Study Finds Democratic Presidents Create Double The Jobs As Republicans
By: Steve - October 31, 2014 - 10:00am

This has been reported by me in the past before, and now there is a new study that says the same thing, Democratic President are better at creating jobs and better for the economy, and you have never seen O'Reilly report it then, or will he ever report it. Because it kills his right-wing propaganda that Republican Presidents create more jobs and are better for the economy.

A study of economic data over the past 75 years revealed that Democratic presidents create twice as many jobs and three times more job growth than Republicans.

An analysis of seventy-five years worth of economic data by economist Steve Stoft, and economic researcher Nathan Salminen revealed that Democratic presidents create a lot more jobs than Republicans.

Stoft found that Democrats have created twice as many jobs as Republicans. From 1940-2014, Democratic presidents have created 74 million jobs, while Republican presidents have created 35 million jobs.

And it's not just the overall number of jobs created. Job growth increases more under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. Since 1940, job growth has increased 3% per year under Democrats and 1% per year under Republicans.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) also reaches its highest point when Democrats control both the White House and Congress (5.2%).

When control of the White House and Congress is split between the parties, GDP growth is 2.9%. When Republicans control both the White House and Congress, GDP grows at (-.8%).

The data demonstrates that Democrats really do create more jobs than Republicans. Democratic ideas are more effective in terms of job creation than Republican policies. Tax cuts for the rich and other trickle down economic theories don't work.

Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly tells you, he says Democratic policies create less jobs than Republicans and the economy does better with Republicans in power. Even though it's a lie and he knows it, the stats prove it, but he still lies about it. The facts show that the Democratic presidents create more jobs, GDP is higher, and job growth is better, these are the facts, which is why O'Reilly never mentions them.

And get this, even though he has been saddled with a Republican controlled House, President Obama has done a great job turning the economy around after the Bush created Great Recession.

Republican economic policies don't work because they substitute ideological belief for fact. Republicans have built their economic policy around the belief that wealth should be transferred upwards to the top.

The message to voters is clear. If the American people want more jobs and a better economy, the best move they could make would be to elect Democrats to Congress. A Democratic Congress and a Democratic president would do far better for this economy.

O'Reilly Slams Franken While Ignoring Republican Who Did The Same Thing
By: Steve - October 30, 2014 - 11:00am

The biased O'Reilly is back to slamming the Democrat Al Franken because he hates him and because he is a liberal. On his Wednesday night show the biased hypocrite O'Reilly slammed Franken for not answering a question about Ebola, saying he should not be in office if he can not answer a simple question.

O'Reilly claimed Franken embarrassed himself in a debate when he refused to say whether he favors Ebola-related travel restrictions.

Martha MacCallum was the guest, and she said this: "How can anyone go into a debate without an answer to that? It reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit with someone making fun of a Senator who won't answer questions. But he has about $4.2 million dollars, about half coming from New York and California."

O'Reilly concluded with two rhetorical questions: "How can anyone pull the lever for this man? What is happening to this country."

With no Democratic guest for balance. Just O'Reilly and MacCallum from Fox News. And they ignored all the Republicans that do the very same thing, including the Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst, who is refusing to answer questions from any of the Iowa newspapers. O'Reilly has totally ignored it and not said one word about her not answering any questions.

After spending weeks avoiding interviews with Iowa newspaper editorial boards who threatened to ask substantive policy questions, Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst took refuge on Fox News, where hosts lavished her with uncritical praise.

Ernst has recently come under fire after cancelling or declining meetings with the editorial boards of major Iowa newspapers. Staff at key Iowa papers told Media Matters that Ernst's recent avoidance of them is nearly unprecedented and pointed to the importance of local papers as forum for candidates "to explain one's positions" to voters in her state.

But Ernst isn't avoiding the media entirely.

On October 24th, Ernst sat down for a softball interview with the hosts of Fox & Friends. Fox ran two of Ernst's campaign ads -- her infamous pig castration spot and a recent sequel -- while co-host Peter Johnson, Jr. commented that Ernst had "captured the imagination of voters."

Co-host Brian Kilmeade called her "one of the more exciting new candidates."

After co-host Anna Kooiman suggested that Ernst had set herself apart by not deciding to go negative, Fox aired a campaign ad on economic issues from her Democratic competitor, Rep. Bruce Braley, with an on-air graphic hyping "Democratic Attacks."

The hosts gave Ernst the chance to criticize Braley but failed to press her for details about a platform many see as extreme.

Fox & Friends praise of Ernst and string of softball questions is in line with the network's previous treatment of Ernst, which has previously conspicuously avoided mention of her controversial platform.

Ernst is a climate change denier and has promoted a Glenn Beck conspiracy theory about the "United Nations' superseding U.S. laws, states nullifying federal laws and impeaching Obama."

She has claimed that Obama has "become a dictator" and should be impeached. The Washington Post has criticized Ernst for trying to "cover her tracks" on her previous support for a 'personhood' amendment that would ban abortion and some forms of contraception.

And yet, O'Reilly does not report one word about any of it, even though she is an extreme right Tea Party nut, but he sure has time to slam Al Franken, for not answering one question at a debate. At least he showed up for the debate, Ernst will not even show up to answer any questions, which is far worse than what Franken did.

Bill O'Reilly Says Many Americans Are Simply Dumb
By: Steve - October 30, 2014 - 10:00am

And the reason he said that is because they vote for Democrats, even though a new study just came out that shows twice as many jobs are created under Democratic presidents than Republicans, GDP is higher, and job growth is better. O'Reilly ignores all that to slam people as dumb who vote for Democrats.

That is proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing fool that puts his partisan ideology ahead of the facts. He is basically telling you that if you do not vote Republican you are dumb, even though all the stats show that the majority of Americans are far better off when they elect Democrats, the only people that benefit under Republicans are the wealthy and the corporations.

And remember this folks, when liberals called people dumb for voting Republican when Bush was the President, O'Reilly called them un-American. But now he is doing the exact same thing, talk about being a hypocrite, he is the king of hypocrisy. O'Reilly even said he would buy them a one-way plant ticket to China, and also told them to shut up and support the President during a time of war. But now the rules have changed for O'Reilly, because we have a Democratic president.

O'Reilly began his show Tuesday night by reading off several polls about where Republicans and Democrats stand just one week ahead of the elections. For the most part, the surveys showed some bad news for President Obama and the Democratic party, except for one.

When asked which party people trust to do a "better job with the nation's problems," the public sided with Democrats.

This did not please O'Reilly at all.

O'Reilly said this: "Many American citizens are simply dumb. They don't know anything. And when you don't know anything, you'll buy anything and propaganda rules."

Which is funny, because that is what O'Reilly and Fox News do, propaganda and their viewers are always the least informed about politics in every study. And yet he claims the Democrats are dumb to vote Democrat, when the facts show it's the Republicans who are dumb to vote Republican, unless you are rich you are a fool to vote for any Republican.

O'Reilly finished with one final warning, claiming that if the American people continue to "look away" and elect "incompetent people," "there will be a major disaster in this country."

Republican Corruption News Bill O'Reilly Is Not Reporting About
By: Steve - October 29, 2014 - 10:00am

The #1 mandate for the media is to report on political corruption, this is why we have the media, to be a check and balance on the people who run the country, Congressman, Mayors, Senators, etc.

And O'Reilly ignores it all, unless it involves a Democrat, then he is all over it. Now get this, I bet you did not know that there are currently 11 Republican governors either under indictment, under investigation, or under intense scrutiny for their ethics violations and outright crimes. You do not know about it because Bill O'Reilly ignores it, he does not report on political corruption, unless it involves a Democrat.

There is an old saying; "You are known by the company you keep," that means ones personality is defined by those they identify with, and it is curious why any person would embrace corrupt and dishonest people to inform their identity.

One might expect that Americans would demand their leaders possessed a high degree of integrity, but that belief implies that all Americans are honest and driven by strong ethical principles. Sadly, that is simply not the case.

There is a large sector of the population that not only condones and admires corruption and dishonesty, they celebrate it in their elected government representatives; these corrupt Americans are the Republican base. Republicans have stepped up to meet their base's demand to be corrupt, and dishonest, and it is evident in the preponderance of Republican governors under investigation for all manner of corruption.

What is telling about their supporters own lack of ethical principles is that these Republicans polling numbers are much higher than one would expect.

Apparently, corruption is as cherished as a virtue among conservatives as overt racism, misogyny, jingoism, religious extremism, and general hatred.

There are currently 11 Republican governors either under indictment, under investigation, or under intense scrutiny for their ethics violations and outright crimes. According to a report last month, the 11 sitting Republican governors are involved in scandals of their own creation, and nine of the eleven are running for re-election.

Most are either leading in the polls or staying competitive with their challengers informing that, at least in their respective states, their base embraces their corruption and in some cases supports their intent to take their corrupt ways to the U.S. Senate.

One former Republican governor, South Dakota's Mike Rounds, is seeking a Senate seat and openly admitted last Tuesday that he spent $600,000 of taxpayer money on a meat-packing company a former top cabinet official was going to work for when Round's administration was winding down. The money went directly into the cabinet member, Richard Benda's pocket in the form of a salary at the now-shuttered meat-packing plant; Northern Beef.

There is not a clearer case of conflict of interest, or blatant Republican corruption, any American will likely ever hear about; much less an admission of complicity from a senatorial candidate.

And Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about this corruption, not one, ever. But when the Democrat John Edwards was accused of using campaign money to buy his mistress a house, O'Reilly was all over it, and reported on it at least 20 times over a 6 month period. O'Reilly also reported on the trial and had weekly updates, but in the Rounds scandal O'Reilly has not reported on it one time.

The controversy is centered around Northern Beef's connection to the EB5 visa scandal that allowed wealthy foreign investors to invest in a local South Dakota business in exchange for going to the head of the immigration line for valuable green cards. A private company headed by Governor Rounds employee, Joop Bollen, brought in $100-million to fund Northern Beef, but defrauded South Dakota taxpayers out of $140 million; that was in addition to the $600,000 of taxpayer money Rounds provided for his departing cabinet member's salary.

Benda, as South Dakota's tourism secretary, provided nominal oversight for the scandal-ridden S.D. EB-5 program, parlayed it into a job with the company running Northern Beef. Then he convinced then-governor Rounds to provide taxpayer dollars for his own salary at the private company.

Northern Beef went out of business in less than a year, the debacle cost S.D. taxpayers an additional $4.4 million, and when state investigators got too close to exposing the governor's part in his cabinet member's conflict of interest; Richard Benda took his own life. It is the ultimate display of honor among thieves for Benda to "take one for the Rounds team" to conceal the former governors involvement in a clear conflict of interest and misappropriation of state funds investigation; something the Republican senatorial candidate Rounds certainly was aware of.

Republican voters see the fraud, investigations, misappropriation of taxpayer dollars as qualities that make Rounds well-qualified to represent them as a Republican Senator, instead of a corrupt politician.

Another Republican governor, Alaska's Sean Parnell is facing intense scrutiny for remaining silent and not investigating gross Alaska National Guard abuses including sexual assaults of young women when he first received complaints.

Joining Parnell under scrutiny is his Republican Attorney General and Senate candidate Dan Sullivan who continues to refuse to answer questions regarding the Alaska National Guard abuses and fraud. Specifically, Sullivan will not say how early as attorney general he knew about the abuses Parnell kept covered up, or when Parnell informed the state's lead law enforcement official about the sexual assaults and fraud in the Alaska National Guard.

The new investigations will only embolden Republican voters to support their Republican heroes with renewed enthusiasm; Sullivan has not suffered any ill-effects from his alleged involvement in the fraud and sexual abuse cover up and is leading in the polls.

These corrupt Republicans are just the latest to join the ranks of sitting Republican governors under investigation by authorities. Among the corrupt Republicans under indictment, investigation, and intense public scrutiny and running for re-election are; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with two separate investigations including one federal inquiry for illegal fundraising activities at the national level.

Ohio Governor John Kasich is keeping pace with Walker with several separate investigations for a variety of crimes including one ongoing FBI investigation for taking bribes; something Ohio voters must consider quite admirable since Kasich has a very substantial lead over his Democratic challenger.

The list of Republicans being investigated goes on and on, and many are leaders in the Republican-Tea Party movement including Nikki Haley (SC), Rick Perry (TX), Nathan Deal (GA), Paul LePage (ME), Rick Snyder (MI), Tom Corbett (PA), Chris Christie (NJ), and Sam Brownback (KS).

What they all have in common is that regardless the corruption plaguing them, Republican voters are standing solidly behind them informing that conservatives support fraud, corruption, bribery, election-rigging, cover-ups, and stealing taxpayer money as a virtuous principle of Republican ideology.

For the second time since the 2012 general election, state-level Republicans were caught red-handed with illegally funneled campaign donations in violation of the state's campaign finance laws. Instead of even a semblance of shame or remorse, at least at being caught, the revelation their local Republicans broke the law motivated GOP voters to attack long-standing election laws as another underhanded dirty trick; it is the same claim N.J. Governor Chris Christie made because Americans exercise their right to vote.

What is telling about a large portion of the voting public is that they are just as corrupt for supporting, donating, and voting for Republicans they know are dishonest, corrupt, and have no moral or ethical principles even as they claim Christianity is their guiding force in life and governing.

It is getting increasingly difficult to find even an iota of redeeming quality or value in any Republican politician or their corruption-loving base. A Republican politician or their supporters may claim they hate corruption and demand integrity from their compatriots, but when they continue to support corrupt Republicans, vote for them, or donate to their campaigns, they reveal that their deeply-held principles are founded in corruption and dishonesty.

Americans who support corrupt Republicans are birds of a feather and their deep-seated lack of integrity and unethical principles are exposed by the corrupt Republicans they vote for.

The Monday 10-27-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 28, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: National Security and Your Security. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: What do Ebola, ISIS, illegal alien criminals and fanatical Muslims have in common? They all are a threat to our security. Let's take them one by one. In one of the major failings of the Obama administration, the ISIS group was allowed to gain power unchecked for months. U.S. intelligence knew about the threat, but President Obama and his national security staff refused to engage. No matter what party you're in, that mistake is in stone.

Number two, Ebola. From the beginning, Talking Points has called for common sense precautions, such as restricting visas from the West African Ebola regions. Thomas Duncan, the Liberian who died in Dallas and who infected two American nurses, never should have been in this country. But the Obama administration still has not restricted visas from West Africa.

The overall federal policy on Ebola remains confused. Also, Dr. Craig Spencer remains in serious condition with Ebola while his girlfriend and two other friends are being quarantined. Dr. Spencer never should have been allowed to return to his home after treating Ebola patients in Africa. All this Ebola madness is a danger to the public health.

Number three, the criminal illegal alien situation. On Friday, two California police officers were shot dead by a Mexican illegal alien who had been deported twice before. 34-year old Luis Monroy-Bracamonte is being held without bail in Sacramento and will be likely charged with murder. It is a felony to return to the USA after being deported, but Bracamonte served no prison time for that.

Instead, he was able to amass a number of traffic violations after being deported twice, and nobody bothered him. Please explain to me, members of Congress, why you have not demanded the president enforce immigration law? We now have two more dead police officers along with thousands of other Americans who have been harmed by criminal aliens. There is no excuse any longer, and I'm speaking to you, President Obama.

And finally, the hatchet Muslim guy in New York City. 32-year-old Zale Thompson attacked four police officers Thursday. We now know he was a 'self-radicalized Muslim convert' who had a beef against the cops. Zale joins Alton Nolen in Oklahoma City, a Muslim who beheaded a co-worker, and Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood, who murdered 13 Americans working on that Army base. All three men were Muslim extremists.

This one is not in President Obama's court, no leader can stop crazy people from killing innocent people. However, the New York City Police Department used to investigate radical Muslim mosques, trying to find out who the crazy people are. But under uber-liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio that surveillance has been curtailed. That puts us all in danger.

So you can see that ISIS, Ebola, criminal illegal aliens, and crazy Muslim fanatics are all a danger to our security. And those we elect to protect us are not doing the job.
Comment: Said the right-wing nut who hates Obama and does nothing but scream the sky if falling because we have a Democratic President. While at the same time, gas prices are below $3.00 a gallon, unemployment is down, jobs are up, the stock market is around 17,000 and setting new record highs all the time, the GDP is good and getting better, but O'Reilly ignores it all and reports on Ebola every night over 3 cases, and 2 have already been cured, that O'Reilly also did not report.

Under Bush Democrats complained about how bad a President he was and O'Reilly slammed them, claiming they were nothing but un-American pertisan hacks who should support the President and shut up. And Bush really was a bad President, his policies crashed the entire economy, and the housing market, and the banks, so it was justified. Under Obama everything has got better, but O'Reilly ignores it. Now he is doing the very same thing to Obama, but it's suddenly ok now, because O'Reilly said so, what a massive hypocrite.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to critique the Talking Points Memo.

Williams focused on the illegal alien issue, saying this: "In the Hispanic community, they think Obama is the deporter-in-chief because he has been deporting people at record levels. This guy was convicted and deported twice. And the United States is more engaged with Ebola than everybody else!"

Ham said this: "You have to have trust in the federal government to fix a system. But people say the federal government can't fix problems, so states like New Jersey and New York step in and come up with ways to deal with Ebola. Doesn't it feel like the White House is spending more energy fighting New Jersey and New York than they did coming up with the original plan?"

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about the elections, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, just the biased and dishonest Rove was on to promote Republicans and put his spin on it.

Rove said this: "In the most competitive races, Republicans have moved up slightly in five states over the past week and went down slightly in two states."

Rove also talked about the New Hampshire race between Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen and Republican challenger Scott Brown, saying this: "At the beginning of the month Scott Brown was down by 4% and now he's down by 2.2%, which is real movement. Shaheen was a reasonably effective governor, but then when she moved to the Senate she moved far left, which is why she's in a horse race. Scott Brown is our best closer."

Comment: While saying nothing about Republicans who have done worse, like Mitch McConnell, who has to pay people to go to his rallies and has gone down in the polls. I believe the Republicans will pick up a few seats, but not get the majority in the Senate, and even if they do, Obama will just veto anything they pass, and without 60 votes nothing will pass anyway.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Ebola, and a handful of states that have imposed mandatory quarantines on medical workers who are returning after treating Ebola patients in West Africa.

Kelly examined the legality of the quarantines, saying this: "From the very beginning of quarantines being imposed, people have tried to sue the government, saying their right to liberty prevents the government from doing this. But courts have always said the feds and the states can do it because the public's right to remain free from Ebola outweighs your right to not be quarantined for 21 days. This is all about public health and this is all the fault of Dr. Craig Spencer. He came back from helping Ebola patients and ran around New York City!"

Comment: Without saying how the great Chris Christie backed down from the 21 day quarantine when the nurse said she was going to sue him, and then he let her quarantine at her own house. She has no symptons, no fever or anything, so as of now the quarantine is just a precaution. Christie lied and said she was sick, when she was not, he got caught lying then backed down, but of course Megyn Kelly never said a word about that, and neither did O'Reilly.

Then Jesse Watters talked about some Americans who are big fans of zombies and the TV show "The Walking Dead."

"I do believe in zombies," one young man told Watters, "and while I wouldn't say I hope for a zombie apocalypse, I am ready for one."

Watters said this: "Critics will tell you, that people watch 'The Walking Dead' because Americans fear the country is out of control and that fear is manifested in these sub-human mutants who are trying to invade." Despite his own regular encounters with zombie-like Americans on the beaches and in the streets, Watters revealed that he is personally terrified of "The Walking Dead" and prefers "The Bachelorette."

Comment: What a joke, Watters is an idiot. People watch the Walking Dead because they like scary tv shows, it has nothing to do with the country being out of control, because it is not out of control. Only right-wing idiots like Watters and O'Reilly think it is, the country is doing fine and that is a fact. And in my opinion, people who think it is are nuts, just like the doomsday preppers.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Read With Caution. Billy said this: "Most Internet sites lack credibility, integrity, and scruples, so always be skeptical of whatever you might see on websites, even those that are extremely popular."

Comment: That is both right and wrong, because it's not just internet websites you need to watch out for, it's O'Reilly and Fox News too. O'Reilly and Fox tell as many lies as some website do, and it's worse because they are on tv. There are also some good websites that tell the truth, but the people they report on do not like it because people like O'Reilly do not want you to know the truth.

40,000 Democratic Voter Registrations Vanished In Georgia
By: Steve - October 28, 2014 - 10:00am

And the Republican Secretary of State (Brian Kemp) will not even meet with the group who registered the new voters, what a shocker, not!

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about this story, but if it happened under a Democratic Secretary of State to people registered as Republicans O'Reilly would be outraged and all over it demanding answers. In fact, a few years ago when some Republican votes vanished in a Democratic county, O'Reilly reported it every day and called for the Feds to step in. But now he is silent.

Here is the story:

ATLANTA, GEORGIA -- A court could decide any day now whether tens of thousands of Georgia voters can cast a ballot this November, a choice that could sway the outcome of the state's neck-and-neck races for Governor and Senator.

Earlier this year, organizers fanned out across nearly every one of Georgia's 159 counties and registered nearly 90 thousand people who have never voted in their lives, most of them people of color, many of them under 25 years old. But when the groups checked back in late August, comparing their registration database to the state's public one, they noticed about 50,000 of the registrations had vanished, nearly all of them belonging to people of color in the Democratic-leaning regions around Atlanta, Savannah and Columbus.

Georgia's state minority leader Stacy Abrams (D), whose group The New Georgia Project led the massive registration drive in March and April, said that what happened after the registrations vanished was "deeply disturbing."

"We asked the Republican Secretary of State to meet with us. We wanted to understand if we were doing something wrong, or if there was another database we didn't have access to. But he refused to meet with us," she said.

Joined by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Georgia NAACP, the organizers asked twice more for a meeting about the missing registrations. When early voting began across the state and they still had not heard from the Secretary of State, the New Georgia Project took them to court.

In arguments on Friday, Francys Johnson, president of the Georgia NAACP, asked Fulton County Superior Court Judge Christopher Brasher to compel the state to process every valid registration.

"In 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, we were only able to know there were problems when it was too late, when people started showing up to the polls and they were not on the voter rolls, and folks were already disenfranchised," Johnson said.

"We must catch that disenfranchisement before it takes place." Lawyers for Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp and three counties who are also the target of the suit countered that state law sets no deadlines for processing voter registrations, and emphasized that any voter unsure of their registration status can always cast a provisional ballot.

Those who do so must return within three days to present additional documentation or otherwise cure any problem with the system. But the NAACP and New Georgia Project called this remedy "unacceptable."

"I cannot tell you what little return we actually see in terms of provisional ballots," Johnson said. "The election is decided the night of the election. It's not really a ballot at all."

Even if every one of the registrations in limbo does get processed and added to the voter rolls by Election Day, Johnson says the uncertainty has still been "problematic."

Because the 40,000-odd voters have not yet received their registration cards in the mail that tells them which precinct they're assigned to, "this ambiguity may discourage people from going to out to vote, and those who do go won't know where to go, and they'll be shuffled around from polling place to polling place."

Amidst the chaos, the Secretary of State publicly accused the New Georgia Project in September of submitting fraudulent registration forms. A subsequent investigation found just 25 confirmed forgeries out of more than 85,000 forms -- a fraud rate of about 3/100ths of 1 percent.

