Joni Ernst boasts that she "grew up castrating hogs" and therefore knows how to cut pork. After conducting extensive research, MacCallum said this: "Hogs can get aggressive, and not every hog needs to have reproductive capability. It also apparently makes the meat better."

Then Maria Bartiromo was on to talk about author Michael Lewis new book that claims the stock market is "rigged" by super-fast computer mavens who manipulate trades and earn billions.

Bartiromo said this: "I don't think the stock market is rigged, and it's fiery and abusive to say that and scare people out of the market. The best way to create wealth is through equities. There definitely are abuses around high frequency trading, but the truth is that these people don't know the first thing about stocks. They know about technology and speed, and the retail investor is not affected."

But O'Reilly was not comforted by Bartiromo's words, saying this: "I see these wild gyrations in the market, and now with this high-tech stuff you can push a button and sell 2-million shares in a millisecond. That frightens me."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, just O'Reilly making a joke about something Bill Clinton said about aliens on the Jimmy Kimmel show.

Ted Cruz Obamacare Facebook Poll Backfired On Him
By: Steve - April 4, 2014 - 10:00am

Last Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) posted a "quick poll" on his Facebook page asking his followers if they are better off now than before the Affordable Care Act passed four years earlier. A week later with the Obamacare sign-up deadline upon us, the unscientific results are in and they are not what Cruz was hoping for.

After seven days, the post has accumulated more than 47,000 comments with a startling number of people answering in the affirmative. The way Facebook works, the comments with the most Likes rise to the top of the post. Almost every one of the most-liked comments answers a resounding Yes to Cruz's question.

"Yes! Everyone in my family has a pre-existing condition that range from minor to serious," Felicia Willems wrote. "We were uninsurable on the individual market. Now we've got great coverage through We did NOT get a subsidy but it still fits our budget!"

"YES, best law ever!" Lili Ann Fuller said.

"YES, YES & YES!! Hands Off My Obamacare!!" Shelley Laysi Peterson added enthusiastically.

And it goes on and on from there.'s Reno Berkeley delved into the post's responses even further on Sunday and noted that the "vast majority of the people responding to the senator's question liked the law."

Cruz may tell you that Americans hate Obamacare, but at least on Facebook, he just proved that's not necessarily the case.

And in a poll asking people if they like Obamacare on it was 80% yes, and 20% no.

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

The TPM was called: Americans and Obamacare. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Why don't Americans know much about ObamaCare? Simply put, it's too confusing. The law runs 2,500 pages and very few human beings have ever read it in its entirety. We the people are dependent on politicians to tell us what the law is, but objectivity is scarce and there is still mass confusion.

The latest polling on ObamaCare is grim, with more than half of Americans opposed to the law. Something that is supposed to help all Americans should be very popular, correct? On Tuesday Charles Krauthammer really blasted ObamaCare, saying it's a disaster and will remain so. Charles is a doctor and an honest guy, so if he's so adamant against it, I have to take notice.

But to be fair, we will not know if the new law helps Americans for another few months at least. That's when insurance companies will begin telling us whether they're taking a financial bath. Also, Charles says many doctors are fleeing the medical arena and I know that's true. That will be the deciding factor: If American physicians don't cooperate, the law is going to fail.
Haha, thats funny. Krauthammer is not an honest guy, he is a biased partisan hack who gets paid to spin out right-wing propaganda and lies, just like O'Reilly does.

Then Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis was on to discuss it, saying this: "We have to step back and look at what the problem was. We had tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, a serious problem that needed to be addressed. We can argue about what the best strategy was, but now you have about 7-million people who have signed up through the exchanges and 3-million people who are on their parents' plan. It is a positive when you didn't have health insurance and now you do."

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on to talk about the millionth partisan Benghazi hearing the Republicans in the House had, which I do not report on, especially when there is no Democratic guests on for balance.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, as O'Reilly reported previously, the largest teachers union in Michigan was defending 39-year-old Neal Erickson, who was convicted of raping one of his male students and was demanding $10,000 in severance pay.

MacCallum said this: "The union has withdrawn its grievance, and they just want this to go away. But if the union had a shred of decency, they should have been the first to say this guy should not get severance."

MacCallum also viewed a political TV ad that has gone viral, in which Iowa Republican Joni Ernst boasts that she "grew up castrating hogs" and therefore knows how to cut pork. After conducting extensive research, MacCallum cut to the quick and elaborated on the dreaded "C word." "Hogs can get aggressive," she explained, "and not every hog needs to have reproductive capability. It also apparently makes the meat better."