Abrams explained that all other third party registration groups must submit every form they get no matter if it's incomplete or forged. She characterized the subpoena and accusations as an attempt to intimidate and discredit her efforts.

"If you accuse people of fraud, the public will believe there is fraud, just like if you yell 'fire,' people run," she said. "The problem is, if there is no fire, you're causing damage, and if there is no fraud, you've damaged reputations."

Dr. Francys Johnson agreed, but the accusations have not worked as the state may have intended. "If they thought it would have a chilling effect on voter registration efforts, they were mistaken. It has emboldened our efforts. It has awakened the consciousness of people that the right to vote is still precariously endangered."

The legal battle comes at a pivotal time for the state of Georgia. The state's African-American, Latino, Asian and Native American populations have grown extensively, as has their share of the electorate. The growth is dramatic enough that many political analysts predict the state's political identity could swing from red to blue over the next few years.

At the same time these changes were taking place, the state enacted measures courts have found to disproportionately impact voters of color. In 2006, Georgia enacted a strict voter ID law. Five years later the state cut the number of days of early voting. In 2012, the Secretary of State purged thousands of voters from the rolls a few months before the presidential election.

Just last month, the same Secretary of State lamented before an audience of Republican activists that the registration of more voters of color would mean a win for Democrats.

Abrams said she launched the registration effort to make sure the officials in local, state and national office actually represented the people of the state. "We are facing a new Georgia: demographically, politically, economically, and socially," she said.

"We should all be engaged in a process to bring them into the civic conversation. It is dangerous, no matter your party, to have large swaths of your population disengaged and disaffected."

A ruling from Judge Brasher could come at any time, and based on his remarks during Friday's hearing, Abrams says she is not optimistic for a ruling in her favor. The New Georgia Project can appeal, but with the election less than two weeks away, the window is getting narrow for forcing the state to process the registrations.

Even as she vowed to continue reaching out over the coming years to the hundreds of thousands of remaining unregistered voters in Georgia, Abrams said her deepest fear is that many of the newly registered young voters will by turned off voting for life if they can't cast a regular ballot this November.

"Fast-forward ten years, and you'll have a majority-minority population that has even less power than it has right now, because they'll have become so disengaged," she warned. "And the people with power will solidify that power and put up barriers to any possible change."

One concrete way this could happen is the next time the state revises its voting maps, in 2020. The governor elected in 2018 will have the final say on those maps, which could be gerrymandered to benefit one political party for many years to come.

Facts On Putting A Fence On The US/Mexico Border
By: Steve - October 27, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly and almost all his right-wing friends keep saying we need to secure the border with a fence, and of course it is a bad idea, but they never have any actual experts on to say why it's a bad idea. Because then they would be proven to be fools, and they sure do not want to do that.

So I am going to publish an article about a fence on the border, from an actual security expert, who btw, O'Reilly has never had on the Factor as a guest to discuss it. Because he would destroy the dumb idea from O'Reilly to put a fence on the border.

And he was also appointed by George W. Bush, so O'Reilly can not say he is some biased liberal who does not want a fence, he is a Republican who is opposed to the fence.

First let me tell you who this expert is: W. Ralph Basham

-- President George W. Bush nominated Basham as Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on January 30, 2006. Basham was confirmed by the United States Senate in May 2006. CBP is responsible for border security and trade, including the United States Border Patrol and inspecting persons and items entering the United States through its ports of entry.

-- William Ralph Basham has served at the head of four of the eight US Department of Homeland Security agencies, including as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the largest federal security force in the United States government, director of the United States Secret Service, Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and as one of the first employees as Chief of Staff at the Transportation Security Administration.

-- Upon leaving government service in April 2009, Basham founded Command Consulting Group, a Washington, D.C.-based international advisory firm which provides security advisory services to government clients and works with companies with security related products and services to develop and market products to federal security agencies.

-- In October 2013, Basham was awarded the Founder's Medal for Lifetime Achievement by the Border Patrol Foundation.

So as you can see this guy is a real expert on the border, and a Republican, not some partisan cable tv hack O'Reilly usually has on to discuss it, this is what an actual expert says about a fence on the border. This is an article from Basham, published at in October of 2011.

Why a Border Fence Wouldn't Work

By W. Ralph Basham

Building a physical fence along the entire border with Mexico was one of the dumbest ideas I heard when I was commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It is critical to recognize that fencing (even with barbed wire, electrification, and possibly a moat filled with alligators) is not a solution, it is only a tool.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about what a physical barrier -- even the triple-layer fencing in San Diego -- actually does or doesn't do for the agency charged with building fencing and securing the border. All it really does is buy you time where a crosser could otherwise quickly escape or assimilate.

None of the fencing is impenetrable. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it or go over it, but it gives you enough time to respond and apprehend them. Some fencing makes sense tactically in areas selected by the Border Patrol, as where we deployed some 700 miles of it under my tenure, and in many of those areas it has been a tool to provide permanent impedance to deter and slow illegal entries on foot or by vehicle.

As we learned, fencing in poor soil, flood plains or sand dunes can also be more expensive than effective, in some places because of terrain challenges we decided spending more than $6 million per mile for specialized fence was not the most effective use of resources to better secure that area of border and opted for more agents and technology there instead.

In areas dozens of miles from paved roads where we have time to respond to incursions or where we have natural obstacles of mountains and water that already slow, deter or reroute traffic we don't need fence at all.

Any successful strategy must rely more heavily on highly trained, dedicated law enforcement officers and better technology tools, key components of the approach we began in the last administration.

Since 2001, we have more than doubled the Border Patrol, deployed highly capable manned aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft, and installed fixed and mobile surveillance systems. And, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing its plans to deploy additional technology capabilities along key areas of the border to enhance the effectiveness of these agents.

That strategy is working more than a fence alone would, the volume of illegal crossings on the Southwest border is down dramatically from a peak 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal year 2000 to only about 350,000 apprehensions in 2011.

While the threat of violence by drug organizations is real, average violent crime rates in cities along the U.S.-Mexico border are lower than in comparable cities elsewhere in the U.S. Despite the drug violence that has claimed thousands of lives in its sister city to the south, Ciudad Juarez, El Paso recorded only 5 murders in 2010.

As debate continues about how to best ensure our national security it is important to identify the real threats and develop realistic solutions. In the face of constrained budgets, spending billions on unnecessary fences is not viable.

If the symbol of the fence in political campaigns keeps us talking about remaining border security challenges and new and creative approaches that will build on the progress to date then it's not all bad.

But if it deceives the public into believing in 2,000 miles of wall as a magic solution to the hard problems of three decades of uncontrolled immigration, the only thing being fenced is our common sense.


Those are facts about a border fence, from a Republican expert on it. But of course O'Reilly never reports any of it, and never has Mr. Basham on his show to discuss it, because he is informed and he would tell O'Reilly what a dumb idea a 2,000 mile border fence would be. Instead O'Reilly wants his viewers to believe in his idea that a fence would secure the border, which it wont.

Not only would it not secure the border, it is not needed in most areas, and it would cost a fortune to build it, money we do not have btw. O'Reilly even admits we are broke, and yet he wants a war with ISIS and a 2,000 mile border fence that would not work and would cost billions and billions to build, without ever saying where we get the money to do it.

Where do we get that money O'Reilly?

Notice another fact O'Reilly never tells you, there were 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal year 2000, but only 350,000 apprehensions in 2011.

This is proof that illegal immigration is dropping, not going up as O'Reilly claims. O'Reilly acts like illegal immigration is increasing and it is a crisis, but in reality it has been decreasing, and it goes down more almost every year.

There is no border crisis, and a lot of it is racial, O'Reilly and the right just do not want brown people crossing the border into America, even though they are only coming here to work, and to do a lot of jobs Americans will not do.

If you build a fence, they will just go over it, dig under it, drive around it, or fly over it. They will get here somehow, so it makes no sense to spend billions to build it, and billions more to maintain it, when it will not work.

They estimate it will cost about $6 million dollars a MILE, to build it. Then another $40 to $50 billion to maintain it over 20 years. All for nothing, because it will not work. It would be cheaper and more effective to do what Mr. Basham said, train more border patrol agents, and use other ways to protect the border.

Here is another fact O'Reilly will never report or admit, YOU WILL NEVER SECURE THE BORDER.

It is impossible to 100% secure the border, because it's just too long, and even if you built a wall 30,000 feet high they could still get in the country, by driving around it, flying over it, digging under it, etc.

More Proof O'Reilly Part Of The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine
By: Steve - October 26, 2014 - 10:00am

O'Reilly claims he is a non-partisan Independent and not part of the Republican party propaganda machine, while spewing out every right-wing lie and talking point they have. When you look at the actual evidence, it is clear that he is part of the Republican party propaganda machine, because he is always spinning out right-wing lies and supporting Republican policies.

He supports the biased and racist Republican party voter ID laws, that are not needed, because there is almost no actual voter fraud, they are simply meant to suppress the vote for people who vote for Democrats by making it harder for them to vote. O'Reilly also says racism is dead and there is no white privilege, even though the facts say the exact opposite.

And it's not just O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Wall Street Journal, almost everyone at Fox, and virtually every Republican in office all say it, O'Reilly repeats every single word they say on it. He sounds exactly like Limbaugh and Hannity, word for word, and yet he says he is not a Republican, it's laughable and just ridiculous, and a 100% lie, because it is clear as a bell that he is a Republican.

As strict voter ID laws are put into effect ahead of the midterm elections, recent judicial opinions and social science studies continue to poke holes in the right-wing media's defense of voter suppression.

Here are some of their findings:

1. Voter ID Laws Have Repeatedly Been Found To Be Racially Discriminatory, And Race Influences Public Opinion On The Need For ID

2. Voter ID Laws Require Photo ID That Is Not Needed For "Everyday Tasks"

3. Supreme Court Decision On Voter ID Law In Indiana Doesn't Mean All Voter ID Laws Are Acceptable

4. Federal Report Found Decreased Turnout Among People Of Color Was Attributable To Voter ID Laws

And yet, here are some things Republican say about it:

Rush Limbaugh: The "Real Reason" Democrats Object To Voter ID "Is So They Can Cheat."

On his October 22nd radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that President Obama's recent comments encouraging voting among those who are not affected by strict voter ID laws undercut accusations that these laws are discriminatory. Limbaugh said the reasoning of those who say voter ID "will prevent minorities from voting" is "absurd." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/22/14,]

Notice that Limbaugh offers no data on how widespread documented actual voter fraud really is. In Massachusetts, for example, there has been no documented voter fraud in decades, only the fears of people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

WSJ's Jason Riley: Obama Administration's Opposition To Voter ID Is An "Overt Racial Appeal To Get Out The Base."

In a segment on the October 20th edition of Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier, Wall Street Journal opinion editor Jason Riley complained that "the voter ID stuff the Obama administration is talking about constantly, as if there's some sort of Republican conspiracy out there to deny blacks the franchise" was nothing more than a political ploy on the part of the administration to gin up Democratic support in the midterm elections. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 10/20/14]

Bill O'Reilly: "Laws And High-Level Decisions Are Not Based On Skin Color Anymore."

On the October 21st edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly insisted that modern laws are no longer rooted in racism and that Democrats are playing "the race card" in an effort "to drive African-Americans to the polls." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/21/14]

And now some facts, there is no documented evidence that voter fraud does exist. Voter ID laws would likewise prove nothing; they'd just prevent blocs of people from voting but would provide no evidence of voter fraud, or the lack of it. Voter ID is a "solution" to a problem with no documented evidence of the problem even existing. It's a "solution" borne of fear - an emotional response, not a rational one - and partisan politics.

The Washington Post published an article by Prof. Justin Levitt of Loyola University Law School about a study he did compiling every case of in person voter fraud that are the only kind of fraud Voter ID laws can stop.

To say he was underwhelmed by the results is an understatement:

LEVITT: "I've been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I've been following reports wherever they crop up.

To be clear, I'm not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I've found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. That's 31 documented voter fraud cases in 14 years.

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

O'Reilly says court rulings and laws are not based on skin color anymore, but the facts say different, he just ignores those facts because he does not like what they show.

Brennan Center's Andrew Cohen: "Mountains Of Evidence" Led To Federal Court Ruling That Texas Voter ID Law Was Discriminatory.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Andrew Cohen, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and a legal fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that federal courts have twice found Texas voter ID laws to be racially discriminatory, both in intent and effect.

Although it will be implemented for the midterm elections, Cohen pointed out that the evidence relied on by the courts that found this law violated the Voting Rights Act.

O'Reilly just ignores that, and acts like it never happened, in his world if he does not report it then it never happened. He ignores it and then tells you lies, even though he knows he is lying, and he knows about the court rulings, he fails to report it and then lies to you that it has nothing to do with racism or suppressing the vote among minorities who mostly vote for Democrats, even though he knows he is wrong and lying about it.

Chris Christie even slipped up and admitted it was a scam, he seemed pretty up front about it when he said the GOP has to "control the voting mechanism" in key states for the 2016 election.

In Pennsylvania, a Republican party official said that voter ID laws would deliver the state to Mitt Romney.

Not to mention this: The Constitution, as in the 24th amendment which prohibits poll taxes, aka paying to vote. So if you have to pay to get an ID to vote, that is a poll tax, which is a violation of the Constitution, the very same Constitution O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity claim to support, except they overlook it when they support laws that violate the Constitution.

Imagine that you are finally old enough to vote in your first election. But, do you have enough money? Money, to vote? Not long ago, citizens in some states had to pay a fee to vote in a national election. This fee was called a poll tax. On January 23, 1964, the United States ratified the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting any poll tax in elections for federal officials.

Now ask yourself this, have you ever heard O'Reilly mention the 24th amendment to the Constitution, or talked about what a poll tax is, and the answer would be no, not ever, not once. Because then he would expose himself as a biased fraud who supports Republican passed voter ID laws that violate the Constitution, the very same Constitution he claims to go by.

The Friday 10-24-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 25, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why the Federal Government is Putting All Americans in Danger. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: From the very beginning, the Obama administration has screwed up the Ebola situation. On April 1, the organization Doctors Without Borders warned that the Ebola contagion was 'unprecedented.' On that day, the Obama administration should have begun formulating a strategy to deal with West Africans coming to the USA from the Ebola regions.

In mid-August, Nigeria, Senegal, and a number of other African countries closed their borders to Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. Also in August, British Airways and Air France suspended flights to those countries. What did the USA do? Nothing.

On October 17th, Dr. Craig Spencer, who was treating Ebola patients in Guinea arrives back in the USA. The CDC reports he passed the Ebola screenings at JFK airport. Dr. Spencer is not quarantined. Yesterday Dr. spencer calls 911, is taken to Bellevue Hospital and diagnosed with Ebola. Now health authorities have to track down all the people with whom Dr. Spencer came into close contact.

The Obama administration simply cannot handle the Ebola situation. The airport screenings are a joke, and the lack of a West African visa ban is negligence. That is the truth, but the liberal media, the Obama enablers, will not tell you the truth.

The countries involved are poor and largely comprised of black Africans. That's why the Obama administration and the liberal press do not want a travel ban. It is long past time for the American people to rise up and demand that the federal government do its job, which is to protect us.
Comment: O'Reilly is insane, not only is he crazy to say the Government is putting us all in danger, the name of the TPM is ridiculous, because 3 cases of Ebola is not putting us in danger. O'Reilly is out of his mind and nothing but a right-wing fearmonger about it, get back to me when we have 10,000 cases of Ebola and it is an actual problem, I will bet the farm that never ever happens.

And btw folks, the Obama administration is just doing what the medical experts tell him to do, so if anyone is to blame for anything O'Reilly should be blaming them, instead he blames Obama, when all he is doing is what the medical experts say he should do.

Then O'Reilly had two doctors (Dr. Martin Makary & Dr. Ian Lipkin) on, who both disagreed with him and called him a fearmonger, and of course he told them they were wrong, even though he is not a doctor and not a medical expert. Hey O'Reilly you idiot, why did you have two doctors on if you were going to disagree with them, it makes you look like a fool.

Makary told the insane O'Reilly that we do not have a public health crisis in the U.S., but we instead have a media crisis causing hysteria over a disease that is not very contagious.

O'Reilly said that it's the federal government's job to prevent an epidemic and to prevent hysteria. He also maintained voluntary reporting of the disease or its symptoms, which the New York Times is advocating, is impossible.

Lipkin denied that Dr. Craig Spencer, the infected NYC physician, acted irresponsibly, as he monitored himself and turned himself in for treatment once he developed a fever.

Comment: Lipkin also pointed out that Spencer had no signs of Ebola so there was no reason for him to be quarantined, and once he showed some symptons of Ebola he turned himself in and then he was quarantined. This is what happens, and btw, the other two people who got Ebola were treated and now they are fine and the Ebola is gone. Funny how O'Reilly never mentions that.

Even with all that in mind O'Reilly still believes it would have been wiser for him to stay away from everyone for 21 days - or for the government to compel him to do so.

Dr. Lipkin said this isn't a practical solution with 150 people coming back to NYC alone from that part of the world every day. In O'Reilly's opinion, we shouldn't be allowing any of these people into the country for a little while to protect the public health.

Comment: Think about this, O'Reilly is not a doctor or a medical expert, so nobody should listen to him about any medical situations.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the New York City hatchet attack, a man with a hatchet attacked four police officers, before being shot down by the cops. One of the men was badly injured and remains in stable condition. Investigators are looking into a motive. O'Reilly asked if Muslim extremism is at play?

Comment: This is just laughable, it was not terrorism and to even ask if it was is insanity. ONE lunatic attacked some cops with a hatchet, plain and simple, that is not terrorism, and it's not even close. O'Reilly even called it terror chaos, which is beyond laughable, one guy with an ax is not terrorism, let alone terror chaos.

Geraldo described the man as an ex-con with a violent past who converted to Islam late in life. He reported the man was prone to ranting about the oppressive west. Geraldo deemed this attack was committed by a self-starter, lone wolf who wants to give some justification to his violent tendencies.

Comment: In other words, he was a nut who had violent tendencies, case closed.

Then Pastor Robert Jeffress was on to talk about Muslims and terrorism.

Jeffress noted the majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, but he pointed out that Muhammad was a man of violence so when terrorists engage in these acts, they're following the example of their spiritual leader. He said President Obama has a responsibility, which is different than our individual responsibility. He cited Romans 13, which says that government is an avenger that should be chasing down evil doers.

O'Reilly asked, as Christians, if we are supposed to embrace our Muslim brothers and sisters. Jeffress reasoned that we should be trying to introduce them to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Finally, O'Reilly reminded viewers that the American Muslim community here has been largely peaceful since 9/11.

Then Greg Gutfeld & Bernard McGuirk were on, they talked about a group out of Ohio who has released a video of young girls, some as young as six, cursing like crazy. The point they make: cursing isn't offensive, what's really offensive is oppression against women in the U.S.

O'Reilly (the genius) said this was done purely for shock value, with one of the mothers admitting she let her child say terrible words to get attention for a cause.

Gutfeld suggested this isn't about sexual abuse or oppression - it's about lousy parents using their kids to sell t-shirts. The Factor explained the fallacy here: this cause doesn't need this sort of attention because everybody knows sexual abuse and the oppression of women are bad things. In McGuirk's mind, everyone involved in this video should be arrested for child abuse.

Onto the subject of Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts who is positioning herself to the left of Hillary Clinton. She was asked by an interviewer how she was treated in Congress as a woman. She claimed her male colleagues treat her differently but refused to elaborate.

McGuirk shot down the discrimination complaint, insisting that men and women are different. The Factor mentioned Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York recently writing that her male colleagues comment on her appearance. Gutfeld alluded to Warren's history of relying on her identity (first as a Native American and now as a woman) rather than her achievement.

Comment: In other words, these two Republican men think Warren and Gillibrand should just be quiet and accept the sexual comments like Republican men say they should. Even though sexual harassment and discrimination are illegal. And they wonder why a lot of women do not vote Republican, duh!

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting some movie he thinks everyone should see.

Rove Caught Lying About Obamacare Poll Numbers
By: Steve - October 25, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about it, while he continues to use him as a regular and political expert on his show. Not to mention, when he has Rove on he never discloses that Rove is spending millions of dollars to get Republicans elected with his PAC money, while discussing and promoting those very same candidates that are getting his PAC money.

Fox News contributor and Republican strategist Karl Rove was caught lying about some Gallup poll data on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in order to attack health care reform as a liability for Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections.

When in fact, the Gallup poll Rove cited found that the majority of respondents said the ACA has had no effect on them or their families, and 16 percent of respondents said the law helped them.

In his October 22nd Wall Street Journal column, Rove claimed that the ACA "is re-emerging as a major liability for the Democratic Senate" heading into the November 4 elections.

Citing an October 2nd poll by Gallup, Rove alleged that 54 percent of Americans "said the Affordable Care Act had hurt them and their families, compared to 27% who said it had helped them."

But according to Gallup, a majority of Americans (54 percent) believe that Obamacare has "had no effect" on them or their families, and another 16 percent believed that the ACA has helped.

Rove also used his platform to misleadingly stoke fears about higher premiums and insurance cancellations in Colorado -- a state his political action committee (PAC), American Crossroads has invested nearly $500,000 in negative advertisements against incumbent Colorado Sen. Mark Udall (D).

And though the Journal disclosed his affiliation with American Crossroads, it did not disclose his affiliation with Crossroads GPS, a PAC that has invested more than $8.6 million attacking Sen. Udall according to Open Secrets.

In reality, Colorado has benefited greatly from health care reform. According to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, Colorado's uninsured rate fell from 17.0 percent in 2013 to 11.0 percent by mid-2014.

The state's success in expanding health insurance coverage actually beats the national average, which fell from 18.0 in the third quarter of 2013 to just 13.4 percent a year later.

And btw, here is another thing O'Reilly and Rove never tell you. When you ask people if they like the new health care plans they have now, most people say yes, the people that say they do not like Obamacare like it when you call it something else. That's because of all the propaganda O'Reilly and Fox News put out about Obamacare, when you just ask them if they like their new health care they say yes.

The Thursday 10-23-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 24, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: More ISIS Inspired Terrorism. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 32-year-old Michael Zehaf-Bibeau committed a terrorist act yesterday in Ottawa, Canada. He murdered a Canadian soldier and wounded three other people for absolutely no reason at all. That happened just two days after 25-year-old Martin Rouleau murdered another Canadian soldier, running him down with his car.

Both men were Muslim converts and authorities say devotees of the ISIS terror group. So now we have Canada, a relatively benign country, under assault by Muslim terrorists. Also, the 'good Muslim' controversy continues to rage. Actor Ben Affleck epitomized that when he became offended that verbal bomb-thrower Bill Maher was condemning Muslims in general. In the liberal community, there is sympathy for good Muslims.

What will it take to wake up the world? The answer to that question is a weapon of mass destruction used by Muslim terrorists. We can expect more Muslim killers to cause destruction almost everywhere. This is not going to stop until the world unites against terrorism generated by Muslims.
Then John Oakley the right-wing radio talk show host was on, he admitted these attacks have already changed the perception of Muslim terrorism in his country as it becomes obvious homegrown terrorists and their toxic ideology have taken hold there. He reported there's a lot of anger with people wondering if they can ever get the genie back in the bottle.

O'Reilly asked about reports that Canadian authorities recognized both of these guys as potential threats before the attacks. In Oakley's opinion, the fact that they fell through the cracks is either a failure on the part of authorities to not take the Muslim threat seriously enough or Canadian authorities simply got outsmarted.

O'Reilly then admitted that you have to commit a crime before they can put you in jail. He realized that open, free societies will never be able to stop lone gunmen, but stressed the importance of Canada having zero tolerance with Muslim terrorism.

Then James Carville & Andrea Tantaros were on to talk about the media. O'Reilly claims the American media is trying to help the Democrats in the upcoming midterm election.

Carville denied a concerted media effort, and said he believes President Obama's politics are not selling very well on network news, so there's no coverage of the midterms because nobody would watch. O'Reilly flipped out and asked whether Carville would even concede the possibility the media sense a Republican victory and that's the reason behind the blackout.

Tantaros offered a look back at 2006, when Congressional Republicans got their clocks cleaned in midterms and the media had a field day. She didn't speculate on the motivation in the current scenario, but described the media's approach to this coming election as "there's nothing to see here folks!"

O'Reilly then predicted turnout would be low and put forth that the network news is hurting itself by not drumming up votes for Democrats. Carville countered that lack of midterm coverage is not a calculated political move by the media, but insisted it's motivated more by profits.

Then Rev. Dr. Robert Scott & Bishop Geoffrey Dudley were on to talk about a Washington Post report that a number of folks have come forward to confirm Officer Darren Wilson's story that Ferguson teenager Michael Brown was attacking him when the shooting occurred.

Rev. Scott contended there are three sides to the story: Michael Brown's side, Darren Wilson's side, and the truth. He expressed that he's struggling with the information being leaked to newspapers. The Factor reminded him that liberal newspapers like the Washington Post don't generally favor the police over the victim.

Bishop Dudley doesn't know how much faith we can put in leaks that are being provided to the newspapers. He urged the community to come together, despite the new narrative coming out. He said he's not prepared to accept no indictment because the path to truth and justice comes by looking at both sides of the story.

Comment: And as usual O'Reilly does not point out that none of that says anything about why the officer unloaded his clip on the unarmed black teen and killed him when he was surrendering as his hands were up. O'Reilly ignores that evidence, because it is counter to his spin on it.

Then the biased Bernie Goldberg was on with his opinion, that almost always agrees with O'Reilly, which is why he is on the show, and why he is the one and only Factor media analyst.

Goldberg said this: Many black liberals, like the two guests prior to him, feel justice is not about the truth. In the Ferguson case, justice will only be defined by an indictment of the police officer, a trial, and a conviction, with anything less than a guilty verdict considered an injustice. He also cautioned how this will play out on the streets if there's no indictment.

Comment: Don't you just love it when two old, rich, white conservative idiots tell you how black liberals think and feel, when they have no clue.

Then Ed Henry was on to talk about President Obama and Ebola, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Henry said Obama is starting to take some steps to secure the country from Ebola. O'Reilly laid out the situation surrounding a doctor in New York City who potentially has Ebola. He denounced the Obama administration for not putting this man under the 21 day quarantine, and declared that Obama is being badly harmed by all of this Ebola chaos.

Henry said this case certainly raises questions about why that 21 day quarantine wasn't used with this guy. O'Reilly concluded the Obama administration is always too late and never moves quickly enough in life-or-death situations.

Comment: Which is of course ridiculous, and total right-wing propaganda. Obama had nothing to do with it, and the Doctor is at fault, he should have put himself under the 21 day quarantine because he knew he had treated people with Ebola, even Megyn Kelly said it was the Doctors fault, not Obama's fault. But idiots like O'Reilly blame everything on Obama to score cheap political points, Obama had nothing to do with it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The only thing to fear... Billy said this: "According to a new Washington Post poll, 43% of Americans are worried about getting Ebola. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. There's no reason to get preoccupied with doom."

More Republican Corruption And Of Course O'Reilly Ignored It
By: Steve - October 24, 2014 - 10:00am

The Republican Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard was indicted by a grand jury on 23 separate felony corruption charges Monday. The Republican leader was booked on the charges Monday afternoon and his trial is scheduled to start October 27th.

Hubbard is accused of using his office for personal gain and soliciting money and other valuables from others. The investigation into Hubbard has also led to two other Republicans being charged with crimes.

State Rep. Greg Wren has already pleaded guilty a misdemeanor charge and has resigned from office. State Rep. Barry Moore has been charged with perjury and providing a false statement.

Hubbard faces the following charges and either obtained favors or solicited from many noteworthy businessmen and former politicians in Alabama.

Four counts of using of his office as Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party for personal gain; One count of voting for legislation with a conflict of interest; Eleven counts of soliciting or receiving a thing of value from a lobbyist or principal; Two counts of using his office as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives for personal gain; Four Counts of lobbying an executive department or agency for a fee; and one count of using state equipment, materials, etc. for private gain.

According to the indictment, Hubbard solicited favors from some of Alabama’s most rich and powerful people. They include former Alabama Governor Bob Riley, Business Council of Alabama CEO Billy Canary, Hoar Construction CEO Rob Burton, Great Southern Wood CEO Jimmy Rane, former Sterne Agee CEO James Holbrook, lobbyist Minda Riley Campbell, Harbert Management Corp. vice president Will Brooke and political operative Dax Swatek.

And get this, Hubbard has not resigned or stepped down until the trial is over, he attended a campaign forum in Auburn where he debated issues with other lawmakers. He also posted a photo from the event on his Facebook page.

These charges make former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's corruption, for which he was found guilty on multiple counts, seem like almost nothing. At least with McDonnell, he and his wife were the recipients of gifts and cash from one single person looking for favors.

In Hubbard’s case, he had his hand out to multiple people, letting them all know his office and position were for sale. Now, Hubbard is looking at a possible prison sentence of 20 years and fines that could total over $600,000.

The Wednesday 10-22-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 23, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Scaring Americans. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With the President's job approval ratings falling fast, some of his supporters are blaming the fear factor. They say things are not really that bad in the USA, but commentators like me and others, are instilling fear among the population. Ebola, ISIS, and the soft economy are all overblown, they say.

There will be no Ebola epidemic in America - that will not happen. But the fact that the feds screwed things up so badly, causing two Dallas nurses to contract the disease because a Liberian with Ebola was admitted to the USA, should scare the hell out of everybody.

Now onto ISIS and other terrorist activity. Some far-left folks are not all that concerned. It's over there so why should we be afraid? Tell that to the families of the two Canadian soldiers killed this week in their own country by terrorists striking out at random.

President Obama will have to stand on his own performance. The smoke screen of fear is nonsense, just another lame attempt to divert attention away from the real problem: weak leadership.
Comment: Wow! The scaremonger O'Reilly finally admitted there will be no Ebola epidemic in America, after a month of saying it was a crisis and chaos. But he most likely only admitted it because everyone was calling him a fearmongering fool, so he finally admitted he was wrong.

The right-wing stooge Bret Stephens was then on from the Wall Street Journal, and he said the liberal media is too emotionally tied to the President to give us honest information about the threat from Ebola.

Which is a lie, and O'Reilly was not even buying it, saying this: "I am more concerned over the threat of global terrorism, which has now arrived on Canada's front door"

Comment: Remember this, I have been telling you all along that Ebola is not a crisis, or chaos, that it will never be a big problem here, just like the swine flu, bird flu, etc. We have ways to control such things, and we always do. I was right, and O'Reilly was wrong, the sad part is it took him almost a month to finally admit it.

Then Martha MacCallum was on to discuss an article in the St. Louis Dispatch that cited a source close to Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson who said teenager Michael Brown attacked Wilson in his police car causing the officer to shoot the teen. An autopsy report also has many new details regarding Brown's killing.

Comment: With no Democratic guest for balance, and this was leaked info, which O'Reilly usually condemns, except when it helps his arguments. Not to mention, it still does not explain why Wilson kept shooting after Brown put his hands up and tried to surrender, killing an unarmed black kid, O'Reilly says nothing about that, which is the main complaint in the case.

MacCallum summarized the report - a source claimed Michael Brown punched the police officer on both sides of his face and pushed the patrol car door closed. Even the attorney for Brown's family admitted there are eyewitness reports of a brief altercation at the car. The autopsy also corroborated Officer Wilson's account that Brown attempted to take his gun from his holster and a struggle ensued.

O'Reilly concluded there is still doubt about what happened outside the car because the new reports are using an anonymous source. However, the leaked autopsy destroys some of the initial reporting that this was aggressive action by the police officer who shot a fleeing Michael Brown.

Comment: Wrong, it does not say the officer did not shoot a fleeing Michael Brown, O'Reilly is lying about that. It says nothing like that, and that is the main problem. Other witnesses say he ran away and put his hands up and the officer shot and killed him anyway, O'Reilly says nothing about that and never once mentions the witnesses who say they saw that happen.

Then Dana Perino was on to talk about the elections, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

O'Reilly reminded viewers that President Bush, Perino's former boss, was almost as unpopular at the end of his second term as President Obama is now. Perino alleged the situation for Obama is worse because there are more Senate Democrats who are vulnerable and they're trying to distance themselves from him.

She also gave us some inside baseball - because President Bush knew history well and knew other presidents had been through this sort of thing, he didn't take it personally when he was shunned by his own party the way Obama seems to.

Comment: And that is right-wing spin from two Republicans, so they are biased. Some Democrats are not using Obama because his approval ratings are low, but he is not even close to being as unpopular as Bush, and the Obama approval ratings are low for totally different reasons, not like Bush, who everyone hated by the time he left office, the Obama approval ratings will most likely go back up before he leaves office.

Then O'Reilly talked about Jon Stewart On the Daily Show, the subject of white privilege came up. Jon Stewart asserted that the O'Reilly benefits from it because he grew up in Levittown, a place where blacks couldn't live in 1950.

Eric Shawn reported that the federal government actually stipulated the house O'Reilly grew up in could only be owned by Whites, but that started to change a few years later with some court cases. O'Reilly gave Stewart props for having his facts right, but maintained that Levittown was not Bel Air and there was no privilege associated with growing up there.

Comment: Which is just laughable, it was a whites only housing community, only whites could get houses there, not even black veterans could get them. And they only let blacks in after the courts ruled it was illegal, and to this day Levittown is still 97% white, with very few blacks or any other minorities there.

O'Reilly is insane to say that was not white privilege, it was then and still is now, and he is the only person in the world who even denies it. It was 100% white privilege, and a lot of it is still happening today, over home loans, car loans, jobs, etc. Whites have a much better percentage of getting jobs, home loans, car loans, etc. than blacks, and that is a fact, the stats prove it. O'Reilly is just a fool that will not admit he is wrong.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: TURN. THE. MACHINES. OFF. Billy said this: "Turn the machines off! Kids, and even some adults, are spending all their leisure time losing themselves in technology at the expense of real world experience and thought. Here's a tip: schedule time each day when the machines take a rest."

Facts That Prove White Privilege Is Real In America
By: Steve - October 23, 2014 - 10:00am

Next Time Someone Says 'White Privilege Isn't Real,' Show Them This!

Think white privilege doesn't exist in America? Bill O'Reilly! Consider just how much the color of a child's skin changes his or her odds of escaping poverty later in life.

Studies show that 16 percent of white children born into the poorest one-fifth of U.S. families will rise to become a member of the top one-fifth by the time they turn 40 years old, according to a new study by Brookings Institution researchers for the Boston Federal Reserve.

Those are very bleak odds, but for poor black children the odds of making it to the top are even longer: Only 3 percent of black children born into the poorest one-fifth of families will ever make the leap to the top income group, according to the study.

Even if they don't always make it to the top of the income ladder, poor whites escape the worst forms of poverty more often than poor blacks. Only 23 percent of poor white children will still be counted among the poorest Americans when they turn 40, while a whopping 51 percent of poor black children will.

The poorest white Americans have a decent shot of ending up in a higher tier than their parents -- 58 percent of white children from the poorest families end up in one of the top three income brackets.

But for black Americans, escaping poverty is far more difficult.

Just 22 percent of the poorest black children manage to get into the top three income brackets by the time they are 40. And note that there aren't even enough black families in the top income bracket to do statistically significant analysis.

The findings in the paper, co-authored by Brookings economists Richard V. Reeves and Isabel V. Sawhill, run counter to the beliefs of the people at Fox News, especially Bill O'Reilly, who argues that racism in this country has diminished to the point that white privilege no longer exists.

O'Reilly visited The Daily Show last week and argued that their is no white privilege anymore, and that any person, regardless of race, can get rich in America so long as they work hard.

But opportunities for success are clearly not that simple, for a host of reasons: The legacies of slavery and Jim Crow, decades of racist housing policies, educational disparities, employment discrimination, and a race-fueled War on Drugs.

Where you start in life financially matters a lot, too: If you're born in the poorest 20 percent of families of any race, yet still earn a college degree, you have roughly the same chance of being stuck in the poorest bracket as rich high-school dropouts do of staying in the richest bracket (16 and 14 percent, respectively).

Upward mobility is a much harder climb than O'Reilly says it is, he just will not admit it because then he will have to admit he is wrong, and he never does that, he even still thinks his 25,000 man terrorist fighting mercenary army is a good idea, even after everyone has said it is a terrible idea, even most people at Fox.

The Tuesday 10-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 22, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Racist America? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The far-left is once again banging the drum that America is a terrible country, racist in every area. The cable arm of NBC news is peddling that.

Here's what MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman said yesterday in a discussion about Ebola, ISIS, and illegal immigration: 'The brown people coming from the South, the Arab people coming from the East, the black people coming from Africa - nobody's saying that in so many words, but it's the background of this whole discussion and anybody who would deny that doesn't know how this country operates.'

Well, I know how this country operates and we are not a racist nation. In order to drive African-Americans to the polls, the race card is now being played with the election just two weeks away. Thus, that disgraceful exposition.

Fair-minded Americans should be deeply offended that their country is being smeared with the bigotry brush.
Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers were on to discuss it, and of course Powers disagreed with O'Reilly and Crowley agreed with him.

Powers denied this was an election strategy, claiming a lot of liberals think this is true. She, however, is not one of them and pointed to the argument's flawed logic. It suggests, in her estimation, that if the people conducting the beheadings in the Middle East weren't brown, Americans wouldn't be afraid of them, which is just not true.

Crowley said that when you claim racism where it doesn't exist, that is the last refuge of a scoundrel. She said liberals are now crying racism whenever you disagree with them as a way to ensure President Obama can get away with anything.

Then the Liberian Ambassador Jeremiah Sulunt was on, he said the Obama administration will not allow any West African travelers originating in the Ebola-belt countries to enter the USA unless they come through five selected airports.

O'Reilly asked the ambassador what he thought of Thomas Duncan misleading authorities about his health and ultimately spreading Ebola to two American nurses. The ambassador apologized and asserted Liberians never anticipated Ebola would come to the U.S.

The ambassador also urged America to help isolate Ebola, but not to isolate West Africans. O'Reilly insisted we have to protect ourselves, and he pointed out that with a three week incubation period, it makes it hard to spot people with Ebola and we're being forced to rely on people's honesty. The ambassador agreed that tougher measures are needed for people traveling.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on for is it legal. They talked about the Pistorius sentence, Wiehl referred to it as horribly lenient and said the story Pistorius put forth made no sense. Guilfoyle suggested South Africa bring back the jury system because this judge got it so wrong. The whole miscarriage of justice surrounding this case reminded O'Reilly of the O.J. Simpson debacle.

Switching gears, Harvard University is telling students, faculty, and employees they cannot go to West Africa without the school's permission. The Factor asked if this is even legal. Wiehl, a Harvard Law alum, concluded it's a great idea and wished more universities would follow suit when faced with such a grave public health issue. Guilfoyle weighed in and said the move was perfectly legal and warranted.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the midterm elections that are just two weeks away, stupid O'Reilly asked why Republicans are not way ahead in the polling when President Obama is doing so poorly?

Comment: Because only far-right loons hate Obama and think he is doing a terrible job, and Republicans are not doing so well because they are corrupt stooges who do not give a damn what the people want, they serve their corporate and wealthy masters.

Krauthammer said this: People don't like Republicans, noting their recent 36% favorable ratings. The best explanation for this, he said, is that people associate the GOP with the "party of no" and want to see something more positive from their leaders. According to Krauthammer, when you're the party out of power, it's almost impossible to get together a national agenda, but if Republicans want to take back power, they must show the country they have a vision.

O'Reilly said if he were head of the Republican Party, he'd take out ads in all the states that matter declaring what the GOP stands for. He doesn't believe politicians realize how distracted the electorate has become.

Comment: Which shows how stupid O'Reilly is, because no amount of ads will show people what you are when they are lies, you have to do something people like, you can not just win the elections with dishonest ads. But of course O'Reilly does not want them to change their policies, he just wants them to run dishonest ads that lie to the people to get them to vote Republican, it's a farse and O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Helping poor American children. Billy said this: "As a former teacher, one of the hardest parts of my job was trying to convince poor and minority kids that they were smart and talented and could make it in America. This is a message that needs to be drummed home. The only honest way to succeed is to work hard."

Americans Trust Jon Stewart More Than Limbaugh, Hannity & Beck
By: Steve - October 22, 2014 - 10:00am

Here is another study you will never see O'Reilly report on.

A new Pew Research Journalism Project study found that Americans trust Jon Stewart's fake newscast to deliver the news about government and politics more than they trust Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

The Pew survey analyzed political polarization and media habits. One of their conclusions was that a comedian delivering a fake newscast is more trusted than the top three conservative talk radio stars who influence Republican politics.

The study asked who people trusted most to deliver the news about politics and government. ABC, NBC, and CNN all topped 50% in trust.

The least trusted sources were Rush Limbaugh (39%), Fox News (37%), Glenn Beck (24%), and Sean Hannity (21%). The sources least trusted by the overall population were the ones that conservatives trusted the most. Conservatives most trusted Fox News (88%), Sean Hannity (62%), Rush Limbaugh (58%), and Glenn Beck (51%).

Jon Stewart's The Daily Show was trusted by 16% of total respondents. Stewart's trust level of 16%, which was higher than Sean Hannity's (12%), Rush Limbaugh's (12%), and Glenn Beck's (10%).

This means that Jon Stewart is a more trusted source for news than the three of the four sources that conservatives trust the most.

The disconnect between what the population as a whole deems trustworthy compared to what conservatives trust is more evidence that conservatives are living in an ideological bubble.

When a comedian has more credibility than three of the four most trusted conservative media figures, it is a sign that the conservative movement is reinforcing it's own beliefs with a self fulfilling cycle of ideological talking points.

The American people aren't stupid. The only people being fooled by Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the other conservatives are the desperate true believers of the conservative movement.

The Monday 10-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 21, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why Americans Believe Things Are Out of Control. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new poll of likely voters in states where midterm races are tight clearly demonstrates that most Americans are uneasy. 64% say things in the United States feel like they are out of control. But when asked if the election for the House and Senate were held today, 41% said they would vote for the Democratic candidate, 36% for the Republican, and 23% don't know yet.

If a whopping 64% of Americans think the country is out of control, why would anyone vote for a Democratic candidate? The answer is emotion. The Democrats have been very successful in convincing some voters that the Republican Party favors the rich and is anti-woman. What is certainly true is that the Democratic Party and President Obama have not been successful in making America a stronger country.

We are much weaker than we were six years ago. So if you are voting for the country, you would be less likely to support the Democrats. But if you are voting just for yourself and what you can get from the government, the option the Democrats provide is attractive. Part of the reason the USA is in trouble is that President Obama puts ideology over tough, practical solutions.

Ebola is a good example. Overwhelmingly, Americans want a travel ban on countries where the epidemic is raging. The president dissents, saying a ban would 'make the disease even harder to track.' But Senegal and Nigeria have prohibited West Africans in the neighboring Ebola-plagued districts from entering and that strategy has been effective.

Based on that, a travel ban to America is certainly appropriate, but the president continues to say no. That's one of many examples of ideology trumping practical solutions to vexing problems. We are living in a dangerous, complicated world. We need problem solvers, not ideologues.
Comment: That is all ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing nonsense. People would vote for Democrats because most of them actually represent the people, unlike most Republicans who only represent the wealthy, the corporations, the NRA, and the religious right groups. In fact, you are an idiot if you vote Republican because they do not give a damn what the people want.

We are not weaker since Obama took office, we are much better, O'Reilly just will not admit it because he is a Republican and a big ideologue. Him saying we do not need ideologues is laughable, because he is one, and almost everyone at Fox is too. Virtually every measure of the country is better now, from the stock market, to the economy, to jobs, to unemployment, O'Reilly just ignores it all because it has happened under a Democratic President.

And not only that, go back and look at the economic improvements by President, and you will see that the economy always does better under Democrats, something O'Reilly never reports and will not tell you about.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the insane Talking Points Memo. And for once Juan Williams gave O'Reilly a true fact check.

Williams said this: "You are looking at some facts in isolation. You talk about people saying the country is in a chaotic situation, but they've been saying that for more than a decade. Republicans are trying to undermine Obama and trust in government by saying things are out of control because of Obama and the Democrats. There is paranoia and fear without any legitimate grounds."

Ham said this: "I'm willing to listen to an epidemiologist who says a travel ban isn't the best idea. But they don't bother to say that to the American people, they say, 'Shut up, stupid little people, we will not be doing a travel ban, why are you racist?' These clumsy bureaucratic systems are not working."

Then Benjamin Crump was on to talk about new reports that say forensic evidence indicates that Michael Brown may have tried to wrestle the gun from Officer Darren Wilson in their Ferguson confrontation.

Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump said this: "We still haven't gotten anything official from the prosecutor's office. But even if we are to accept this allegation as true, it doesn't explain the other shots and the fact that Michael Brown was running away from the police officer. That's why his family is begging for charges to be brought, so there can be a trial and it can be transparent."

Then O'Reilly had Stacey Dash from Fox news on to try and help him make people believe there is no white privelege in America today. Which is just laughable, and O'Reilly only makes himself look more stupid every time he denies it. And on top of that, her parents were drug addicts, which proves nothing.

Dash said this: "I couldn't understand why they weren't around, or why there were so many fights and why we were moving so much. When you have so much sadness, it's excruciating, and I found that if I got angry it motivated me more. I had to fight a lot, I had to prove that I was not going to be pushed around. But in the past few years I realized that anger was unsustainable and I had to find another way, so I just got closer to God."

Dash also urged black Americans to avoid believing that "white privilege" is holding them down, saying this: "The disenfranchised and the uninformed have to be educated. Your life and your destiny is not dependent on somebody else. It's your responsibility."

Comment: And none of what she said, or what O'Reilly said, disproves their is white privilege. It's a waste of time to even argue about it, and I will no longer report on this nonsense. Everyone with a working brain understands there is white privilege, and that is a fact, just look at one stat, when whites go to a bank to get a home loan a higher percentage of white than blacks get them, that is a fact and 100% proof there is white privilege.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about a new poll of Republicans showing that Mitt Romney leads the pack of prospective contenders.

Rove said this: "Most Republicans have concluded that Romney will not be a candidate, but if he were a prospective candidate I think his number would be even higher."