Then the idiotic Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was on to talk about Benghazi, which of course I will not report on.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Child Abuse Hotline. Billy said this: "If you know of a child who is a victim of abuse, an important phone number to keep at hand is 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453), which is the National Child Abuse Hotline."

Partisan Supreme Court Rules Billionaires Can Buy Elections
By: Steve - April 3, 2014 - 10:00am

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reacted to the Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited overall campaign contributions from individuals with a fiery statement Wednesday morning. "Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government," Sanders said.

He is talking about the 5 conservatives who voted to allow it, and the 4 liberals that voted to not allow it. So it was a partisan ruling all the way, the very kind of ruling O'Reilly complains about, except when the 5 conservatives win, then he says nothing because he agrees with them.

"What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in?" Sanders continued.

"To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with 'freedom of speech' is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process."

In a subsequent tweet, Sanders illustrated his point with an image of the American flag made out of dollar bills and corporate logos.

As the press release that accompanied Sanders statement explained, the senator has "proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn that ruling and make clear preventing quid pro quo corruption is not the only reason we should regulate campaign finance."

Republican Ph.D. Loves His New Obamacare Policy
By: Steve - April 3, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about it, as he claims the Obama health care law is in chaos, while 6 million people have signed up even with the website problems. Which is more proof O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack.

Mark D. Bearden is a retired psychologist living in Monroe, North Carolina. In February, he wrote a letter to the President letting him know what the Affordable Care Act has meant to him. The message below was sent to the White House email list:

I am a staunch Republican, a self-proclaimed Fox News addict, and I didn't vote for the President. And I'm here to tell you that Obamacare works. I'm living proof.

I'm a chemotherapy patient, and was previously paying $428 a month for my health coverage. I was not thrilled when it was cancelled.

Then I submitted an application at I looked at my options. And I signed up for a plan for $62 a month.

It's the best health care I have ever had.

So right now, here's what I want to tell anyone who still needs health insurance, or knows someone who does:

Sign up. Follow the instructions on the website. Apply, and look at your options. You still have time, and take it from me: This is something you want to do.

I wrote a letter to President Obama this past February to tell him about my experience with the Health Insurance Marketplace. I hoped he'd read it, and he did.

I may not be a supporter of the President. But now, I get mad when I see Obamacare dragged through the mud on television.

And even though I regularly tune in to conservative pundits, I'd like to tell them they're getting it wrong. Obamacare works.

So one more time: If you still need health insurance, you have just three days to get it. Do what I did. Go to, submit an application, and pick a plan that works for you.

It just might change your life.

Mark D. Bearden, Ph.D.
Monroe, North Carolina

The Tuesday 4-1-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 2, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Benghazi Update. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly reported on Benghazi again.

Since the biased right-wing hack O'Reilly did another TPM on Benghazi I am not reporting it, this has been investigated to death and there is nothing there, but the Republicans keep wasting time on it anyway, and the biased idiot O'Reilly keeps reporting it, even though the rest of the country moved on a year ago.

O'Reilly also had the Republican Congressman Mike Rogers on to discuss it, and nobody cares, the story is over and I refuse to report on it anymore. And btw, as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance, making it one sided biased right-wing spin, that is against the rules of journalism. Seven Republicans were on the show, to one Democrat, who was not allowed to talk about Benghazi, and had to be on with a Republican, while all the other Republicans were on alone.

Then the Republican fool Eric Bolling was on to talk about what O'Reilly said Monday about the Tesla electric car. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Bolling said this: "The government loaned Tesla $500-million, and we still pay every single Tesla buyer $7,500 just to buy the darned car. This is a car that uses electricity that is made through firing up a coal power plant. If everyone drove a Tesla the air would be horrible because all these coal and oil and gas power plants would be spewing carbon into the air. This is an $80,000 car that only the likes of DiCaprio, Clooney, and O'Reilly can afford."

O'Reilly said that electric cars serve a greater good: "The more gasoline we can get away from, the more OPEC gets hurt. And if electric cars are all over the globe, Putin's whole structure collapses."

And btw, for the record Bolling is partly wrong, because some electricity is created from solar and wind power farms, he acts like all the electricity we use is from coal and gas, and that is just wrong. Not to mention, the natural gas plants burn clean, so it puts out very little carbon.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about a disturbing new trend in which students post YouTube video "tutorials" that often include false allegations and are intended to get their teachers fired. So the only liberal on the entire show gets to talk about this tabloid garbage, and nothing else.

Crowley said this: "This really scares me, because it touches on a bigger issue about kids and the Internet and what they're trying to do. There is a cultural breakdown of respect for authority."