Comment: Which shows how stupid Republicans are, Romney was a terrible candidate who made dumb mistake after dumb mistake, and they want him to run again, it's just laughable. I hope he does, because Hillary will beat him worse than Obama did, and then maybe he will go away forever.

O'Reilly scoffed at Rove's prediction that Mitt Romney will not run for the presidency, saying this: "Why would any human being get up at five in the morning to talk with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday if he were not running? He's going to campaign for the nomination, just wait and see."

Then the worthless moron Jesse Watters was on, he was in New York City to ask some people about the Ebola scare. Here are some of their responses: "It's the disease that comes from the dirty water" ... "I had it recently, I was very sick to my stomach" ... "I think people are overreacting" ... "I think it's a conspiracy."

Watters then said this: "They don't know anything. But it's understandable because the CDC is confused about what Ebola is and people are too."

Comment: And that is biased garbage, people do not know about Ebola because it has never been a problem here and never will be, basically nobody cares about it. The only people who care are the morons in the media, nobody else cares and if you do not watch the news you barely even know someone in America had Ebola.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Be Careful How You Act In Public. Billy said this: "If you become intoxicated in public, it's very possible that your actions will be captured on video and could haunt you the rest of your life."

Republican Right Embraces Long Tradition Of Pandering To Fear
By: Steve - October 21, 2014 - 10:00am

Now take note of all the points made in this article by Robert Creamer about how the Republican party uses fear tactics. Take special note of how Bill O'Reilly does the very same thing, as if the Republican party spin doctors scripted it for him. O'Reilly does every single thing mentioned in this article, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who never uses any GOP talking points.

Republican Right Embraces Its Long, Hypocritical Tradition of Pandering to Fear

By Robert Creamer

10-14-14 -- They're back. Like the fourth sequel to a bad horror movie, the Republican Right has once again chosen to embrace its long ignoble, hypocritical tradition of pandering to -- and stoking -- fear.

As the election nears, their ads are filled with images of ISIL terrorists, Ebola viruses, Secret Service breaches, and "porous" borders through which knife-wielding Muslim extremists are surely infiltrating every corner of our society. It's not just disgusting. It's also hypocritical. The fact is that the Republicans have an abysmal record when it comes to defending the security of ordinary Americans.

Last week, the New York Times reported that:
Darkness is enveloping Americans politics. With four weeks to go before the midterm elections, Republicans have made questions of how safe we are -- from disease, terrorism or something unspoken and perhaps more ominous -- central in their attacks against Democrats. Their message is decidedly grim: President Obama and the Democratic Party run a government that is so fundamentally broken it cannot offer its people the most basic protection from harm.
But this is nothing new. Right-wing demagogues have perfected their techniques for appealing to our darkest fears for decades. It's embedded in their DNA. Who can forget Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950's who fomented the "red scare" and claimed to "have in his hand a list of Communists" who had infiltrated the government -- of General Dwight Eisenhower.

McCarthy and his followers cowed many in politics, government, and entertainment with charges that they were "un-American" for years before his tactics so sickened the country that the term "McCarthyism" is now used to denote " the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence".

Then there was Sarah Palin, who fabricated the fictitious "death panels" of the Affordable Care Act.

Even the genial George H.W. Bush won election by stooping to the racist demagoguery of the infamous "Willie Horton" commercial.

Last summer, you would have thought that there was an enemy army at our southern border -- not 10-year-old refugees from violence in Central America. And earlier this month, Congressman Duncan Hunter "revealed" that his secret sources had tipped him off that ten ISIL terrorists had been apprehended at the border trying to infiltrate the United States.

Turns out that, according to the Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol, Hunter's charge was sheer fabrication based on no evidence whatsoever.

But the thing that really makes this kind of fear mongering so outrageous is the fact that Republicans themselves have such a horrific record keeping Americans safe and secure.

Let us recall that the worst attack on our homeland in American history -- 9/11 -- occurred after the Bush administration had ignored warnings that Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack. That attack did not happen under Bill Clinton or Barack Obama -- it happened under Mr. "War on Terror" George W. Bush.

And let's also recall that for all his bravado following the attack, the Bush administration failed to apprehend Osama Ben Laden. Barack Obama did.

Of course it was the Bush administration that kicked over the sectarian hornet's nest in Iraq in the first place, with a completely unnecessary war that was bungled so badly that it created a Sunni power vacuum and created the conditions for the development of ISIL.

And the Iraq War was, itself, the product of precisely the same kind of Republican fear mongering we see today. It was, after all, Saddam Hussein's non-existent nuclear program that the war was ostensibly launched to destroy. Remember Condoleezza Rice's famous line: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"?

Republican advertisements try to sow insecurity with their disturbing images of Ebola viruses and the fear of an American epidemic. But they don't mention that it was the GOP that has slashed funding for the Centers for Disease Control -- the first line of defense against Ebola and other viral threats to the United States.

And in real dollars, Republican budget cutting has also slashed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 23 percent over the last decade. In fact the NIH Director, Dr. Francis Collins says that if the agency had not gone through a 10-year slide in research support a vaccine for Ebola would be ready today.

The GOP has made much of recent Secret Service security breaches at the White House -- without ever noting that their sequester has starved the Secret Service of needed personnel.

The most disgusting GOP ads this cycle are probably the ones that whip up fear of immigrants flooding into America and bringing with them diseases and embedded ISIL terrorists. These amazing ads take all of the ingredients of Republican fear mongering and conflate them into an inflammatory cocktail of fictitious boogeymen.

They are all aimed at playing upon the legitimate economic anxiety of ordinary Americans and convincing them that Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are endangering their safety and security.

And, of course, they completely ignore that by every measure the borders of the United States are massively more secure today than they were during the Bush administration.

If you broaden the lens to focus on that underlying economic insecurity, the Republican record gets even worse. It was Republican George W. Bush whose economic policies led to the most catastrophic meltdown of the economy in half a century.

When Barack Obama became president the economy was bleeding 800,000 jobs a month. Obama's stimulus policies, on the other hand, have led to the longest sustained period of private sector jobs growth (55 months) in modern history.

Most middle class Americans -- and those aspiring to be middle class -- wouldn't have a clue from their personal lives that America is in fact wealthier per person today than at any other time in history. That's because those Republican economic and tax policies allowed the top 1 percent of CEOs and Wall Street bankers to siphon off virtually all of the economic growth America has experienced over the last 30 years and left the middle class with stagnating incomes.

The GOP has consistently opposed changing the Bush era tax policies that greatly contributed to the ever-greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. And they have fought tooth and nail to stop popular Democratic proposals that would improve the economic security of the middle class and prevent the continued concentration of wealth -- like raising the minimum wage, equal pay for women, continued unemployment benefits, asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes, and lightening the burden of student loans.

Then there's retirement security. The Republicans failed plan to privatize Social Security would have eliminated the Social Security guarantee and forced middle class families to rely on the ups and downs of the stock market for their retirement prospects. If your idea of retirement security is a Las Vegas roulette wheel, the GOP is the party for you.

And now they have tried the same thing with Medicare -- with a wildly unpopular plan to replace the Medicare guarantee with vouchers for private insurance that would raise out of pocket costs for seniors by several thousand dollars a year. And the Republicans say they are concerned with our "security"?

Let's not forget Republican fear mongering about the budget deficit. Throughout the Obama presidency, GOP-Tea Party politicians have inveighed against an "exploding deficit" that would surely turn America into an economic basket case. America will go the way of Greece, they claimed.

All of this deficit handwringing has been intended to promote austerity policies intended to allow them to shrink government down so it can be "drowned in a bathtub." Never mind that those austerity policies have been a disaster in Europe where they have actually been tried.

But once again the GOP has not stopped at fear-mongering. Its deficit hypocrisy has been nothing short of breathtaking. The truth of the matter is that it was the Bush-Cheney regime that left the nation with ballooning deficits as a result of their tax cuts for the rich and spending on the Iraq War.

During the Bush years, Cheney was quoted as saying "deficits don't matter." So it shouldn't surprise anyone that as they left office the federal deficit hit a whopping 9.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

And, the Obama stimulus policies that Republicans claimed would explode the deficit have actually shrunk the deficit by over half. It is now anticipated to be only 2.8 percent of GDP in 2014 -- lower than its average for the last 40 years of 3.1 percent.

It's no surprise given this record that the GOP has resorted to fear mongering and demagoguery so often in its history. When you really just represent the interests of the top one or two percent of the population -- of the Corporate CEO's and Wall Street Bankers -- it's hard to convince ordinary Americans that they should entrust you with the leadership of their country unless you can distract them with fear.

The GOP offers fear because it cannot offer hope.

Republicans have a horrible record of securing the nation against physical danger and against economic disaster, so to compensate they bluster on and on about the "security and safety" of the American people.

They're like the sanctimonious televangelist who rails on and on against fornication and ends up getting caught in bed with an underage hooker.

And in the end, history will deal with the demagoguery of Right Wing Republicans like Ted Cruz the same way it dealt with demagoguery of Joe McCarthy. If he's "lucky" maybe future generations will even label all acts of demagogic, hypocritical fear mongering as "Cruzism."

It's Official: The Far-Right Laura Ingraham Has Lost Her Mind
By: Steve - October 20, 2014 - 10:00am

On October 17th, Laura Ingraham said this on her radio show: "The Left Believes Americans Should Die From Ebola To Repay Our Debt To Africa"

Which is just pure insanity, I am on the left and I sure as hell do not think that, and I do not know any other liberals who think that. It's ridiculous, we do not want anyone to die from Ebola (or anything else) to repay any kind of debt to Africa.

It's madness to say such a thing, and it is something you would expect a lunatic in an insane asylum to say. And it's not just insanity, it's stupid, because if Ebola does get out of control in America, it would also kill liberals, so to make the claim she did is not only crazy, it's the kind of talk you would hear from an idiot.

Nobody on the left wants that, ever. We do not want anyone to die for anything. And think about this, O'Reilly uses this lunatic as his fill-in host when he takes time off. So what does that say about O'Reilly, it says he is also a far-right nut who supports what she says, otherwise he would fire her as his fill-in host and denounce what she said. Instead, he ignores it and continues to let her host his show.

Gas Prices Fall Below $3.00 A Gallon: O'Reilly & Fox Silent
By: Steve - October 19, 2014 - 10:00am

Think back to about a year ago, gas prices were about $4.00 a gallon and the partisan hacks at Fox went wild over it. O'Reilly slammed Obama almost every night for the high gas prices, blaming him and his economic policies for the prices. Almost every host at Fox used the high gas prices to slam Obama and blame him for it.

Now we are at a point to where gas prices are below $3.00 a gallon, here in East Peoria many stations are down to $2.99 or less. And all over the country many states are seeing gas below $3.00 a gallon.

So what do we hear from O'Reilly and the partisan hacks at Fox, nothing, silence. Suddenly it is not Obama's fault for gas prices, O'Reilly never says a word about gas prices these days, he never mentions it at all.

Just as he does not say a word about Obamacare anymore, he does not say a word about low gas prices, because he can not use it as a political hammer to slam Obama anymore, so he just ignores it. He also does not report any economic news, or jobs reports, or the unemployment rate, or any economic news at all.

Because it's all good news now and he can not use it for cheap shots against the President. You would think the #1 rated show on cable news would report on the stock market, the jobs numbers, and the unemployment numbers, and you would be wrong. I watch the Factor every night and O'Reilly never reports any of it, because it would make Obama look good.

The DOW has set record high after record high over the last 6 to 9 months, and O'Reilly has not reported any of them, none, zero. But every time the DOW set a record high under Bush O'Reilly reported it every single time. And not only did O'Reilly report them under Bush, he gave Bush credit for it and even said it was a measure of how good a job Bush was doing as President.

Which O'Reilly now does not do under Obama, he ignores it, does not give Obama credit for it, and does not say it shows that Obama is doing a good job. This is called bias, flat out right-wing political bias, and yet O'Reilly claims to be fair and balanced and even says he has been fair to Obama, which is just laughable.

For the last 9 months or so the DOW has broke 16,000, then 17,000, and set record highs multiple times, and not once did O'Reilly ever report it. But as soon as the DOW has a few days where it dropped, guess what, O'Reilly reported that. Last week he had the biased hack Lou Dobbs on to discuss the short term drop in the market, while ignoring the 9 months of increases.

Folks, these are facts, I have documented it in my blog. It is 100% proof O'Reilly is a biased stooge who only reports bad news that makes Obama look bad, while ignoring all the good news that makes Obama look good. And on top of that while all this is happening O'Reilly lies to you that the whole country is in chaos and the economy is not doing better.

That is all lies from O'Reilly, because virtually every single economic measure shows we are doing much better since Obama took office in January of 2009. O'Reilly thinks that if he says it enough someone will believe him, even though the facts say the exact opposite. And somehow in his crazy mind he actually thinks he is an honest journalist who tells the truth, which in the real world is a ridiculous statement.

Why You Should Not Vote Republican In The November Elections
By: Steve - October 18, 2014 - 11:00am

One year ago today, Republicans made their strongest possible case outlining their governing principles.

Threatened by the prospect of millions of Americans securing access to quality, affordable health care, Republicans chose instead to shut down the federal government. And then waste taxpayer money (and time) voting 56 times to repeal Obamacare, even though if it did pass the Senate Obama would veto it, because it was his own bill, and it will never pass the Senate while Democrats are in the majority.

The consequences of their actions were felt across the nation. America's national parks shuttered. Children were turned away from Head Start classrooms. The National Institutes of Health was forced to reject new patients from potentially lifesaving clinical trials. More than 800,000 federal workers were furloughed.

When the reckless gamesmanship finally ended after sixteen days, the long-term consequences were apparent. The GOP shutdown cost the U.S. economy $24 billion and cut 0.3 percent of growth off the GDP. A major credit rating agency even threatened to lower the United States credit rating because of the risk that we would default on our nation's debts.

At the time, some in the Republican party claimed to have realized the error of their ways and pledged not to do it again. But with the midterm elections less than five weeks away, it is clear that Republicans have not learned their lesson.

Over the summer, Mitch McConnell admitted the GOP's plans should they win control of the Senate -- hold the American economy hostage by repeatedly threatening to shut down the government unless President Obama did exactly what they wanted.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Steve King also suggested that Republicans should threaten another government shutdown if President Obama acted to fix the nation's broken immigration system -- action that is supported by the majority of Americans.

It is a callous interpretation of the relationship between Congress and the president, but sadly to be expected of a Republican Party whose GOP-controlled House chose to sue the president for doing his job when they failed to do theirs.

Rather than take action that will help middle-class families or expand opportunity for all Americans, many Republicans are more interested in scoring cheap partisan political points. They are following the lead of the far-right Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, architect of the shutdown strategy, and Rand Paul, who viewed the closing of crucial government services as a public relations fight Republicans could win.

Even Republican candidates for Senate like Bill Cassidy, Joni Ernst, David Perdue and Tom Cotton supported the shutdown and the last thing we need is more of that in Washington.

This is the choice voters will have next month when they head to the polls -- Republicans who are willing to jeopardize our economic well-being and put partisan politics ahead of the will of the people when they don't get their way, or Democrats who will work to fix our nation's problems.

Voters can see that the Democratic Party shares their priorities. They are fighting to increase the minimum wage, because no one who works full time should have to raise their family in poverty. Democrats also support paycheck fairness, because pay equity is not just a woman's issue, but a family issue and an economic issue. Republicans oppose it and vote it down every time the Democrats bring it up for a vote.

These are actions that would immediately help families make ends meet, and a far more productive use of Congress time than another destructive government shutdown, or voting to repeal Obamacare when it will never pass.

There are serious issues facing our nation that we will need to address in the years ahead. They understand that both parties have to work together. But that can't happen if Republicans decide to take their ball and go home every time things don't go the way they want.

You can agree or disagree how the country should deal with climate change, or immigration reform, or investing in our children's' future. But whether Congress fulfills its most basic functions, or whether our country meets our obligations, should never be up for debate.

Voters will head to the polls in less than five weeks. While Republicans threaten another shutdown, the best way to ensure a government that shares their priorities is to elect Democratic candidates who are willing to stick it out and fight on their behalf.

Jobless Applications Fall To 14 Year Low: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - October 18, 2014 - 10:00am

Jobless claims hit a 14 year low, and as usual O'Reilly never said a word about it, because it is more good economic news that makes Obama look good. O'Reilly never reports any good economic news, because he is a biased right-wing hack that does not want to give Obama any credit for it, even though under Bush he did give him credit for the good economic news.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment aid dropped to the lowest level in 14 years last week, the latest sign of a strengthening labor market that could help blunt worries about the impact of weak global growth.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications for unemployment aid fell 23,000 to a seasonally adjusted 264,000, the lowest level since April 2000. Given that the U.S. population has grown considerably since then, the proportion of the U.S. workforce applying for benefits is even smaller.

Analysts cheered the unexpectedly strong data. Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, described the report as "spectacular" and "astonishing."

"Whether claims can be sustained at such a low level - an all-time low, as a share of payroll employment - is debatable....but this is a clear signal of real strength in the labor market," he said in a note to clients.

Fox Media Critic Praises Shepard Smith, Slams O'Reilly For Ebola Reporting
By: Steve - October 17, 2014 - 11:50am

Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz echoed his colleague Shepard Smith's admonishment of the media for irresponsible Ebola coverage, highlighting his own network's reporting.

Kurtz called out media figures like Fox host Bill O'Reilly, who has demanded the resignation of CDC director Tom Frieden, for reducing their response to Ebola "to a question of which heads should roll."

He contrasted coverage like O'Reilly's to that of Fox's Shepard Smith, who made headlines this week for blasting the media's "irresponsible" and "hysterical" Ebola coverage.

Smith "challenged his own profession to stop scaring people," Kurtz explained, asking, "Will the media listen?"

The Thursday 10-16-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 17, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: The Ebola Factor. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As the Ebola chaos grows, no one knows how much the situation will influence politics in the USA. But there is no question it will have an impact. Some experts believe Ebola is suppressing the stock market and that will affect every American, as fear hurts the economy.

A Fox News poll asked registered voters about the direction of the country. 36% described themselves as 'hopeful,' while 61% are 'not hopeful.' And 49% respondents say the country is 'worse off' since Barack Obama became president, while 39% say 'better off.'

So the folks are blaming the president for much of the dissatisfaction. And President Obama is at fault. His leadership on many serious issues has been lacking. He made a tremendous mistake in the war on terror by pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq. The administration has also underestimated the Muslim jihadists and has no effective strategy for containing their terror.

The president has been outfoxed by Putin, Iran and China. Here at home, the most important indicator of economic well-being, take-home pay, has fallen under the president. Democrats can spin all they want, but the cold truth is working Americans have less money in their pockets than in the past. A combination of high taxes and mediocre wages has hammered the folks. It is difficult to see any great improvements under President Obama and it will take years to figure out the benefits, if any, of Obamacare.

Now, on to Ebola. There is no question that the federal government is mishandling the situation, and again that will go right back to the White House. The point man on Ebola, CDC chief Dr. Thomas Frieden, is botching the situation big time. We've already pounded Dr. Frieden on his inexplicable opposition to suspending visa and passports from West Africa. And yesterday the man could not even explain how Ebola should be handled in public transportation.

Talking Points will help him: If you are sitting on a bus and someone next to you has Ebola and sneezes on you, you can get it. Are you understanding that Dr. Frieden? So the federal government has to keep Ebola victims out of the public arena. That means no people from the epidemic area should be admitted to the USA, something Frieden opposes but is absolutely the correct thing to do.

Not only flights, no admittance to any person holding passports from the Ebola epidemic areas. I have nothing personally against Dr. Frieden, but his performance has been awful and he has to go. The fact that the Obama administration continues to put this man in the spotlight will hurt the president of the United States.
Comment: Wow! That is mostly right-wing insanity. There is no Ebola chaos, the stock market is not down from Ebola, people always think the country is headed in the wrong direction, even under Bush, President Obama is not at fault for most of it, he had to pull the troops out of Iraq because of the SOFA agreement Bush signed, Google it, taxes have not went up, they went down, and things have greatly improved under Obama, and there is no proof if someone on a bus sneezes on you with Ebola you will get it, not to mention the odds of someone being on a bus with Ebola are almost zero.

Then James Carville and Andrea Tantaros were on to discuss the Talking Points Memo.

Tantaros said this: "You say Frieden should step down, and I understand your anger with him. But he is a doctor, he is not a crisis communications expert or a general. I don't think now is the time to switch horses. Move him out of the spotlight, but he does have valuable information. But I agree with you on the travel ban."

Carville agreed with Tantaros contention that Frieden should not be fired right now, saying this: "He's well qualified, but he's not an expert in Ebola and he's not the most effective communicator. If people are worried about getting Ebola, they should worry about something else. The chances of a significant outbreak in this country is very remote."

Then Ed Henry was on, he reported on the president's stance toward CDC boss Dr. Tom Frieden. With no Democratic guest on for balance.

Henry said this: "The administration has been saying they have full confidence in Dr. Frieden, but in recent days they have gotten the signal, especially as we get closer to the mid-term elections. There is more pressure on the president to figure out who is really in charge, and the president has canceled all of his fundraising and campaign activity. They get it that this is a huge problem and his leadership is on the line."

O'Reilly again called for a ban on travel from affected nations, saying this: "I have a spy in the White House who tells me that President Obama was furious yesterday in the Ebola meeting. The lack of a travel ban is absolutely the president's fault, you do what you can do to protect the public."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to assess a new poll showing that most Americans feel coverage of the Ebola outbreak has been appropriate. With no Democratic guest for balance.

Goldberg said this: "The poll, like so many other things in our culture these days, has been infected with politics. If you're a fan of Barack Obama, I'm guessing that you are one of the people who say the coverage is 'sensationalized.' If you're not a fan of Barack Obama, you'll find the coverage 'appropriate.' Under this administration the CDC has been politicized - it is one of many American institutions that have been infected with politics under President Obama's administration. In a democracy like ours, certain institutions should be above politics."

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the war against ISIS. With no Democratic guest on for balance.

Ingraham said this: "General Dempsey says we've been making gains and he maintains that we don't need boots on the ground. However, we have a big problem right now in the town of Amiriyah Fallujah, which is 25 miles outside of Baghdad. It's reported that ISIS has besieged the town, and in Iraq the territory controlled by ISIS has not been diminished by American air strikes. So while there have been some gains in Syria, Iraq itself is very problematic."

Ingraham also said this: "We need truth-tellers in Washington, we have enough political hacks. We need to hear people and think they are really working for the betterment of America and our security."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Disagreeing Agreeably. Billy said this: "If you disagree with someone, hold your ground without getting angry, and always try to use a little humor to defuse any tension."

Another Fox Host Tells O'Reilly He Is Wrong Over CDC Head Resigning
By: Steve - October 17, 2014 - 11:00am

First it was Greta Van Susteren telling O'Reilly he is wrong to call for the head of the CDC Dr. Tom Frieden to resign. Now it is Andrea Tantaros who is telling O'Reilly he is wrong.

Fox News Andrea Tantaros disagreed with O'Reilly Thursday night, and she went back and forth with him over it, arguing it makes no sense to switch leadership in the middle of a crisis like this.

Tantaros told O'Reilly she understands his frustrations, and "unlike some other people on this network, it is valid."

She was talking about Shepard Smith who has said the people at Fox are scaremondering over Ebola, that it is not a crisis, and not even close.

However, she went on to say, "He's a doctor, Bill, he's not a crisis communications expert, he's not a general."

She also expressed discomfort with the idea of getting rid of Frieden in the middle of this crisis. Pulling him out of the spotlight? Sure. Bringing in a more effective crisis communicator? Yes.

But Tantaros insisted, "He does have valuable information. Let him do his thing behind the scenes."

O'Reilly was having none of it, and he still argued Frieden needs to go because there's a certain performance level you have to be held to when you're dealing with life and death.

Remeber, this is coming from a cable tv news show host, who is not a doctor and does not have a clue what he is talking about. He is not an expert on anything, except being biased and yelling at people that disagree with his insane ideas.

Crazy Republican Praises Court Striking Down His Own Gerrymandering Map
By: Steve - October 17, 2014 - 10:00am

Now I have seen everything, a Republican Senate candidate in Virginia has praised the courts for striking down a gerrymandered district map he created. Yes, it is true, here is the story.

In a debate with Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) on Monday, Senate candidate Ed Gillespie (R-VA) praised a recent court decision for tossing out Virginia's racially gerrymandered congressional maps, even though the maps were the direct result of a partisan redistricting scheme he himself crafted.

Asked if he would support a bill to restore Voting Rights Act protections gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, Gillespie argued that more protections are unnecessary because the courts are still able to strike down discriminatory laws like Virginia's.

"We saw here just recently in Virginia that civil rights and the Voting Rights Act is being enforced. We have had our district lines overturned by the courts and it is one of the reasons why the federal court is so important," Gillespie said, as he changed the subject to attack Warner on a nepotism scandal.

The problem is, Gillespie was a key architect in Republicans gerrymandering effort that led to the Virginia maps in the first place.

Shortly after Gillespie became the chair of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) in 2010, the group launched a major push to redistrict state legislative maps to favor Republicans, called the Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP.

The RSLC raised more than $30 million to pack state legislatures with Republicans who would approve maps to lock in Republican seats for the next decade.

The now invalidated Virginia maps, which were approved after Republicans took control of the state Senate, are considered one of the most aggressive racial gerrymanders in the nation.

The maps consolidated several disparate African American communities into one awkwardly shaped district, effectively making it so black voters would not impact other districts. In other words, the Republicans drew up these racist distract maps to block all the blacks from voting against Republicans, so they would all win with all white votes.

The legislature must now redraw more equitably distributed maps by April.

Despite the setback in Virginia, Gillespie's national Republican gerrymander plan has achieved its goal, costing Democrats 1.7 million votes in seven states in the 2012 election.

Jon Stewart Fails To Get Crazy O'Reilly To Admit There Is White Privilege
By: Steve - October 16, 2014 - 11:00am

Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly got together again Wednesday night for an intense debate about white privilege that came very close to turning into a shouting match.

A few months ago, O'Reilly had dismissed the idea of "white privilege" as a fantasy, and Stewart challenged him on that, practically starting the interview saying "I want you to admit that there is such a thing as white privilege."

O'Reilly stuck to his insane argument about Asians doing well, therefore maybe Asian privilege exists, but Stewart argued "white males set the system."

Not to mention, Asians doing well has nothing to do with racism against black people, it's a stupid argument that does not make sense.

O'Reilly shot back it's ridiculous because there's "no more slavery, no more Jim Crow," and the president is black.

Which also makes no sense, just because slavery is over and a black man is in the White House does not mean racism is over, unless you are braindead.

Stewart argued the residual effects still exist today. And he is exactly right, when a white man walks into a bank to get a loan he has white advantage before the loan agent even talks to him. Not to mention, it was proven that blacks are denied more home loans than whites, even though they had the same financial situations.

Things got really heated and O'Reilly and Stewart were practically yelling at each other at one point. Stewart asked him at one point, "Why so defensive about it?"

O'Reilly is a fool and his argument about white privilege is laughable, and he might just be the only white person left in America who still claims there is no white privilege, it's ridiculous to even deny it.

Van Susteren Says O'Reilly Wrong To Call For CDC Director To Resign
By: Steve - October 16, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O’Reilly got really mad Monday night at CDC Director Tom Frieden and called on him to resign. But today his colleague Greta Van Susteren defended Frieden and said O'Reilly was "dead wrong" in his commentary.

O'Reilly spent a great deal of time last night calling Frieden a "propagandist" who needs to go immediately.

Van Susteren said this: "I disagree totally with him, I think Dr. Frieden has done a good job, and you know, I want him to continue to lead this."

Her guest, Dr. Anthony Fauci, agreed, saying people need to realize how difficult a situation this is.

Van Susteren ended things by saying, "I think Bill O'Reilly's dead wrong on this one."

And of course O'Reilly never mentioned any of that on his Tuesday night show, he ignored it ,while saying only liberals disagree with him, when one of his own right-wing Fox hosts also disagree with him.

Shepard Smith Slams Media For Irresponsible Ebola Coverage
By: Steve - October 15, 2014 - 11:30am

He said the media Ebola coverage is Hysterical and Irresponsible. Smith also said this: "These Are The Facts -- We Do Not Have An Outbreak Of Ebola In The United States. Nowhere."

Maybe someone should tell him that O'Reilly is the worst about it, but notice he says nothing about O'Reilly. And everyone else on his own network is being ridiculous about it too. If you ask O'Reilly and the other Fox stooges it's chaos, and a crisis. Even though that is ridiculous and we only have two cases here in the USA.

The Tuesday 10-14-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 15, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Latest on the Ebola Debacle. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: All over the country Americans are worried about the Ebola virus. The danger is clear, but somewhat exaggerated - there is no threat of an Ebola epidemic in the USA right now. But what is not exaggerated is the dishonesty of the federal government. We have called for the head of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden, to resign because he has not been telling us the full story about how Ebola is spreading and how it can be contained.

The biggest fabrication is that stopping West Africans from coming to the USA would somehow diminish the world's ability to fight Ebola in Africa. That is flat out false. A new ABC News/Washington Post poll asks, 'Would you support restricting entry to the United States by people who have been in affected countries?' A whopping 67% support the travel ban, just 29% percent are opposed.

That scientific poll mirrors our poll, where just 3% say the government is doing enough to protect Americans from Ebola, while 97% say it is not. People all over the world are getting more concerned. The World Health Organization estimates that up to 10,000 new Ebola cases a week in Africa could happen within the next few months.

Here in the USA, a Dallas nurse, who contracted the disease from Liberian Thomas Duncan, has received a blood transfusion from an Ebola survivor. And in Nebraska, Ashoka Mukpo continues to fight for his life after he contracted Ebola in Africa while working for NBC News. The world should be trying to help stop the epidemic in West Africa, but that will be a long process.

Preventing West Africans from entering the USA could happen today, but the Obama administration continues to dither and the CDC continues to put out false information. Therefore, concern in America continues to grow.
Comment: And that is just ridiculous nonsense, read my other blog post below for details on why O'Reilly is wrong. Remember that Greta Van Susteren has also said O'Reilly is wrong, but he never mentions that.

Then a Fox News medical contributor Manny Alvarez was on, who has also called for Dr. Frieden to resign.

Alvarez said this: "The CDC said that everything would be under control, but everything is not under control. We have patients coming over here and one case in Dallas has created chaos. We are not equipped to handle Ebola patients! The federal government has the right to stop anybody coming to this country if they feel they have an infectious problem. We need a General Patton-like doctor at the CDC, not another bureaucrat."

But Dr. Amesh Adalja, a specialist in infectious disease, argued that a travel ban is unwarranted and illegal, saying this: "There is a treaty that binds countries together to fight outbreaks, and as part of that treaty you are not allowed to enact travel bans. They have been tried in every historical outbreak but they don't work. Ebola is a disease that is containable if you do the right things."

Comment: This Fox stooge Alvarez is an idiot, he claims it is not under control, which is a lie, because it is under control and we have only had TWO cases in the USA, how the hell is that out of control?

Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers were on to talk about the Ebola situation.

Powers basically said O'Reilly is hysterical, saying this: "I'm not going to call you hysterical, but it's bordering on hysterical. We have to remember that we have a different system in the United States than in Liberia and the way you are talking about this is overblown. The idea that we should be shutting down flights is wrong, it's a hysterical reaction."

Crowley of course agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "People in the last century were quarantined at Ellis Island when they had a serious illness. There is nothing wrong with doing that when we are dealing with a virus that is this exotic and this deadly. We can't control our border, but we can shut down flights from West Africa."

Then Meghan McCain, Senator John McCain's daughter was on.

McCain said this: "I completely agree with my father. Everything he and Senator Lindsey Graham said would happen in the Middle East when we left Iraq has happened, and I'm absolutely petrified about what's going on in the Middle East right now. When the American people see what's going on and how brutal ISIS is, there is no other option. We must deal with it."

Then John Stossel was on, he claims that the federal government continually violates the Constitution, while saying nothing about the Republicans who violate the constitution.

Stossel said this: "This country works because of what Jefferson wrote in the Constitution. The powers rest with the people and we should be wary of giving government too much power. That built the most prosperous country in the world, but now presidents and Congress say it doesn't matter, we can do anything we want. What gives them the right to pass marijuana laws, what gives them the right to ignore the Second Amendment? And Congress is supposed to declare war. If bombing people is a good idea, Congress ought to approve it."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the case of Thomas Duncan, the Liberian citizen who died from Ebola in Dallas. His relatives are now threatening to sue the hospital where he died.

Wiehl said this: "In Texas they make it very hard to sue a hospital for medical malpractice. You have to show gross negligence, not just negligence. You would have to show that they knew he had Ebola before sending him home."

Guilfoyle said this: "They're very strict against this type of plaintiff lawsuit in Texas, you have to show willful and wanton disregard. The family could bring a federal civil rights case, but that would also fail."

Comment: O'Reilly also admitted they did not treat him because he did not have any money, or health insurance, and that he was from a foreign country.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to slam Susan Rice, who on Sunday claimed that Turkey is committed to the fight against ISIS, which the Turkish government promptly denied. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "I have some advice for Susan Rice. She could be an international strategist of Kissengerian proportions, but she should not go on television, it just doesn't work. It is totally inexplicable that the National Security Adviser, whose job is to be the conduit of all information coming from the various foreign policy agencies, should go on television and announce to the world this very crucial agreement. And then, within hours, the Turks say it's not true. It is a monumental mistake, and that it should happen in the middle of a war is truly remarkable."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting an interview another Fox host did.

67% Say They Support Restricting Entry From Countries With Ebola
By: Steve - October 15, 2014 - 10:00am

A new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News shows 67 percent of people say they would support restricting entry to the United States from countries struggling with Ebola. Another 91 percent would like to see stricter screening procedures at U.S. airports in response to the disease's spread.

Thus far, some countries in Europe have restricted flights from these countries in West Africa, and an increasing number of U.S. lawmakers are calling for similar bans. The White House has yet to increase restrictions, with federal officials saying such a move could actually increase the spread of the disease by hampering the movement of aid workers and supplies.

So O'Reilly used the poll results on his Tuesday night show, to argue he is right, and that we should block everyone from African countries from entering the USA.

Without telling you that O'Reilly, everyone else at Fox, and the rest of the media has been putting out propaganda on Ebola and scaring everyone with nonsense. I can not even turn a news show on without hearing about Ebola, it's everywhere, on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. They are almost reporting it 24/7, so of course people are scared.

And if the media reported that monkeys could now fly 24/7 for 2 weeks, 67% of the people would most likely believe that too.

It's ridiculous, and here are the facts. ONE guy with Ebola got into the USA, and he got in illegally by lying to people at the airport. I repeat, ONE guy with Ebola got into the USA.

Then a nurse who treated him also got Ebola, because she violated protocol when she did it. And now she is doing fine, and responding to treatment.

So we had ONE actual case of Ebola, and TWO total cases of Ebola, TWO!

And one of them was a nurse who treated the ONE guy who had Ebola. It's not like we have 100 cases of Ebola, or 200, or 300, or 500, or 1000. There was ONE case of Ebola, ONE!

Now think about this too, another Pew poll from last week showed that only 11 percent were "very worried" about themselves or their families becoming infected.

But O'Reilly does not report that, not a word, he just keeps fearmongering that Ebola is a crisis and that 67% want African people blocked from entering the USA.

This is all nonsense, remember back to 2009 when we had the H1N1 virus scare. Also called the swine flu, in October 2009 polls showed that 52 percent were "very worried" then, and the crisis never happened.

In 2006 the Avian influenza scare hit, also called the bird flu, in 2006 (41 percent) and slightly higher than concern about Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003.

People were scared about all of it, because the media scared everyone for no reason, and it all went away to be never heard about again. We went from Sars, to the bird flu, to the swine flu, and now it's Ebola.

Every time someone gets sick O'Reilly and the media flip out and scare everyone for no reason. And now they are doing it again with Ebola, over ONE fricking case, ONE!

The Monday 10-13-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 14, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why the Federal Government is Not Protecting America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With a second Ebola case in Dallas, Americans are concerned that their government will not protect them against this very contagious disease. 26-year-old Nina Pham, a nurse who treated Thomas Duncan - the Liberian who died from Ebola last week - has been diagnosed with the disease, even though she was apparently wearing protective gear.

A new poll asked whether there should there be a ban on flights from West African countries into the USA? 58% said yes, 20% no. Talking Points has said that there is no compelling reason why West Africans should be admitted to the USA. This is a national security issue, is it not? We have asked Dr. Thomas Frieden of the Centers for Disease Control to appear a number of times. He has declined, and I believe it's because he knows that I know he's not being candid.

Nobody is calling for charter flights to be banned, so medical assistance and military personnel could get to the affected areas in Africa. Talking Points is just asking for common sense, which the Obama administration is rejecting. Now, onto the ISIS threat. Reports out of Syria and Iraq say U.S. bombing is doing some damage to these terrorists, but is not stopping their advance.

All of us who see things clearly knew that was going to be the case. I believe President Obama knew that was going to be the case but would not tell the American people. Instead, the president has created a mythology that somehow a 60-nation coalition that is basically doing nothing is going to defeat ISIS.

The Turkish army is one mile away from the terrorists watching them slaughter civilians and doing nothing. Great coalition, Mr. President! The American people are not being told the whole truth by the Obama administration about two very important situations. The B.S. has to stop.
Comment: Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. O'Reilly now claims the federal government is not protecting America, over 2 cases of Ebola, and one was a nurse who treated the guy with Ebola, give me a break. This is 100% proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because nothing but a partisan political fool would say such a crazy thing.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it. Who both work for Fox and agreed with O'Reilly, making them all scaremongering fools.

Williams said this: "I am very troubled with what is happening in Dallas, and I don't understand why we are not being told what is going on. When it comes to Dr. Frieden, accountability is key for our officials. But my question to you is, who is on the bench, who have we heard from in the medical community who says Frieden is wrong?"

Ham said this: "It's important not to panic, but it's perfectly rational as an American to look at this situation and point out that President Obama and many other people said there were screening processes in place. In the past year, the NIH and CDC have grossly mishandled anthrax, bird flu, and smallpox, so I don't have the utmost confidence that what they're saying is the truth."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the Ebola situation and the government's reaction.

Hume said this: "I don't think we've been leveled with on Ebola or ISIS. I'm more concerned that Tom Frieden doesn't know the truth about Ebola, I think he was genuinely surprised that the nurse got infected even though she was wearing protective gear. What's happening here is that we keep getting these surprises. This is still relatively small, but it's frightening."

Then Karl Rove was on with one of his regular updates on the battle for control of the Senate. With no Democratic guest for balance, and O'Reilly never once disclosed that Rove has two PAC's that have spent millions and millions on the very same races he is reporting on. Which is a massive conflict of interest, and yet O'Reilly says nothing about it.

Rove said this: "Ebola adds to a growing concern about security, and ISIS has been a driver in public opinion. National security and terrorism has risen to the number two concern in most polls, and Ebola adds to those concerns. This will be more of an issue when there is a direct connection between a candidate and either one of those two issues. If you have a Republican candidate who has some credentials to talk about this and a Democrat that has a weakness, then it will become more salient."

O'Reilly reminded Rove that Republicans are not a sure bet to win a Senate majority, saying this: "You are saying that the whole atmosphere points to Republicans doing well, yet many of the races are still very tight."

Comment: And let us not forget that Rove was totally wrong with his political predictions in the last election, so he is biased and sometimes very wrong. O'Reilly never once pointed that out.

Then Jesse Watters was on to talk about Columbus Day? He asked some people about Christopher Columbus and his historic voyages to the New World.

Here are a few of their observations about Columbus: "He discovered something, I don't know what" ... "He conquered America, I think" ... "He was Hispanic" ... "He came over on the Mayflower."

O'Reilly then advised Watters to dig deeper next time, saying this: "We need to know if these people actually went to school and graduated. I want their resumes, because most people watching this program think this is phony."

Comment: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are an out of touch moron. Because most people do not care about history, they care about jobs and making enough money to pay the bills.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Ride Out The Storm. Billy said this: "Just about anything can happen when you travel, including an unexpected storm like the one that smacked Bermuda last weekend, so just stay calm and roll with the proverbial punches."

Fox Calls For Czar After Saying Obama Czars Turing Us Into Russia
By: Steve - October 14, 2014 - 10:00am

This is a classic double standard and hypocrisy from the stooges at Fox, when Obama was appointing Czars to head different Government agencies Fox flipped out and said he is turning the USA into Russia, they had segment after segment about it on all the Fox shows, including the O'Reilly Factor, they even had a graphic on one show with the appointees dressed as Russian Czars.

After spending much of 2009 complaining that President Obama's appointment of "czars" was akin to the crowning of monarchs and Russian practices, Fox & Friends is now calling for the appointment of an Ebola Virus czar.

Fox host Steve Doocy responded to news of the first Ebola diagnosis contracted within the U.S. by calling for an "official Ebola czar" on the October 13 edition of Fox & Friends, echoing the demand of Republican Sen. John McCain.

According to Doocy, "We probably need one" because Obama isn't doing enough to fight the virus:
DOOCY: So every time there's an incident like this, you see Thomas Frieden, the guy who heads up CDC, but is he the official -- there he is right there -- Is he the official Ebola czar? We probably need one, because the president isn't, you know, he's not --

KILMEADE: Sen. McCaul is calling for one.

DOOCY: Absolutely. So with all this bad news --

KILMEADE: Congressman McCaul.

DOOCY: Where was the President of the United States over the weekend? Right after he talked to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, he went golfing.
So when Obama does it he is a commie fool that is turning the USA into Russia, but when McCain and some Fox stooges call for it then it's suddenly a great thing. That's how it works at Fox, because they are biased right-wing hacks.

And they have a long history of mocking previous Obama administration czars.

Co-Host Gretchen Carlson mocked the term and alleged, "You know when I looked up 'czar' in the dictionary, or Googled it, the word that came up was 'king.' And I was wondering to myself, why we are having so many czars/kings now in America?"

Doocy added, "When you think about it, 'czar' is a Russian word."

Fox then aired a made up graphic of Obama's cabinet members in Russian czar attire displaying the question, "And Now We're Russia?" Doocy went on to compare administration cabinet members to Russian monarchs.

The same year, Carlson asked whether czars in the Obama administration were "just friends of Obama who need work or payback a favor?", while Kilmeade previously questioned whether the appointment of a czar was evidence "of a new culture of corruption."

And if Obama does say he is going to appoint an Ebola Czar, you can bet Fox will change their tune and slam him for it. So they oppose things when it is an Obama idea, then support the very same thing when it is a Republican idea.

Crazy Mike Huckabee Refuses To Admit The Gay Marriage Debate Is Over
By: Steve - October 13, 2014 - 10:00am

Now this is just funny, a Republican (Mike Huckabee) who claims to support the constitution 100 percent, is now saying that even though the courts have ruled gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, he still wants the Republican party to fight it. He even says he might quit the party if they do not continue to fight it, even though they did fight it, and they lost.

I say good, quit you ignorant bigoted fool. In fact, I say you should quit everything, your job, all of it, and get lost. You are a fool that should leave public life, go away.

Here is the story: Fox News host Mike Huckabee advised Republicans to "grow a spine" and oppose marriage equality, blasting court rulings overturning same-sex marriage bans as "the betrayal of our Constitution."

During an October 7th interview with the anti-gay American Family Association's radio program, Huckabee said that he's "utterly exasperation with Republicans, who have abdicated on this issue," and warned that he might leave the Republican Party and become an independent if the GOP stops fighting marriage equality.

The former governor of Arkansas is reportedly considering a run for president in 2016.

Huckabee reiterated his criticism in the opening monologue of his October 11th Fox News show. Huckabee denounced the court decisions that led to same-sex marriage becoming legal in several more states, emphasizing that judges overruled "the collective votes of the people themselves" in a "betrayal of our Constitution."

Comment: Earth to idiot, just because the majority of people vote for something, does not mean it is ok and legal. Remember the majority of Americans once support child labor and slavery, but now we dont. The constitution says everyone has equal rights, and if you infringe on those rights it is a violation of the constitution.

He concluded that he is "utterly disgusted" with Republican governors and other officials that complied with the court orders overturning same-sex marriage bans, arguing that they should "grow a spine, show a modicum of knowledge about the way we govern ourselves, and lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way."

Huckabee said this:
HUCKABEE: I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers, and judges, utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions?

Look, I assume that everyone knows that we've got three branches of government and each are equal to the other. The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created, sometimes cumbersome, but it's based on the longest-used constitution in human history.

The Congress controls the purse, or the money, the executive branch controls the sword, and the judicial watches over and offers opinions as to the constitutional compliance of the other two.

My friend Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel and dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book called Judicial Tyranny -- and he says this, and I quote: "The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional make-up does not give the minority veto rights over the majority.

The major political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy, or government of the few, and it results in tyranny," end quote.

Well this week the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves.

The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite confusion the exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, "Well, that's it. That's the final word." Horse apples. The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it's the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn't superior to the other two. In recent years, the doctrine of judicial supremacy has trampled both the Constitution and common sense.

The Court can certainly rule on an issue, but unless the legislature passes enabling legislation and funds it, and unless the executive branch signs it and enforces it, it certainly is not the law of the land. That's often exclaimed with authority by voices that belong to people I wonder, did they pass ninth grade civics?

The law of the land requires agreement of all three branches.

Now this is not just same-sex marriage which, frankly, I disagree with. I by the way hold the same view that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden held just until two years ago, that it was inconsistent with nature and nature's law. But the biggest issue is the betrayal of our Constitution and the surrender to a small group of unelected black-robed jurists who can't make law, nor enforce it.

Now, if you believe that men should marry men and women should marry women, then get the people's representatives to vote for it, the chief executive to sign it, and then have the courts agree with it. I'm utterly disgusted with fellow Republicans who want to walk away from the issue of judicial supremacy just because it's politically volatile.

Here is my advice: Grow a spine, show a modicum of knowledge about the way we govern ourselves, and lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.
Comment: And here is my advice to Mike Huckabee. Stop now, you are making a fool of yourself and proving you are a bigot who does not care about a persons rights, all you care about is partisan ideology and religion that tells you it is wrong for gay people to marry.