Colmes said this: "These don't look like satire to me and it's terrible. You may wind up where you're going to need a video camera in a classroom all the time so people know what's going on."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about legalized gambling, saying this: "I bet on sports with friends all the time, because it excites me and it makes me root for that team. Adults should be able to do anything that's peaceful. I agree that at casinos people lose all their money but just keep going. That's repulsive, but banning it doesn't stop it!"

O'Reilly worried that Stossel's legalization prescription would lead to more gambling addiction, saying this: "If it was easy to gamble on the Internet all day long and your living room was your casino, you don't think there would be an explosion of people losing the rent money? I would never support unfettered gambling everywhere because I think it's harmful."

Okay O'Reilly this is real simple, you are an idiot. This is America pal, the so-called land of the free and the home of the brave. Gambling should be legal because it's a free country, just because you think it's harmful does not mean it should be banned. And even if you did ban it, you could never enforce the ban, it's ridiculous and a waste of time and money to fight it. People are going to gamble no matter what the laws are, and it should be legal.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to spin and lie about Obamacare, because he is a biased right-wing hack who hates Obama and Obamacare. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "The numbers they are touting are phony, It's like saying anyone who goes on Amazon and puts something in his 'shopping cart' has purchased it. They can't tell you how many people have actually paid the premium."

Hey idiot, if they signed up they will pay the premiums, or else they will pay a penalty. And if they got a cheaper plan with better coverage the odds are 99.9% they are going to pay the premiums, fool!

Krauthammer also said this: "I talk to doctors who were in medical school with me and they're desperately trying to retire. They've lost autonomy and authority and are working twice as hard."

More lies from the right, the right said all the doctors would quit, and that never happened, but they keep lying that they will anyway. They also said they would never get the 7 million sign ups either, but they did. So now they just claim it's all a lie and that they will never pay the premiums for the health care plan they took the time to sign up for, which is just ridiculous right-wing garbage.

And finally, the Factor tip of the day called: "The Plane Truth." That was not a tip, it was simply O'Reilly bragging about his ratings for the missing plane reporting he did, even though he complained about the rest of the media reporting it so much for ratings, my God he is a massive hypocrite.

Another Dishonest Fox News Chart On Obamacare
By: Steve - April 2, 2014 - 10:00am

And it was shown by the so-called non-partisan straight news anchor Bill Hemmer. With no corrections or retractions later in the day, or ever.

Fox News showed a dramatically skewed chart to suggest enrollment for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would come up far short of the initial estimate of 7 million enrollees.

On March 27, health insurance enrollment through the ACA's exchanges surpassed 6 million, exceeding the revised estimate of enrollees for the program's first year before the March 31 open enrollment deadline.

Enrollment appears on track to hit the Congressional Budget Office's initial estimate of 7 million sign-ups, and taking Medicaid enrollees into account, the ACA will have reportedly extended health care coverage to at least 9.5 million previously uninsured individuals.

Fox celebrated the final day of open enrollment by attempting to somehow twist the recent enrollment surge into bad news for the law.

America's Newsroom aired an extremely skewed bar chart which made it appear that the 6 million enrollees comprised roughly one-third of the 7 million enrollee goal:

The difference between the March 27 enrollment figure and CBO's original estimate of 7 million enrollees is slightly less than 1 million, and here is what the chart should have looked like:

This attempt to misrepresent data is nothing new for Fox, which has a history of using dishonest charts to smear the Obama administration.

And of course neither O'Reilly, Goldberg, or Howard Kurtz ever say a word about any of it, even though they all do media watchdog segments and shows every week on Fox. None of them ever mention any of it, while slamming CNN and MSNBC for what they claim is liberal bias.

Obama Health Care Law On Track To Hit 7 Million Sign-Ups
By: Steve - April 1, 2014 - 1:30pm

AP: Obama's health care law on track to hit 7 million sign-ups on deadline day.

Beating expectations, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans for health insurance on deadline day Monday, government officials told The Associated Press.

The 7 million target, thought to be out of reach by most experts, was in sight on a day that saw surging consumer interest as well as vexing computer glitches that slowed sign-ups on the website.

Two government officials confirmed the milestone, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an official announcement.

Seven million was the original target set by the Congressional Budget Office for enrollment in taxpayer-subsidized private health insurance through new online markets created under Obama's signature legislation.

But over in O'Reillyworld, it's a disaster, chaos, and a total failure. So if they meet the 7 million goal even with all the website problems in the first month, how in the hell can that be chaos and a disaster? What say you O'Reilly?

Another Senate Torture Report O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - April 1, 2014 - 11:30am

Under the Bush administration O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends justified illegal torture because they said we got good information from it that saved American lives. Even though many of the guys who did the torture, or were involved in getting the info together, said it did not do any good, O'Reilly and some on the right said it worked anyway.