You are wrong, you are a fool, and you are a prime example of why most gay people do not vote for Republicans. Just think about this, if you guys stopped being racist against blacks, and stopped being biased against gay people, you would win more elections.

Obama Calls For Congress To Raise Minimum Wage To $10.10 An Hour
By: Steve - October 12, 2014 - 10:00am

In this week's address, the President made the case for why it's past time to raise the minimum wage. Increasing the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would benefit 28 million Americans, and make our economy stronger.

While Republicans in Congress have blocked this commonsense proposal, a large and growing coalition of state and local leaders and owners of businesses large and small have answered the President's call and raised wages for their residents and employees on their own.

This progress is important, but there is more that can be done. No American who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty.

Obama said this:

Ask yourself: could you live on $14,500 a year? That's what someone working full-time on the minimum wage makes. If they're raising kids, that's below the poverty line. And that's not right. A hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay.

Right now, a worker on the federal minimum wage earns $7.25 an hour. It's time to raise that to $10.10 an hour.

Raising the federal minimum wage to ten dollars and ten cents an hour, or ten-ten, would benefit 28 million American workers. 28 million. And these aren't just high schoolers on their first job. The average worker who would benefit is 35 years old.

Most low-wage workers are women. And that extra money would help them pay the bills and provide for their families. It also means they'll have more money to spend at local businesses - which grows the economy for everyone.

But Congress hasn't voted to raise the minimum wage in seven years. Seven years. And when it got a vote earlier this year, Republicans flat-out voted "no."

That's why, since the first time I asked Congress to give America a raise, 13 states, 21 cities and D.C. have gone around Congress to raise their workers' wages. Five more states have minimum wage initiatives on the ballot next month.

More companies are choosing to raise their workers' wages. A recent survey shows that a majority of small business owners support a gradual increase to ten-ten an hour, too. And I've done what I can on my own by requiring federal contractors to pay their workers at least ten-ten an hour.

On Friday, a coalition of citizens - including business leaders, working moms, labor unions, and more than 65 mayors - told Republicans in Congress to stop blocking a raise for millions of hard-working Americans.

Because we believe that in America, nobody who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. And I'm going to keep up this fight until we win. Because America deserves a raise right now. And America should forever be a place where your hard work is rewarded.

Comment: And for the record, Bill O'Reilly has said he supports raising the minimum wage, he just never talks about it or has people on who support it, because most his viewers are right-wing stooges that oppose it and do not want to see O'Reilly talk about it or have people on that support it.

Republican Governor Scott Walker Claims $7.25 An Hour Is A Living Wage
By: Steve - October 11, 2014 - 10:00am

In September, 100 workers filed a complaint with the administration of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) claiming that the minimum wage is so low that it violates a state statute. On Monday, Walker's administration rejected the complaint without contacting any of the workers.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is refusing to raise the minimum wage despite an attempt Wisconsin Jobs Now "to use a little-known clause in state law to raise the state minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or at least force Walker, a Republican, to publicly oppose such a move just a month before the Nov. 4 election."

The problem for Wisconsin workers is that though Wisconsin law says the minimum wage "shall not be less than a living wage" (and the current wage of $7.25/hr clearly is) the governor, as the Journal Sentinel tells us, "is also allowed to consider the effect that increasing the minimum wage would have on the overall state economy and on the availability of entry-level jobs."

Dodging a minimum wage hike required only that the state Department of Workforce Development to say "The department has determined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the wages paid to the complainants are not a living wage."

Wisconsin Jobs Now pointed out in response:
Governor Walker might be the only person in the entire country who actually thinks that anyone in today's economy can survive solely on $7.25 an hour. His political stance against raising minimum wage is one thing.

But for the governor to brazenly say to the working families of Wisconsin that $7.25 an hour is definitely enough to sustain themselves is not only misguided, it is incredibly ignorant.

The law in Wisconsin is very clear: 'every wage paid by any employer to any employee shall not be less than a living wage.'

Anyone who works a full and honest day's work should make enough money to pay for the basics. The fact that Governor Walker thinks that $290 a week is what it costs to cover the basics of life in Wisconsin is beyond comprehension.

This decision makes it unequivocally clear that Scott Walker is more than out of touch: he is brutally neglectful of a huge percentage of his constituents.
The governor’s spokesperson Laurel Patrick proved that talk is cheap when she claimed that Walker wanted jobs that pay "two or three times the minimum wage" and that "He is focused on finding ways to help employers create jobs that pay far more than the minimum wage or any other proposed minimum."

He was also supposed to be finding ways to create 250,000 jobs over the past four years. You might remember his Tea Party mantra, that he would "get government out of the way of employers.....who will then help Wisconsin create 250,000 jobs by 2015, and as we create those new jobs, we will be able to add 10,000 new businesses."

But of course, that never happened. According to, promise broken. Politifact tells us that "Our tally now stands at 102,195 jobs -- or about 40 percent of what Walker promised.

Monday, the Department of Workforce Development's (DWD) Equal Rights Division Administrator Robert Rodriguez responded in a letter, saying, "The Department has determined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the wages paid to the complainants are not a living wage."

In a press release, the department says it reviewed the documents submitted in the complaint and found, "Most of the statements list wages that are in excess of the current minimum wage – as high as $15.07 an hour. Many of the statements reference items that go beyond basic necessities; others cite receiving public aid or additional sources of income."

It added, "Conversely, several studies that have been widely reported on point to significant job losses as a result of an increase in the minimum wage."

While the investigation reviewed the documents, it didn't reach out to any of the workers to talk to them about their wages. In other words, they did not ask anyone making $7.25 an hour if they can live on that money, because as they know the answer would be no.

In a response to the DWD's announcement, Wisconsin Jobs Now said, "To issue this determination without even so much as a follow-up phone call to question or clarify any of the 100 Wisconsin workers who filed complaints is not only appalling, it is irresponsible."

The minimum wage used to be able to keep a family of two or three out of poverty, but $7.25 an hour today won't even keep a single parent above that line.

While higher wages are certainly better, even a $15 an hour wage will add up to just $31,200 a year. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that a living wage for the state's capitol of Madison, for example, would have to be $21.17 an hour for a single parent.

Most Of The 10 Worst States To Live In Are Controlled By Republicans
By: Steve - October 10, 2014 - 11:00am

Here is something you will never see reported by O'Reilly, a new study shows that seven of the ten worst states to live in are completely controlled by Republicans, and nine of the ten states voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Here is the list:

10). Georgia
9). New Mexico
8). Louisiana
7). South Carolina
6). Oklahoma
5). Tennessee
4). West Virginia
3). Arkansas
2). Alabama
1). Mississippi

New Mexico is the lone state on the list that went for Obama in 2008. Seven of the ten states have Republican governors and Republican controlled state legislatures.

Only one state on the list features a Democratic governor and a Democratic state legislature (West Virginia).

In New Mexico, Democrats control the state House while Republicans control the Senate senate and governor. Arkansas has a Democratic governor, but a Republican controlled legislature.

The Republican controlled states on the list feature lower disposable income rates, low voter turnout rates, and high homicide rates. It is ironic that Republicans always campaign on being tough on crime, but their economic policies tend to lead to more poverty and crime.

It is logical that states controlled by a political party that believes in redistributing wealth to the rich would have widespread poverty, but it is the devastating consequences of these policies on the quality of life for the people who live there that get often overlooked.

These states aren't just poor. They are difficult places to live in. Existence in these red states is more difficult that it is in places that feature more income and less crime. When ideology is turned into policy, it will have a real, and devastating impact.

This data should be an eye opener for the majority of voters in these states, but many of these residents have been voting against their own self-interest for decades.

Proof that this behavior is bad for their health isn't going to change their Republican voting ways anytime soon.

Crazy Republican Files Petition To Have President Obama Deported
By: Steve - October 10, 2014 - 10:00am

And it goes without saying, Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

Conservative activist Larry Klayman has previously said of President Obama, "He should get up, put the Quran down, get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up."

When previously questioned about whether he believes Obama is a foreign-born Muslim, he said it was "metaphoric."

And now he's trying to get Obama deported.

Yes you read that right, Klayman is trying to get the President of the United States deported. He filed a petition and explained this action in a WorldNetDaily column, saying this:
KLAYMAN: No, Obama is not incompetent or ill prepared, as politically correct commentators shade it. The African-American "Muslim in Chief" knows exactly what he is doing, and it is done at the expense of the rest of us.

As set forth in a deportation petition I filed just today, it's time that he be deported back to his native country and for him to leave us alone.

He has no legitimacy to be president, and he must be tried, convicted and removed from our shores before he destroys everything the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
When U.S. News asked him about the petition, Klayman said this: "He should be deported. He's been in this country illegally, he's an illegal alien. You can't claim you're an American citizen when you're not and be president of the United States."

And here is what I think, I think Klayman is at war with Glenn Beck to see who can be the craziest right-wing fool in America. They should lock them both up in a rubber room and throw the key away.

The Wednesday 10-8-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 9, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Reaction to the Leon Panetta Interview. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Predictably, the former defense secretary is being attacked by some folks upset that President Obama is being criticized. Instead of debating what Mr. Panetta is saying, they question his motives. The interview last night raised important national security questions and shed light on President Obama's leadership.

And it's not only Leon Panetta who is troubled by America's receding power in the world. All the polls say everyday Americans have little confidence that Barack Obama can protect them in an effective way. There is no way ISIS savages should be terrorizing the Middle East and threatening the world, those thugs should have been dealt with a long time ago.

It's not just President Obama's fault. We are living in a cowardly world where villains know they can commit atrocities, violate international law and generally do whatever they want without lawful nations confronting them. The fact that Turkey is allowing ISIS to murder civilians on their border says it all. The Turks should be ashamed.

Add to that the lack of American leadership. That is where President Obama takes a big hit. It is up to him to rally the world against evil. We are the superpower, the nation that stands for freedom and justice. But from the beginning, President Obama did not want that responsibility. He wanted America to be one of many nations and to seek consensus about how to deal with difficult problems.

The abdication of leadership is not working and our world is becoming more chaotic by the day. For my money, Leon Panetta is doing the right and patriotic thing in pointing that out.
Comment: Think about this, all 8 guests were Republicans, not one Democratic guest on the entire show, none. No fairness, no balance, it was all right-wing spin with nodody to fact-check or disagree with any of it. And this is not unusual, O'Reilly does this all the time, even though he claims to be fair and balanced and that Fox is not biased against Obama, which is not only a lie, it's laughable.

And not once did anyone mention that Panetta could be saying these controversial things to sell his book, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. They also never mentioned that he is a Clinton loyalist who does not like Obama very much because he beat Hillary in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Then the biased Howard Kurtz and Tim Graham from MRC were on to evaluate the Panetta interview. With no Democratic guests for balance.

Kurtz said this: "You were very effective, at drawing out of him details of what happened behind the scenes. But I thought you were less effective when you were debating him and trying to get him to agree with your notion that the president doesn't have the stomach for the fight."

Graham pointed out that many mainstream media outlets simply ignored the exchange, saying this: "This is a devastating interview for Obama, which is why they don't want to pay attention to it. What they could have expected from you was that Leon Panetta would get a softball interview, but that is not at all what he got."

Comment: Wrong! Most of the media ignored the interview because O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack and nobody cares. They also ignored it because they understand Panetta has to say something to get publicity to sell the book, so he is saying something negative about Obama to try and sell the book to right-wingers. It was one mans opinion, who is on a book tour selling a book, and it was boring stuff we already know about.

Then another Republican (Ed Henry) was on to discuss it, he theorized that President Obama doesn't really care about Leon Panetta's opinions. And basically, O'Reilly had all these right-wing stooges on to stroke his ego by telling him what a great job he did with the interview. No Democrats were allowed, because they might have the nerve to say it was a lame interview that nobody cared about.

Henry said this: "From talking to some of the president's top advisors, he clearly does not care. The president wants to stay the course. And when I pressed Josh Earnest on whether the administration will reflect on the Panetta interview and his book, he basically said no. The president has a tight circle of advisors and is unlikely to change course. It's clear from your interview with Leon Panetta that the president, as a law professor, just thinks that his ideas are better and he'll disregard the opposition."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the Supreme Court, who has announced a decision that delighted advocates of same-sex marriage.

Kelly explained the ruling, saying this: "The bottom line is that gay marriage is coming to a state near you. What happened on Monday is that states that had banned gay marriage and lost in the courts were asking the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings. The Supreme Court said no, meaning that all the decisions that threw out the bans on gay marriage will stand. That opens the floodgates for all the states that are within these circuits to have their bans thrown out as well. Lower courts have overruled the will of the voters and the Supreme Court said that's fine by us."

O'Reilly said this: "All of these judges believe that homosexual Americans have a constitutional right to marry."

Comment: Because they do, moron! You may not like it, but the constitution gives them equal rights. O'Reilly was mad at the judges who made the first ruling saying the bans were unconstitutional, he even called them pinhead judges. He was also mad that the SC did not hear their appeals, because he is a pro-life right-wing nut who is opposed to gay marriage, even though it violates their constitutional rights.

So too bad O'Reilly, for once the SC did the right thing and refused to over-turn their ridiculous appeals. Now gay marriage will be the law of the land, and it should be. I am not gay, but I understand they have rights, and if you block them from marriage you are violating those rights. O'Reilly and the Religious right were hoping the conservatives on the SC would help them discriminate against gays and take the appeals cases, and they got burned.

It's another case of O'Reilly putting his partisan ideology and his religious beliefs ahead of the rights granted to everyone in the constitution. O'Reilly does not care about the constitution, he wanted the SC to take the appeals and uphold the right-wing bans on gay marriage, he will just never admit it.

Then Molly Line & Eric Shawn were on to talk about the PBS science correspondent Miles O'Brien, who verbally scolded Andrea Tantaros after she said Ebola is sometimes treated in Africa by witch doctors.

Shawn said this: "Miles O'Brien is a good guy, but in this case the argument goes to Andrea. One of the real tragedies of this disease is the belief in witchcraft in Africa. They believe Ebola is caused by either witchcraft or a curse."

Line turned to the cartoon "Tom and Jerry," which is now being accused of racism, saying this: "I was shocked when I heard that Tom and Jerry could be racist, but it turns out that in the 1940s and 1950s there were scenes that could be thought of as offensive. One character was 'Mammy Two Shoes,' which can be considered offensive to African American women. is now putting a disclaimer on the DVDs of these old cartoons."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Fleetwood Mac is Back. Billy said this: "If you are looking to see a great concert, the legendary band Fleetwood Mac is intact and on tour for the next few months."

Science Reporter Slams Fox News Ignorant Ebola Coverage
By: Steve - October 9, 2014 - 10:00am

Science journalist Miles O'Brien slammed Fox News hyperbolic media coverage of ebola on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday, calling it irresponsible given the increasingly technological nature of the world, and pleaded for them to develop more science-specific reporting units.

"I wish everybody could take a deep breath and take a break from trying to pull viewers in by scaring them," O'Brien said. "It borders on irresponsibility...But there is a perception that by hyping up this threat you draw people's attention. It's a shame to even say that, and I get embarrassed for our brethren in journalism."

Stelter played a clip of Fox & Friends Elisabeth Hasselbeck demanding to know why an infection disease specialist wasn't panicking over ebola, and Outnumbered's Andrea Tantaros alleging that ebola patients might be visiting witch doctors.

"We could digress into what motivated that, the arrogance, the first world versus third world," O'Brien said. "It's offensive on several levels. It reflects, frankly, a level of ignorance we should not allow in our media and in our discourse."

Host Brian Stelter also critiqued a CNN segment on ebola.

"My biggest wish for the audience is that the mainstream media, the big outlets, CNN included realize that science coverage is important, and that they should have people on staff who have a certain amount of expertise, who study this beat," O'Brien said.

"You would never run CNN without a political reporter, would you? Why in this world where climate change is a big issue, ebola is a big issue, missing airplanes are a big issue, why is it big entities don't maintain science units anymore? They're gone!"

An NIH Doctor also took Fox's Chris Wallace to Science School over Ebola Panic.

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases explained the Sciences to Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, who quizzed him on a variety of ebola-related issues, some of which were wildly hypothetical.

Wallace especially wanted to know why flights out of affected countries like Liberia had not been banned. Fauci explained that isolating a country in the midst of a crisis created an unbearable strain on an already vulnerable infrastructure and prevented supplies from making it to affected regions.

"Experience is that when you close off a country, you create such stress and fear, you amplify the problem," Fauci said.

Wallace added that only two people out of 10,000 receiving additional screening when they landed. Fauci explained that this was because nobody symptomatic would have been allowed to fly in the first place. "If you have symptoms or a fever," he said, "you will not be allowed on the plane."

Fauci also all but rolled his eyes at Wallace's suggestion that ebola could sneak across the border, either through undocumented immigrants or as part of a bioterrorist plot.

"I wouldn't be worried about ebola coming across our southern borders when we have an ebola issue right now in South Africa," Fauci said. "That's a hypothetical that's very far-fetched. As far as terrorism, I'm worried more about natural evolution in west Africa than I am about a terrorist."

"If I were a bioterrorist, ebola would not be my choice," Fauci added, given that it required contact to spread. "It would be inefficient."

Fauci concluded that he understood the fears over the virus, but that the strength of the U.S.'s health infrastructure made it close to impossible to replicate what's happening in west Africa in the U.S.

"We have to get our actions and our policies based on scientific testing," Fauci said. "It could be will see another case, but we won't have an outbreak."

The Tuesday 10-7-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 8, 2014 - 11:00am

There was no TPM, instead the biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly had Leon Panetta on for a big interview, and to promote his book.

Here is a partial transcript:
O'REILLY: By not leaving U.S. troops in Iraq, President Obama committed a colossal blunder, did he not?
PANETTA: There's no question that maintaining a troop presence in Iraq so that we could continue the momentum towards trying to secure that country and try to hope that it could govern itself in the right way was, I think, a mistake.
O'REILLY: This was a colossal blunder that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Did you pound the table, or were you diplomatic?
PANETTA: I think we made a very strong case that we had to maintain at least ten-thousand troops.
O'REILLY: Have you ever heard Barack Obama say, I was wrong, I made a mistake?
PANETTA: I've heard him admit to mistakes. The real question is whether or not you learn from those lessons and then do the right thing ... He certainly has learned the importance of now taking on ISIS ... and he now has made it very clear that we ought to maintain ten-thousand troops in Afghanistan.
O'REILLY: The big picture is that the Obama administration doesn't know what the deuce is going on.
PANETTA: The big picture is that this is a president who wants to do the right thing for the country. The real question is whether or not he's willing to fight to get that done.
O'REILLY: Do our enemies throughout the world fear us?
PANETTA: I think they're getting a mixed message as to whether or not the United States will stand by its word.
O'REILLY: I'm seeing a president who is either incapable or doesn't understand the dangers the United States faces. That's the message I'm getting from you.
Comment: Here is the real truth, Bill O'Reilly says the Obama administration doesn't know what the deuce is going on. Which is just ridiculous, the truth is that Obama does not do what O'Reilly and the Republicans want him to do, so they claim he does not know what he is doing. That is an opinion, from a biased and partisan Republican.

The rest of America thinks Obama is doing ok, and far better than Bush did. President can not be blamed for everything, especially things that happen in foreign countries. We are doing ok, the jobs are back, unemployment is down, millions have affordable health care, gas prices are low, and the stock market is at record highs. This is all a sign of good times, but O'Reilly ignores it all and claims Obama is a failure, it's just laughable, the bias from O'Reilly is stunning.

More from the Panetta interview:
O'REILLY: On the night of the Benghazi attack you told President Obama you believed it was a terrorist attack. Is that correct?
PANETTA: I told the president that there was an attack going on in Benghazi ... I used the word "attack," that there was an attack by terrorists.
O'REILLY: Seven days after that, Susan Rice went out and said it was spontaneous. When you heard that, what went through your mind?
PANETTA: The only thing I could think of is that she was working from the talking points that the CIA had provided ... I thought those talking points were not on point.
O'REILLY: Who is the better leader, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama?
PANETTA: They're both bright, they're both able, they both want to do what's right for their country. The difference is that Bill Clinton likes the engagement in politics, while Barack Obama does not like that process ... I think that hurts him in terms of getting things done ... (The Obama administration) has basically given up on things. They've given up on a budget deal, on immigration reform, on trade, on energy. That's what concerns me because this country can not stand another two years of stalemate.
O'REILLY: What is your primary concern about this country?
PANETTA: I am worried about whether our children are going to have the chance at a better life. You've got this tremendous dysfunction in Washington, there are a number of threats we are confronting abroad. We can either be a great country, an America in renaissance, or we can be an America in decline.
O'REILLY: We're in decline now. Is that a fair statement?
PANETTA: We govern either by leadership or crisis, and today we are governing largely by crisis.
O'REILLY: It's very possible that Barack Obama is just not up to the job.
PANETTA: I want this president to be successful and I want this country to be successful, and I think deep down he knows what needs to be done. He has to develop the will to fight and get into the ring to make it happen.
Comment: What a joke, O'Reilly is a biased fool. We are not in decline and it is not a fair statement, it's a lie and a ridiculous statement. To even make that statement is insane, because we are not in decline and every economic measure says we are doing good and getting better. O'Reilly is just a biased fool that refuses to see the truth, the economy is doing good and the country is doing good. And this is from the guy who claims to be fair to Obama, what a joke.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to evaluate the O'Reilly interview with Leon Panetta, and of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, so as usual it was a biased one sided segment with 2 Republicans.

Krauthammer said this: "You did great and Panetta did great, but I'm afraid Barack Obama did not do very well. Panetta is a straight shooter, and the content of what he said was utterly devastating. He was basically saying this president can not lead, he is indecisive and weak. It's not just indecisiveness, but it's also how political he is. He knew we had to leave troops in Iraq, and that was one of the worst decisions made by this president. It came about because the political types in the White House wanted to go into 2012 saying there were no troops in Iraq. He put political and partisan concerns above the national security."

Comment: What they do not tell you is that Panetta is a Clinton guy, he worked for Hillary when she lost to Obama is the Democratic primary and he is loyal to her. Panetta is promoting a book and he has to say some wild things to try and sell the book.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the situation involving thousands of illegal immigrants who are routinely failing to show up for hearings.

Wiehl said this: "You're supposed to come back and report within fifteen days, but 70% of them do not do that! Nothing happens, you just get another notice. There's no penalty."

Guilfoyle turned to Virginia, where the state attorney general is refusing to enforce statutory rape laws for some underage girls, saying this: "He's saying that they don't need to make a report of 'carnal knowledge' for girls between 13 and 15 years old. This is not law, it's an opinion he is giving. There's no obligation on the part of nurses and caretakers when they see that in the state of Virginia."

Comment: Wrong! The AG is going by the law, O'Reilly claimed that the opinion showed that Herring doesn't care if minors are raped, and added that "it's now open season on little girls in Virginia."

Which is just ridiculous. In Reality, The Decision Holds That Teen Pregnancy Alone Is Not Sufficient Evidence To Report Abuse By Parents Or Caretaker. An October 7th editorial in the Richmond Times-Dispatch pointed out that Herring's opinion is in line with the Code of Virginia. None of which O'Reilly or Guilfoyle ever mentioned.

Here is a quote from that editorial:

In a September letter to state Health Commissioner Marissa Levine, the AG Herring cites chapter and verse from the Code of Virginia. The code stipulates that nurses and certain other professionals must report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. That can include sexual contact with minors, but only if a parent or guardian "commits or allows to be committed" such exploitation.

A 14-year-old can get pregnant without her parents knowledge. Since allowing something requires knowing about it in advance, the mere fact of a pregnancy does not imply that a parent committed the sex act, or even permitted it. By itself, it does not provide enough evidence to trigger the reporting requirement for suspected child abuse as defined in state law. [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/7/14]

As usual, O'Reilly spins out one side of the story, the right-wing side, he does not give you all the facts, only the facts he wants you to know about. When you look at all the facts, it tells a whole different story from the fairy tale O'Reilly and Guilfoyle put out. They are just using the ruling to try and make a Democratic AG look bad, because they are partisan Republican hacks.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly telling you how great he is and how great Fox News is, while ignoring the fact that nobody but Republicans even consider them a news network. Most of America see Fox as an arm of the Republican party, which they are, and that is a fact, they are biased and a joke of a news network.

In fact, I get e-mails once in a while from people in foreign countries who have watched O'Reilly and some other Fox shows, and they ask me how we can let such a biased news network on the air, they call it propaganda and wonder why it is not illegal to put out such biased garbage. I tell them, because we have free speech, and the courts have ruled it is ok for people in the media to put out lies.

Judge Rules Police Violated Constitutional Rights Of Ferguson Protesters
By: Steve - October 8, 2014 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, while defending the police and their tactics during the main protests a few weeks ago. The so-called journalist (Bill O'Reilly) never reported one word about this story, not a word. This is real news, about constitutional violations, and O'Reilly ignored it. But he sure has time to do those stupid Jesse Watters segments that are not news and have no news value at all.

WASHINGTON -- Police overseeing security at protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in August violated the constitutional rights of demonstrators and journalists by forcing them to stay in constant motion and not stop walking, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry held that the "practice of requiring peaceful demonstrators and others to walk, rather than stand still, violates the Constitution."

She issued a preliminary injunction banning St. Louis County Police and Missouri State Highway Patrol officers from using the tactic.

"The evidence from plaintiff's witnesses shows that the police, including those from St. Louis County, told many people who were either peacefully assembling or simply standing on their own that they would be arrested if they did not keep moving," wrote Perry, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

"Some law enforcement officers told people that they could stand still for no more than five seconds. Others gave instructions that people were walking too slowly, or that they could not walk back and forth in a small area. Some law enforcement officers did not make people keep moving, others did. Some officers applied the strategy to reporters, others did not. Many officers told people who were standing in small groups on the sidewalks during the daytime hours that they would be arrested if they did not keep moving."

Perry ruled that individuals who wished to gather "in the wake of Michael Brown's tragic death have a constitutional right to do so."

She also noted that "they do not have the right to endanger lives of police officers or other citizens."

She said that nothing in her order restricted the ability of police officers to do their jobs.

"Vague rules that are applied in a haphazard fashion tend to increase community tension," Tony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, said in a statement. "Judge Perry's injunction is a huge win for peaceful protesters and those who believe in the rule of law."

The "keep walking" or "five-second" rule was implemented in Ferguson on Aug. 18. Police officers would not allow anyone to congregate, even on public sidewalks, even in broad daylight.

Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson defended the practice at the time, saying the police were "not violating your rights. We're allowing you to protest." The federal judge disagreed.

In other words, as I thought, they were violating the constitution that give the people a right to peacefully assemble. And not only did O'Reilly ignore the violation at the time, he defended the police while they were doing it. And it was not just O'Reilly pretty much everyone at Fox supported the police and defended it.

And this is from the guy who claims to support the constitution 100 percent. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack. Because when liberals or minorities have their constitutional rights violated O'Reilly does not care, and even defends the people who are violating their rights, he only cares when conservatives or right-wingers have their rights violated.

The Monday 10-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 7, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is Islam a Destructive Force in the World? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Throughout the world there are about 1.6 billion Muslims, and 35 countries practice some kind of Sharia law. That means they are governed by people who abide by principles of Islam that are controversial to say the least - in some places you even can be stoned to death for committing a sin. A study by the Pew Research Center last year asked Muslims if they favor Sharia law. 99% said yes in Afghanistan, 84% in Pakistan, 91% in Iraq, and 74% in Egypt.

Even in Great Britain, 78% of British Muslims believe people who criticize Mohammed should be prosecuted by civil authorities. So you can see that millions of Muslims think their religion should dictate what happens in society.

Enter uber-liberals Bill Maher and Ben Affleck. Mr. Maher despises all organized religions, and makes no secret of that. Mr. Affleck is a traditional liberal, a fervent supporter of President Obama and many left-wing causes. Over the weekend, Mr. Maher, an author named Sam Harris, and Mr. Affleck debated Islam. Maher pointed out that freedom of speech and equality for minorities are lacking in the Muslim world, and Harris said liberals are reluctant to criticize Muslims.

Affleck quickly called those contentions 'gross' and 'racist.' Now, who is correct? As far as condemning all Muslims, Mr. Affleck is on the side of the angels. Most Muslims are peaceful people even if they do believe in Sharia law. However, Mr. Maher is correct on the overall effect Islam is having on the world. Many Muslim nations have not confronted Islamic terrorism, have not attacked violence in the name of Allah, and have not even condemned the jihad.

Therefore militant Islam continues to drive worldwide terrorism and have plenty of sanctuaries from which to commit their evil. Ben Affleck should well understand that he would be beheaded in a heartbeat by these ISIS animals, and that even though they are the most extreme element of the jihad, they are not that far away from their fanatical cousins.

Talking Points understands that for centuries Muslims co-existed peacefully with other religions. But now terrorism and the jihadists are again on the move, and most Muslim nations are not joining with the West to confront that. Therefore criticism of Islam's role on the world stage is certainly valid. The Muslim world needs to take a hard look at itself.
Comment: As usual, O'Reilly is a moron. Because Islam is not bad, they just have some bad people who are Muslims. Just as there are bad people who are Christians, that does not mean all Christians are bad, just as it does not mean all Muslims are bad.

O'Reilly is a hypocrite, when someone bashes the Christian religion for bad acts of a few, O'Reilly defends the religion and slams the people who are saying the religion is bad. Then he does the very same thing, he bashes a religion because of the bad acts of a few. Islam is not a destructive force, as O'Reilly claims, they just have a few bad people who are Muslims.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the growing friction between Islam and the West.

Williams said this: "If you're talking about the greatest destructive force in the world right now. I don't think there is any question it's the extreme brand of Islam that is allowed to fester and results in terrorist acts. The debate between Bill Maher and Ben Affleck could not have taken place in many Islamic countries because there is no free speech. It's a terrible scourge on the world."

Ham said this: "It is willful blindness and silliness to ignore the fact that this radical brand of Islam is what animates some of the most barbaric behavior on the planet. Liberals, because they're so uncomfortable just naming that, end up tacitly ignoring some terrible behavior."

Comment: Which is ridiculous, because liberals do not ignore it, we just understand that there are bad Muslims and good Muslims, Republicans lump them all in together, and say they are all bad because of their religion. But when someone does the same thing about Christians, they get mad and say you can not lump them all in together, it's total hypocrisy.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who will be a guest on the Factor Tuesday, to promote a book. O'Reilly previewed the interview with Brit Hume.

Hume said this: "You might ask him, whether President Obama thought that once Osama Bin Laden had been killed it was basically 'mission accomplished' as far as defeating Al Qaeda. From that point forward the president was inclined to follow his own instinct, which was to stay out of things in the Middle East. You can take it as a given that Leon Panetta urged the arming of the Syrian rebels, but you might ask him how forcefully he made that case."

Comment: Which would be a biased and stupid question, because of course Obama did not think the war on terrorism was over after Bin Laden was killed. Obama has even said that the death of Bin Laden does not mean the war on terrorism has been won. I guess Hume missed that, yeah right.

O'Reilly then speculated that Panetta will be truthful but elusive, saying this: "I've known Leon Panetta for a long time - he's an honest man but he's a politician and very diplomatic."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on, he talked about the PBS correspondent Miles O'Brien, who slammed Fox News anchor Andrea Tantaros for fearmongering about Ebola. The dustup started when Tantaros said Ebola is sometimes treated in Africa by witch doctors, which O'Brien called "offensive" and "ignorant." He also said a lot of other people at Fox are clueless about Ebola and they are fearmongering.

Golberg said this: "The ignorance was on the part of CNN host Brian Stelter and Miles O'Brien. A British Red Cross worker said that some Africans believe the disease is a punishment or a result of witchcraft. So if some Africans believe Ebola is the result of witchcraft, why is it a stretch to believe that some Africans may go to a witch doctor to get straightened out? You'll never hear a liberal journalist admit that many Africans in Liberia and Sierra Leone and places like that are backward people, they do believe in witch doctors."

Comment: Wrong! The ignorance is from the morons at Fox who are fearmongering about Ebola, and the ignorance is also from O'Reilly and Goldberg who defend it. Earth to idiots, there is 1 case of Ebola, you are fearmongers. Get real, until you have 1000 cases (or more) in America it is no big deal.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he headed out to Colorado to talk about legal marijuana, which I will not report on, because this is not news, it's nonsense.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing with Jealousy. Billy said this: "When you're successful, you can expect lots of attacks from envious people. Do whatever you can to steer clear of jealous people and their petty gossip."

Supreme Court Sticks It To Republicans On Gay Marriage
By: Steve - October 7, 2014 - 10:00am

Republicans are mad at the Supreme Court that usually rules their way in all those 5-4 decisions, because they refused to hear appeals from Wisconsin and four other states seeking to preserve their same-sex marriage bans, setting up an immediate and historic return for gay and lesbian unions, but leaving the broader question of the practice unanswered at the national level.

And here is the most likely reason they rejected the appeals, politics. They do not want to rule on it before an election.

In the order, the high court provided no breakdown of how the nine justices had voted and no reason for rejecting the appeals from Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and officials in the states of Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia.

The action surprised legal observers by signaling that the nation's highest court favors the side of same-sex marriage advocates but without actually stating that explicitly or establishing a precedent for the rest of the nation.

Which means this: The Supreme Court was probably going to vote in favor of gay marriage and against the Republicans who want to ban it State by State. So they did not take the appeals because it would have made Republican voters mad and they might have stayed home instead of voting.

The court's order brings back gay marriage in Wisconsin and these other states, said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and Gov. Scott Walker, the top state Republican officials who had sought to preserve the ban.

Walker, a defendant in Wisconsin's case, said he would work to implement the decision and Van Hollen encouraged others to respect it as well.

"For us, it's over in Wisconsin," Walker said of the fight over same-sex unions. "Others will have to talk about the federal level."

Which means Republicans should just get over it and drop it, they should allow gay people to marry because eventually it is going to be legal in every State, whether they like it or not, because it is discrimination and a violation of the constitution.

They have lost the gay marriage fight, they just refuse to admit it. They have also lost the legalize pot battle, because in a year or so it will be legal everywhere. O'Reilly still claims the majority is center-right, but if that's true how come the right keeps losing all these legal rulings, and how come the majority are against the Republicans on these issues.

Court Strikes Down GOP-Backed Voting Restrictions In North Carolina
By: Steve - October 7, 2014 - 9:00am

And remember this, O'Reilly said the Democrats complaints about the Republicans passing these voting laws that suppressed the vote for minorities was nonsense. O'Reilly said it was all BS, he said none of the voting laws the Republicans are passing will restrict anyone from voting.

WRONG! Because the courts just said they do, and they are striking down some of the GOP backed voting laws passed in North Carolina.

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered a lower court to block two new voting restrictions in North Carolina, saying there was "no doubt" the measures would disenfranchise minorities.

North Carolina will now be required to reinstate same-day voter registration, as well as allow voters to cast ballots even if they show up to vote in the wrong precinct.

In a two-to-one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that "whether the number is thirty or thirty-thousand, surely some North Carolina minority voters will be disproportionately adversely affected in the upcoming election" and that it was important to act now, since "there could be no do-over and no redress" once the election was over.

Comment: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the court said there was NO DOUBT the law would disenfranchise minority voters. Proving you were dead wrong, and that you had no clue what you were talking about, while you defended the corrupt Republicans who passed these terrible voting laws.

The appeals court ruled that the lower court "failed to adequately consider North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination" and said the new law eliminated "voting mechanisms successful in fostering minority participation."

"The injury to these voters is real and completely irreparable if nothing is done to enjoin this law," the ruling said.

North Carolina began considering new voting restrictions last June, the day after the Supreme Court gutted a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protected minority voters in certain states with a history of discrimination.

Gov. Pat McCrory (R) ultimately signed House Bill 589 into law in August 2013. The law eliminated a number of measures intended to protect would-be voters from being disenfranchised and required them to show photo identification at the polls.

The Justice Department joined civil rights groups in suing over the law a month later.

"The election laws in North Carolina prior to House Bill 589’s enactment encouraged participation by qualified voters," the appeals court ruled Wednesday. "But the challenged House Bill 589 provisions stripped them away. The public interest thus weighs heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor."

This is proof positive that Bill O'Reilly was wrong, and that he is nothing but a biased right-wing hack who lies to people while defending the crooks in the Republican party. O'Reilly not only supported these new GOP passed voting laws in North Carolina, he defended them when Democrats said they were only put in place to suppress the vote for minorities.

Toobin Slams SC Decision To Not Hear Same-Sex Marriage Appeals
By: Steve - October 6, 2014 - 11:30am

Monday morning's Supreme Court decision to not hear same-sex marriage appeals from five states has left many observers scratching their heads in bafflement. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin was one of them, telling his colleagues that he found the move "outrageous" and antithetical to how the Court normally operates.

"This is why we have a Supreme Court," Toobin told CNN's @ThisHour, "to settle complicated, controversial legal issues."

He continued: "Frankly, I think it's outrageous that the Court didn't take this case." Toobin suggested that the justices may have decided that because the lower courts have all decided to overturn same-sex marriage bans, "there is no controversy" and thus no need for the higher court to weigh in.

He also raised the possibility that four justices strategically decided to avoid the case because they knew their side would lose (an obvious reference to the more conservative justices on the Court).

"But, frankly, I think this was a real abdication of duty on the part of the Supreme Court," he declared.

"Really?" a surprised host Michaela Pereira responded.

"It's past time for the Supreme Court to get involved," he concluded. "But I don't get a vote."

Comment: What Toobin also did not mention is the time and cost for all these lower court appeals the Republicans have filed. The SC should have ruled on it to stop all these appeals at the State level, because the Republicans always lose, but it cost the State time and money to hear the appeals. If the SC would have ruled on it and said gay marriage is legal, it would have stopped all those appeals and saved the States money, not to mention save time for other appeals.

Historians & The Patton Family Rip O'Reilly's New Patton Book
By: Steve - October 6, 2014 - 10:30am

Historians and biographers of General George S. Patton are slamming Bill O'Reilly's theory that the World War II commander was assassinated by the Soviet Union, calling the tale implausible and lacking evidence.

Most historians stick to the long-held evidence that Patton died from complications after a December 1945 car accident that left him paralyzed. Especially when the family has detailed accounts of his death in the hospital from complications after the car accident.

But O'Reilly and co-author Martin Dugard contend in the newly-released O'Reilly book that the general's death was the result of a conspiracy by former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. O'Reilly repeated the theory during an appearance to promote his book on ABC News This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: The official record says Patton died after a car accident on a hunting trip, but O'Reilly's new book "Killing Patton" suggests a darker conspiracy.

O'REILLY: I think Stalin killed him. Patton was going to go back to the United States and condemn Stalin and the Soviet Union, tell the American people these guys aren't going out of Poland, they're going to try to take over the world. And Stalin wanted him dead. And I think Stalin got him dead.
Comment: Most likely O'Reilly knows he is lying, and put it in the book as a point of controversy to drum up publicity and get more book sales. Let's remember that his former wife was a marketing expert and he knows if you add some controversy to your books it gets publicity and you sell more books.

And think about this too, O'Reilly said he writes every word in his books, but if that is true why does he need a co-author? Most people believe O'Reilly does not write them, that Dugard does, and O'Reilly just approves it and adds a little to it. I also think that, and I doubt O'Reilly actually writes them himself.

Several historians who have researched Patton's life said no real evidence exists to support O'Reilly's claim.

"Premising an assassination plot on something so uncertain as a traffic accident doesn't seem plausible," said Jonathan W. Jordan, author of Brothers Rivals Victors: Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the Partnership that Drove the Allied Conquest in Europe.

"The rapid onset of Patton's death is not inconsistent with a pulmonary embolism. There is no smoking gun pointing toward poison smuggled into his Heidelberg hospital room. Exhumation and testing of Patton's body, while it would put the matter to rest, most likely would be a biological Al Capone's Vault."

Rick Atkinson, a historian and author of several books about World War II, agreed saying Patton's death was from injuries suffered in "a car accident, outside Heidelberg, in the fall of 1945."

Robert H. Patton, the general's grandson and author of The Pattons: A Personal History of an American Family, said both research and family history discredit O'Reilly's version of events.

"Generally growing up our sense was the general's widow was satisfied that it was accidental," he said. "She was sure that it was an accident."

Robert Patton said his grandfather suffered from Phlebitis due to a blood clot he developed from a fractured leg between World War I and World War II. He said after he was paralyzed in the auto accident it worsened and eventually led to his death.

"The doctors say he either died naturally or from a blood clot," the younger Patton said. "You're paralyzed, and that is what happens. My grandmother was with him constantly in the hospital."

Carlo D'Este, author of Patton: A Genius for War, said there was no reason for an assassination since Patton was close to death.

"You've got to look at what Patton's situation was. He was a quadriplegic, he was going to die anyway, he was totally immobilized, he couldn't move," said D'Este.

"What is the point of assassinating him and where did Stalin come from anyway? There have been a lot of claims made over the years and here is a new one. Sure, somebody could have snuck in the hospital, but why would you bother? You need to verify facts. That certainly raises a red flag with me."

O'Reilly's book has also drawn criticism for lauding Patton while failing to note the general's anti-Semitism, a critique recently leveled by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.

So much for "I only deal in the facts and never speculate." It looks like O'Reilly is pretty loose with the facts and is speculating about things all the time, on his show and in his books.

Facts On Political Party Approval Rating For O'Reilly
By: Steve - October 6, 2014 - 9:30am

Last week O'Reilly asked a stupid question, he asked if women voters could save the Democratic party. Despite the fact that the Democratic party does not need saving, they currently control the White House and the Senate, so the question is garbage.

And on top of that, if any party needs saving it's the Republican party, who has gone farther to the right and become more of an extreme party. But O'Reilly never asked if any voters could save the Republican party, let alone women voters. Because other than the white vote, Republicans are losing votes to everyone else, minorities and women.

A survey from Gallup found that the Republican Party is on pace for the lowest election year approval rating ever.

According to Gallup, the Democratic Party's favorable rating is at 44%.

The party's unfavorable rating is 50%, which equals a net (-6) approval rating.

And that is great, compared to what Republicans are facing. The Republicans have a 34% favorable rating, and a 59% unfavorable rating.

This equals a net (-25) favorable ratings.

The Republican Party has been on a nine year losing streak that has seen it post higher negatives than positives since the first year of George W. Bush’s second term in office.

But of course O'Reilly never mentions any of this, while asking the insane question about women voters saving the Democratic party, saving them from what?

If not for the white vote, Republicans would never win any elections ever again.

The Republican Party remains at historically high levels of unpopularity. All Democratic supporters need to do is get over their apathy towards midterms and vote. In other words, when there is a big voter turnout, Democrats always win. When there is a low turnout the Republicans have a better chance, this is why they are passing the voter suppression bills all around the country, they do not want you to vote.

Republicans can only win when most people stay home, when the majority vote, they lose, because the majority of Americans disagree with the Republican agenda. Something O'Reilly refuses to admit, while lying to you that America is a center-right nation.

Nothing could be further from the truth, because the facts show that America is a center-left nation, and moving more to the left every year. Think about this too, O'Reilly also does not believe there is white privilege, so he is in denial and can not even admit a simple truth like that.

Two Fox Pundits Tell Bolling He Is Fearmongering About Ebola
By: Steve - October 5, 2014 - 10:30am

And they should tell O'Reilly the same thing, because he wants the borders locked down over one case of Ebola in Dallas Texas. O'Reilly even said Obama is not protecting us if he does not lock the borders down and block people from West Africa from getting into the USA. Which is not only ridiculous, it's just stupid.

Two Fox pundits are even admitting people like Bolling and O'Reilly are fearmongering.

On Fox News Saturday morning, Fox regular Jonathan Hoenig tried to calm Eric Bolling's fears about Ebola spreading in the United States.

He said one person with Ebola in Dallas (even if he was let out of the hospital for a few days) isn't going to suddenly bring an entire epidemic to the U.S., especially when epidemics generally occur in "unscientific third-world countries."

Eric Bolling, Michelle Fields, and Wayne Rogers all expressed their extreme concern over Ebola, partly based in their incredible distrust of the federal government to handle anything (i.e. Obamacare, the IRS) etc.

But Hoenig told Bolling that despite the one person in Dallas with ebola, "It's certainly hyperbolic to suggest that ebola's here."

He argued that epidemics generally pop up in third-world nations that aren't very health-conscious, and the United States is far more equipped to deal with something like this:
"Here in the West, we're a little more conscious about sanitation, about the disposal of dead bodies. We rely on science, not faith, and that's why epidemics don't occur, and that's why I'm not worried about ebola one bit."
Fox News Jehmu Green also told the others they're engaging in fearmongering, but Bolling insisted he just wants to exercise "an abundance of caution." Which is the same thing O'Reilly says, and it's all over one case of Ebola from a guy who lied to get here.

Stephen Colbert Calls Bill O'Reilly A F-ing Ego-Maniac
By: Steve - October 5, 2014 - 9:30am

This was great, Colbert did another takedown on O'Reilly that made him look like an even bigger fool than the first time. O'Reilly should just let it go, because Colbert is eating his lunch.

Stephen Colbert was very sad last night after learning that Bill O'Reilly -- "my mentor, my north star, my emergency contact at SoulCycle" -- had criticized him for mocking his proposal to send 25,000 mercenaries to fight ISIS.

(For the forgetful, Colbert had endorsed O'Reilly's plan, because it reminded him of his fourth grade imaginary mercenary squad.)

"How can Bill say that me and others of my ilk don't know how to fight jihad?" Colbert wondered. "Bill -- babydoll -- You're of my ilk! We're ilk-mates. We're members of the same ilk lodge. We dip our cookies in the same glass of ilk."

"I wasn't mocking your plan," he continued. "I'm the only one who likes it. Everyone on your own show thinks you're insane!"

Then he showed a montage of guests on O'Reilly's show who thought he was insane.

Here is the video, in it Colbert also says O'Reilly is a big f-ing ego-maniac, along with much more:

That was not just funny, it showed that O'Reilly is a fool who can not admit his 25,000 man terrorist army idea is insane.