Now we have another Senate torture report that says waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to congressional aides and outside experts familiar with the investigation.

From the moment of bin Laden's death almost three years ago in what was America's biggest counterterrorism success, former Bush administration and some senior CIA officials have cited the evidence trail leading to the al-Qaida mastermind's compound in Pakistan as vindicating the "enhanced interrogation techniques" they authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But Democratic and some Republican senators have disputed that account. They described simulated drownings, sleep deprivation and other such practices as cruel and ineffective.

The report, congressional aides and outside experts said, examines the treatment of several high-level terror detainees and the information they provided on bin Laden. The aides and people briefed on the report spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the confidential document.

The most high-profile detainee linked to the bin Laden investigation was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the CIA waterboarded 183 times. Mohammed, intelligence officials have noted, confirmed after his 2003 capture that he knew an important al-Qaida courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

But the report concludes that such information wasn't critical, according to the aides. Mohammed only discussed al-Kuwaiti months after being waterboarded, while he was under standard interrogation, they said. And Mohammed neither acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's significance nor provided interrogators with the courier's real name.

The report concludes evidence gathered from al-Libi wasn't significant either. Essentially, they argued, Mohammed, al-Libi and others subjected to harsh treatment confirmed only what investigators already knew about the courier.

And when they denied the courier's significance or provided misleading information, investigators would only have considered that significant if they already presumed the courier's importance.

Aides said Levin and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who himself was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam more than four decades ago, are among those pushing hard to ensure the investigation's findings related to the bin Laden pursuit and CIA interrogations are made public.

They and Feinstein were among the critics of how the hunt was portrayed in the film "Zero Dark Thirty," which they said was fictional.

The Monday 3-31-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 1, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Two things that will affect your life. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The rollout of the Affordable Health Care law has been complete chaos, but that doesn't mean mandatory health insurance won't work eventually. Republicans despise ObamaCare because it expands government and forces people to buy insurance they may not want. Democrats love it because it subsidizes insurance for the poor.

President Obama's legacy is riding on ObamaCare; if it's running smoothly and costs are under control by the time he leaves office, he'll get credit for courage and innovation. But if it's a chaotic disaster, he'll go down in history as a poor president.

Now, on to global warming. A UN panel says the Earth is in peril, especially the poor, who will apparently be harmed by man-made climate change more than others. But again, nobody really knows whether that's true. You cannot destroy your economy while embracing a phantom 'global warming' theory, even if that theory might someday be valid. But I will give you one concrete thing that all responsible people should be rooting for.

'60 Minutes' reported on the Tesla electric car, which could be available to millions at a decent price in the next few years. Everybody on the planet should be rooting for Tesla. If Tesla can make a clean car, the entire auto industry can. Our air would be cleaner and our wallets thicker.

But there will be resistance as many conservatives don't believe in 'global warming' and oppose alternative energy. I hope you guys rethink the energy part. I understand that many in the green lobby are arrogant, self-righteous, and dumb. But we would all be better off if clean, cheap energy becomes the norm.
And now a reality check for the right-wing idiot Bill O'Reilly, yes Obamacare had a few problems with the website, but now it's going good and 6 million people have signed up, so it is not chaos as you claim, that's ridiculous. And not only that, they are on the way to hitting the 7 million goal, and almost 9 million people now have have insurance they did not have a year ago. So stop lying about it, jerk!

Then Juan Williams was on to talk about the Tea Party activist Jennifer Stefano, who was on MSNBC last week, where host Chris Hayes informed her that she obviously doesn't care about poor people. And he was right, but O'Reilly and the right flipped out about it, even though he was telling the truth. The tea party is a bunch of right-wing racist nuts that do not care about the poor.

Williams said this: "If you look at the numbers, people who identify with the Tea Party is at an all-time low. What you got here from MSNBC was explosive TV, but basically they brought her on to beat her up and make her into a living pinata. And she fell for it."

O'Reilly concluded that Tea Party folks should know when they're walking into a buzz saw, saying this: "Democrats want to elevate the Tea Party and use it to scare voters in November. I don't understand why the Tea Party doesn't understand that."

Because they are idiots, and btw O'Reilly, the majority of Republicans do not even like the tea party now, because they figured out they are mostly far-right racist fools that make them look bad, and a lot of it was a scam to make money. O'Reilly seems to be the only guy that does not know that, or he just ignores and denies it.

Then police representative Paul Broome and New Mexico legislator Antonio Maestas were on to talk about violent protests in Albuquerque over the weekend, where some residents are outraged over the number of suspects shot by police recently.

Maestas said this: "The police shootings are off the charts. There have been 37 shootings and 23 homicides. 23 police-involved shootings in a city of 600,000 does not jibe with the rest of the country!"

But the police rep Broome claimed that cops are often defending themselves against violent people, saying this: "We have gangs and a mental health situation that is in a state of collapse. There is also a lot of domestic violence and police officers are risking their lives."

Then public relations expert Bill McGowan was on to talk about something Gwyneth Paltrow said, that is tabloid garbage and not news so I will not be reporting on it.

Then Richard Roeper & Raymond Arroyo were on to talk about some religious people (Republicans) who are upset that the movie "Noah" is light on religion, heavy on environmentalism. So the Catholic broadcaster Raymond Arroyo and film critic Richard Roper evaluated the movie and its messages.

Arroyo said this: "The reaction I've gotten over the last few days from people who have seen the movie, has been nothing short of titanic. This is a dark depiction and it deviates from the Bible's story, which has rattled audiences. Noah believes God is moving him to wipe out his grandchildren!"

But Roper gave the film an enthusiastic thumbs-up, saying this: "This is big-budget entertainment and it has to have a lot of factors. If you're just going to show Noah as a kindly 550-year-old man who leads the animals onto the ark, that's a 10-minute cartoon and that's been done before. Of course it deviates from the text, but so does almost every other fictional Hollywood movie ever made."

And I would say this to the religious right, lighten up, it's a movie.

Then the moron Jesse Watters was on with his non-news waste of tv time nonsense, he went down to the Jersey Turnpike in Philadelphia, and asked people a few of the same questions that are posed to prospective U.S. citizens.

For example, how many Senators are there? One young woman said 10, while a young man guessed 300. And when it came to naming the president during World War II, the answers included JFK, Nixon, and Washington. Watters, displaying a severe lack of brotherly love, threatened to deport one particularly dim interviewee.

And I would say this, can we deport Jesse Watters and get rid of this worthless waste of tv time segment?

And finally the Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was just O'Reilly using the tip of the day segment to promote a new childrens book he has out.

Remember This When You Vote In The Next Election
By: Steve - April 1, 2014 - 10:00am

If you are one of the 2.2 million Americans who will not get an unemployment extension, you can thank the Republican speaker of the House John Boehner and all the Republicans in Congress who would not vote to give you the money you worked for, earned, and deserved.

And not only did the House Republicans and their leader block you from getting that money, they cost the economy $5 billion dollars just on this one bill. And btw, it passed the Senate, with some Republican votes. But Boehner and the Republicans killed it in the House.

Chalk another success up for House Republicans in their jihad against the economic recovery. They've caused the economy to lose nearly $5 billion since they refused to renew extended unemployment compensation for more than 2.2 million Americans.

And this $5 billion isn't all that House Republicans have irresponsibly and for partisan political purposes cost the US taxpayer, as their IRS witch hunts, Benghazi hearings, and 48 ObamaCare repeal votes and hearings haven't exactly been cheap.

The U.S. economy has lost $4.7 billion ($4,698,892,545 to be exact) in the first three months of the year due to the Dec. 28 expiration of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation, according to an analysis released Monday by Ways and Means Committee Democrats.

Sandy Levin (D-MI) knows, like most people with at least a modicum of intelligence, that unemployment is not just for the unemployed, but it also helps to boost the economy. He wearily explained this fact again in case any Republicans were listening, "Unemployment insurance has played a vital role in our economic recovery and the program's expiration has drained billions of dollars from state economies during the last three months."

Last week, Senate Republicans shamed House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) over his refusal to help the economy and the jobless to no avail. So it's the Sane Senators Versus the House Republicans in a battle to the death.

This House. They don't want to help America, so this argument might be the wrong tact to take. It's tough to know with modern day Republicans, between their lusting after Putin and their frat boy tweets to world leaders, just what kind of tone should be set when attempting to have policy discussions.

When Bush was in office these same House Republicans voted yes every time to extend unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. So maybe this is just for the sane folks. Which makes it perfect. After all, before Obama, extending long term unemployment was just something Congress did because it was helpful for the economy. Now it's suddenly a partisan thing for House Republicans, so they vote no when Obama is in office.

The Senate passed a bipartisan agreement to pay for the renewal, but that's not good enough for House Republicans, who claim some kind of bizarre moral superiority regarding fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they are tossing money into the trash just to be spiteful.

In other words, they are pretty much traitors if you ask me, they are blocking that money to make Obama look bad, because he would get credit for helping them and for making the economy better, which is borderline treason in my book. And of course O'Reilly says nothing about it, because he supports what they are doing.