The Friday 10-3-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 4, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Disturbing News about Ebola. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 33-year-old Ashoka Mukpo, an American freelance cameraman for NBC News, has contracted Ebola in Liberia and is being flown back to the USA for treatment. Mr. Mukpo was working with NBC News medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman, who is also being flown back to America in a private plane. She and her team will be in quarantine for 21 days.

The Factor has called for the Obama administration to halt flights and deny entry to any person in West Africa until the epidemic subsides, but so far that request has not been heeded. At least 13 African countries are restricting people entry from the nations where Ebola is a problem. In addition, British Airways and Air France, among others, have suspended flights to dangerous areas.

But the USA has done nothing. Does that make sense to you? 3,000 American military people have been ordered to Africa to help out, and that's humane and proper, but civilians are another matter. Talking Points despises panic and irrational fear, but thinking ahead and taking precautions is simply responsible policy. Time and again, the Obama administration has failed to do that. The Ebola virus will eventually be controlled, but right now action is needed to make sure Americans are protected. So let's get on it, Mr. President.
Then the insane O'Reilly called it the Ebola panic, and talked about it with physicians Marty Makarey and Mary Schmidt. Even though there is no panic, and there is very little chance it will ever be a big problem here.

Makary said this: "In the context of other infections and threats, more people will die of the common cold in the United States. If a flu virus mutates from China, we don't stop flights from China. I think it's reasonable to limit flights from West Africa, but if we enact too dramatic of a limitation we won't get the humanitarian folks in and out."

Schmidt, who specializes in infectious diseases, said this: "Stopping flights will be helpful, but one problem is transit from these countries to other countries. To have better screening of flights is a good idea."

Comment: Once again O'Reilly has an idea that is ridiculous, and Ebola is not a big problem. To get it you have to come in contact with bodily fluids, so it will never be a big problem here, and yet O'Reilly is freaked out about it.

Then O'Reilly had the biased Republican St. Louis radio talk show host McGraw Milhaven on, he was on to talk about the continuing protests in Ferguson, Missouri. With no guest (who supports the protests) on for balance, which is what O'Reilly usually does.

Milhaven said this: "These protesters are more like jihadists or anarchists. They're not protesting for anything, they're just looking for trouble. Most of the people who are breaking windows are not from Ferguson, but they're being led by elected officials who want to make trouble. When you ask the protesters what they want, they don't really have an answer except that they want prosecutor Bob McCulloch off the case. But he was just re-elected and has the support of the entire community. We are watching Ferguson die a slow death, we are losing all sense of civility."

Comment: Those are lies and a biased opinion from a right-wing stooge, nothing he said is true, and of course O'Reilly loved it because he is a biased Republican who agrees with him.

Then Gretchen Carlson was on for what makes you mad, she responded to emails from some angry viewers. One of them, Ashley Cracker of North Carolina, is befuddled by the outrage over the football nickname "Redskins."

"There are 80 Native American councils who want a name change, "Carlson reported, "but if you ask Americans, 71% say the Redskins should keep the name. The latest poll of American Indians was done in 2004, and back then 90% of American Indians said the name didn't bother them."

Comment: Redskin is an offensive term, it even says so in the dictionary, merriam-webster says this: usually offensive. So it is an offensive term and should not be used by an NFL football team. I even thoink the NFL should force the team to change it.

Another viewer, Floridian Tom Price, is upset because he can no longer have driver's licenses issued in two different states. "This has been in place since 9/11," Carlson said. "If you live in New York and Florida, you can't have two licenses, you have to have one or the other. It's about security."

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about what Nancy Pelosi said, and they are both Republicans so of course they hate her and have a bias against her. So of course O'Reilly had no Democrats on for balance, and these two morons were mad because Pelosi said the word for mexican border crossers is illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.

Gutfeld said this: "Nancy and I talk about this all the time. She doesn't refer to me as 'short,' I am an 'air-space conservationist.' I keep a lot of space above me free so other people can use it. Words are more important than deeds to a leftist."

McGuirk said this: "A 'trailer park' is now a 'mobile home,' a 'bum' is 'homeless,' and you can't say 'dingbat,' which brings me to Ms. Pelosi."

Then they talked about California, which has enacted a ban on plastic shopping bags. "The tree-huggers out there," McGuirk said, "claim these plastic bags are killing the ocean and the sea turtles and the seagulls. But with all due respect to the seagulls, I have to get my groceries home. Paper bags rip and the beer falls out."

Comment: And here is another great example of why Republicans have trouble getting the Latino vote, they refuse to stop calling them illegal aliens, which is offensive to them. They also make jokes about plastic bags killing animals.

Then Jesse Watters was on to talk about his visit to Brown during last year's nudity week. Which I will not report on, because this is not news, it's garbage that nobody cares about.

Comment: Notice what O'Reilly did not report on, the news that unemployment dropped to a 6 year low of 5.9% and over 240,000 jobs were added to the economy in September. This is real news and O'Reilly totally ignored it, because it makes Obama look good, and it kills the lie from O'Reilly that the economy is not improving because of Obama's liberal policies.

Not only that, despite the Republicans blocking every jobs bill Obama tried to pass, and doing everything they can to slow the economy it is still recovering under the policies Obama put in place without them. Just think how good it would be doing if the Republicans actually worked with him instead of against him.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly crying about Obama calling Fox News out for their bias against him. But what's really funny is that O'Reilly said Obama was wrong, that Fox has been fair to him, and that they simply cover Obama with skepticism, which is exactly how journalists should do it.

Which is just laughable, Fox hates Obama because he is a Democrat and they have had nothing but biased, racist, ridiculous coverage of him. To deny it is to deny reality, it would be like saying MSNBC was fair to Bush, which would also be a lie, because they hated Bush and were not fair to him. I am shocked O'Reilly was not hit by lightning for his lie, because he was clearly lying.

Unemployment Rate Drops To 5.9% And O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - October 4, 2014 - 10:30am

This is real news, important news the people should know, and of course O'Reilly ignored it because it makes Obama look good and it shows the Obama economic policies are working. It also kills the lie from O'Reilly and his right-wing friends that the economy was not improving, because if it was not improving the unemployment rate would be going up not down.

O'Reilly did not report a word about this major news story, but he sure had time to do a worthless non-news segment with Jesse Watters about nudity week at Brown University, with video footage of course.

Jobless Rate Falls Below 6%

The U.S. economy is picking up steam, with employers hiring again at a healthy pace and the unemployment rate at its lowest since summer 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

For the first time since the middle of the recession, the jobless rate fell below 6 percent, dropping to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent in August. That continues a decline from its recession peak of 10 percent.

Employers added 248,000 jobs in September across a number of sectors, and hiring in August was revised upward to a more promising 180,000 jobs.

The pace of job creation in September was above many economists expectations and signified a return to the 200,000 level, a mark that had been surpassed each month since midwinter until the August lull.

Investors also were encouraged by the report. Stocks moved higher and the dollar rose against many major currencies.

And in a sign that hiring was likely to continue to pick up, the government said the average workweek in manufacturing rose to 42.1 hours in September, near its highest level in more than 60 years. The average workweek across all sectors rose to a post-recession high.

Another bright spot Friday was news that the trade deficit narrowed slightly in August, even as economists had expected the opposite. Petroleum exports were the highest on record.

With consumer confidence generally growing and business investment showing strength, many analysts are optimistic that in the next six months the economy will get even stronger.

"There have been generally broad-based job gains across nearly every sector in the economy," said Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial. "Some months are better than others, but it's been a very broad-based recovery, and I think we're likely to see that recovery continue."

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said Friday's news refuted the conservative pundits who'd predicted the unemployment rate would not drop for many months to come. He said the report was evidence that the nation was on track for the strongest pace of private sector job growth since 1998.

"The challenge is to continue the pace of job growth and ensure these rising tides lift all the boats," he said.

The latest jobs data are likely to sharpen a debate among Federal Reserve officials about how long to wait before beginning to raise interest rates. The Fed has held short-term rates near zero since 2008 to stimulate the economy.

The unemployment rate is falling toward the range that Fed officials regard as normal more quickly than they had expected.

Most Fed officials predicted in September that the rate would be no lower than 5.9 percent at the end of the year. But the latest data also shows that hourly wages rose just 2 percent over the last 12 months, suggesting that it still was unusually easy for companies to hire workers.

Obama Slams Fox & Republicans For Silence On Obamacare Success
By: Steve - October 4, 2014 - 9:30am

President Barack Obama ripped into FOX News and Republicans for no longer screaming that the sky is falling because of Obamacare, now that the president’s signature healthcare law has proven to be a huge success in giving millions of Americans access to affordable healthcare.

"There's a reason fewer Republicans, you hear them running around about Obamacare," Pres. Obama said during a speech on the economy at Northwestern University on Thursday. "Because while good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News -- it turns out it's working pretty well in the real world."

President Obama also called out Republicans for dogmatically supporting massive tax cuts for the wealthy, but having practically no evidence to back up their ludicrous economic policy positions.

"If there were any credible argument that says when those at the top do well and eventually everybody else will do well, it would have borne itself out by now," the president said.

"We'd see data that that was true. It's not. American economic greatness has never trickled down from the top. It grows from a rising, thriving middle class and opportunity for working people. That's what makes us different."

GOP Finally Uncovers Actual Voter Fraud: By One Of Their Own Candidates
By: Steve - October 3, 2014 - 11:30am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, but if a Democratic candidate (who was running for Attorney General) did this O'Reilly would be all over it for a week.

The Thursday 10-2-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 3, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Ebola Panic. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: All over the country people are discussing the deadly disease Ebola and the disease is already here in Texas. Liberian national Thomas Duncan is being treated for Ebola at a Dallas hospital, where he is in stable but serious condition. Dallas authorities now estimate that up to 100 people, some of them children, may have had direct or second-hand contact with Duncan.

So in Dallas right now there is grave concern. What should the federal government do, since it is Washington's obligation to provide for the common good? First, all flights from West Africa should be discontinued to the USA, and Europe should do the same thing. I feel sorry for the West African nations, but there is an epidemic of Ebola there, and it will spread because the incubation period lasts for up to 21 days.

Also, U.S. immigration should allow no one to enter this country holding a passport from any West African nation, and that policy should last until the Ebola epidemic subsides in Africa. As you know, many people hold irrational fears and that's contagious as well.

Once Ebola starts spreading around, chaos follows. Therefore, West Africans should not be admitted to the USA until the epidemic is controlled. In cases of life and death, you must err on the side of caution. So the president should order an immigration quarantine - right now!
Comment: Wow, O'Reilly is a fool. There is one case of Ebola is the USA, one. You are a nut, and nobody I know of is talking about Ebola, not one person I know has ever mentioned it. Nobody is talking about it but the media. If say a thousand people get it, then maybe we should be worried and do something, but one case of Ebola is a joke.

Then Alan Colmes and Andrea Tantaros were on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "Your plan does not make sense. This is scare-mongering and this is what the media does - scare-mongering with ISIS and scare-mongering with Ebola. When people get on a plane in West Africa they are checked, and if they have any symptoms at all they don't get on the plane. To quarantine is a terrible overreaction!"

And of course the right-wing nut Tantaros disagreed with Colmes, saying this: "Alan's insane. Are we going to rely on West African nations who clearly can not contain this virus? Are we going to trust that anyone coming here is going to be honest and candid with us? We are not equipped to handle this here."

Then the biased right-wing Obama hating fool Col. Ralph Peters was on to talk about the bombing of ISIS, with no Democratic military expert for balance. And for the record, Peters is a partisan hack who hates Obama, has never said one good word about him, and can not be trusted for information because he has an agenda and a bias against Obama. But O'Reilly keeps putting him on his show anyway, making him just as bad as Peters.

Peters said this: "A contact of mine at the U.S. Central Command, says that staff officers are disheartened by the timidity and the weakness and the phoniness of this. They have christened this 'shock and yawn,' and these are the guys involved in planning the missions! The administration is proud that they've done over 200 strikes in almost two months, but a serious air campaign would have 200 strikes in the first day or two. This is a political ploy with November in mind, it's not a serious strike, and we are failing in this mission."

Comment: And you can bet the farm his sources are also Republicans who hate Obama, who are also biased partisan hacks.

Then James Rosen was on to talk about the case of Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who has been in that Mexico lockup for more than six months. "Secretary of State John Kerry has personally raised Sgt. Tahmooressi's case with his counterpart in Mexico, and one result of that is that the Mexican government has afforded the Tahmooressi family excellent access to the prisoner. Our diplomats have been present at every one of Sgt. Tahmooressi's legal hearings. Additional facts may emerge that may help explain why this case has endured as long as it has."

Comment: And there you go, Kerry is a Democrat who has been working to get Tahmooressi released, but O'Reilly never reports that, he only has Republicans on to discuss it, and if Rosen had not mentioned it in this one segment, nobody who watches the Factor would ever know about it.

Carl Cameron turned to politics and the upcoming battle for control of the Senate, saying this: "Colorado is a key race because that state has almost evenly divided registration, it's a real bellwether. What happens in Colorado could reflect what happens around the country, and right now the Republican Cory Gardner has taken a lead over incumbent Democrat Mark Udall. That could be bad news for Democrats across the country."

Comment: Just for fun I looked up that race at real clear politics, they have Gardner up by 1.5 points, but they are calling it a toss up and the margin of error in the poll is 3 percent. And the Denver Post poll has UDALL up by 4 points. Rasmussen, the biased Republican poll, only has Gardner up by 1 point, and the incumbent usually wins those close races.

Notice that neither O'Reilly or Cameron mention any of that, so it's a toss up, and with the margin of error Udall could actually be winning. To say Gardner has taken a lead is misleading and wishful thinking.

Then the crazy far-right Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the Ebola story and what the government can do.

"What I think is indisputable, is that most African countries have enacted travel restrictions and border checks. Britain and France have also put some flight restrictions on transportation in and out of Sierra Leone and Liberia. Obama is not taking this as seriously as these other countries."

Ingraham also reacted to President Obama's insistence that the economy is improving and ObamaCare is working. "Liberalism, Obama-style, is failing miserably. We're a weaker country and the middle class is doing worse than in 1989."

Comment: Wow, Ingraham is insane. If you want to see a clueless right-wing spin doctor in action, she is it. Nothing she said is true, it's all right-wing talking points and propaganda. The economy is doing great, and unemployment claims just hit a new low, on top of all the other good economic news. Jobs are back, gas prices are low, unemployment is down, the stock market is at record highs, home prices are rising, the GDP is over 4 percent, and on and on. To deny the economy is doing good is to deny reality.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Cultivating a Relationship. Billy said this: "When you don't get along with someone initially, try to give it some time. Your relationship may well improve with age."

Yes, that was actually the tip of the day and my God was it worthless.

Great Example Of Who And What Bill O'Reilly Is: A Jerk
By: Steve - October 3, 2014 - 10:00am

Here are some facts that show Bill O'Reilly is a giant a-hole, by looking at what he did to his wife in their divorce, can you imagine working for this jerk, not me. No wonder he thinks they do not deserve the same pay as a man, he thinks they are 2nd class citizens, and treats them like dirt.

Bill O'Reilly wants his ex-wife to go to Hell. Literally. As reported before, the Fox News hack became separated from his former wife Maureen McPhilmy at some point in 2011, and later went on a corrupt crusade to destroy the career of the Nassau County Police detective she was dating. He even donated money ($100,000) to the police fund to get his friends at internal affairs to investigate the detective she was dating.

It was also confirmed that O'Reilly and McPhilmy have been formally divorced, that she has since married the detective, and that O'Reilly is in the midst of a scorched-earth custody battle -- called, Anonymous v. Anonymous -- over the ex-couple's two children.

It involves a surreptitious attempt by O'Reilly to undermine his custody arrangement by hiring, as a member of his household staff, the woman he and his ex had agreed on as a neutral arbiter of their disputes. It also involves O'Reilly's attempts to annul his marriage and have McPhilmy barred from the Catholic Church.

Here are the details: In May 2010, O'Reilly and his wife began living in separate houses less than half a mile from each other on Long Island. In 2011, O'Reilly used his connections with the Nassau County Police Department to try to launch an internal affairs investigation into McPhilmy's new boyfriend -- a Nassau County detective -- for the crime of sleeping with Bill O'Reilly's wife.

With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, is currently suing the NCPD for access to public records, including O'Reilly's correspondence with former commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, about the episode. That case is on appeal to the Second Department of New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division.

And btw, the Nassau County Police Department has acknowledged in a court filing that Bill O'Reilly played a role in an internal affairs investigation into an NCPD detective, confirming a key element of Gawker's exclusive story last August detailing how the Fox News blowhard tried to have the cop who was dating his wife investigated by his own police department.

Gawker reported that the NCPD launched an internal affairs unit (IAU) investigation into an unnamed detective at the behest of O'Reilly, who believed that the detective was romantically involved with his wife Maureen McPhilmy. O'Reilly asked then-commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, who is a personal friend, to look into the detective and "tell [him] to back off."

The department's internal affairs unit subsequently launched an inquiry -- aided by two private investigators hired by O'Reilly -- into the detective for no reason other than his dating McPhilmy.

Which brings us to another case they found in the Second Department: Anonymous 2011-1 v. Anonymous 2011-2. Family law cases in New York are not a matter of public record. But their existence, in the form of a docket entry with the names of the participants—as in Kramer v. Kramer—generally is. In rare cases, a judge will grant a motion to anonymize the names to protect the interests of the children or the privacy of public citizens. Anonymous 2011-1 v. Anonymous 2011-2 is one of those cases.

The dispute behind Anonymous 2011-1 v. Anonymous 2011-2 has been bitter enough, though, that the case ended up in the appellate division, where decisions are routinely published, often laying bare sensitive details. It's a custody action, commenced in September 2011, and you can read all about it on the web site of the New York state court system.

It involves a father who attempted to maintain control over the children he shared with his ex-wife by buying off and co-opting their purportedly neutral therapist. Anonymous 2011-1 is McPhilmy. Anonymous 2011-2 is O'Reilly. The dispute was heard by the Second Department in October 2013, after a trial court denied McPhilmy's motion to amend the couple's custody agreement.

Here's what the Second Department opinion reveals:

O'Reilly and McPhilmy separated on April 2, 2010.
They divorced on September 1, 2011.
They agreed to share custody of their two children, aged 13 and 10.
The couple's separation agreement included provisions allowing for shared custody -- they each got the children on alternating weeks. And it also appointed a "neutral therapist" to, according to the opinion, "act as a neutral mediator to help them resolve any parenting disputes."

And here's where it gets interesting. In October 2011, McPhilmy took O'Reilly to court after learning that the woman she thought had been a neutral therapist serving the needs of her children was in fact a member of his household staff.

The therapist, a Long Island licensed social worker named Lynne Kulakowski, was working long days and some evenings in O'Reilly's house, on his payroll, and basically acting as the children's nanny.

From the opinion:
The mother claimed that the [father] had repeatedly violated conditions of the agreement. The mother further alleged that, after the execution of the agreement, the father had hired the children's therapist as a full-time employee to perform virtually all of his parental duties.

The mother's affidavit contained specific allegations concerning the father's repeated violations of the custody provisions of the agreement since its inception.

Moreover, the full-time employment of the children's therapist, the person designated in the agreement as a neutral third-party "arbitrator" of custodial disputes, by the father, constitutes a significant change of circumstance which could undermine the integrity of the agreement's custodial provisions.
At a Second Department hearing in October, McPhilmy's attorney claimed -- and O'Reilly's attorney did not dispute -- that Kulakowski was earning a six-figure salary from O'Reilly.

All of this, of course, made a mockery of the custody agreement's appointment of Kulakowski as a neutral arbiter of disputes -- O'Reilly rigged the game against his ex-wife. A lower court initially denied McPhilmy's request for a hearing about O'Reilly's co-optation of the therapist, but the appellate court agreed with McPhilmy and sent the case back for a hearing.

In a highly unusual step for an appellate court, it also ordered the appointment of an independent attorney for the children, an indication that the dispute has become particularly poisonous.

Another indication that it has become poisonous: the Catholic Church has gotten involved. Gawker has learned that McPhilmy has been formally reprimanded in writing by her church for continuing to take communion in her Long Island parish despite having been divorced and remarried -- a no-no according to the Pope.

O'Reilly reported her to the church, and he also made a donation to them, so you get the picture, he used his money and power to punish her because she divorced him. Can you imagine living with Bill O'Reilly, it would be like torture, and I am shocked she lasted as long as she did.

The church reprimand also instructed her to stop telling her children that her second marriage, to the Nassau County detective O'Reilly tried to destroy, is valid in the eyes of God. It warned her that if she didn't comply, harsher measures may be in order.

Chad Glendinning, a professor of canon law at St. Paul University, couldn't say whether the reprimand was a first step on the road to excommunication. But he did say it appeared to be a first step toward barring her from the sacraments if necessary.

"Public denial of holy communion is to be avoided as far as possible," he said. "Instead, pastors should take precautionary measures to explain the Church's teaching to concerned persons so that they may be able to understand it or at least respect it. It is possible that the letter you describe is such an attempt."

There presumably aren't too many people besides O'Reilly who know what McPhilmy is saying to her children about how God views her marriage. And O'Reilly, who interviewed Timothy Cardinal Dolan last year and donated more than $65,000 to New York Catholic parishes and schools in 2011, according to the tax return of his nonprofit foundation, carries considerable weight in the archdiocese.

While he's busy harassing McPhilmy for asserting the holiness of her second marriage, O'Reilly is trying to deny the existence of his first: He is seeking an annulment of his 15-year marriage, which produced two children. Invalid in the eyes of God. Never happened.

This despite his manifest belief in the "stability" that straight marriage brings to the culture and concern at the (purportedly) declining marriage rates in countries that allow gay people to marry one another.

If successful, the annulment would presumably render his 2004 escapade with former producer Andrea Mackris, whom he repeatedly and vividly sexually harassed with threats to take "the falafel thing...and put it on your private parts," retroactively kosher with Jesus.

Facts On The Economy Bill O'Reily Is Totally Ignoring
By: Steve - October 2, 2014 - 5:30pm

I watch the Factor every night, and I have for about 14 years now. This kills the lie that O'Reilly spins out that none of his critic actually watch his show, I do, and I have for a long time.

And I can tell you that O'Reilly never reports any good economic news, ever. Because it makes Obama look good.

I watch his show and then write a daily review every morning about the show from the night before. And I can tell you without a doubt that O'Reilly never reports any good economic, or good stock market news, he ignores it all. Unless the market goes down one day, then he reports that, but when it goes back up he ignores it.

After ignoring all the good economic news over the last 2 years, Wednesday night O'Reilly has a ridiculous segment he called "Truth Serum" where he asked this: Is the Economy Improving?

So on the Factor website O'Reilly has this in the summary of the segment, quote: President Obama insists that the economy is on the mend and that Americans are better off than they were six years ago. The Factor asked FNC's Molly Line to inject some truth serum into that claim.

"There has never been a period this long without a decline in private job growth," Line reported, "and what he's saying is that for the past 54 months there has been an increase in private sector jobs. But the average number of private sector jobs created during the Obama administration is less than in previous recoveries. The deficit is lower than it was in 2009, but the national debt has climbed by more than 6-trillion dollars."

Speaking of the truth, O'Reilly ignores this all, he never reports on any of it. Then he does a biased segment with one guest from Fox News asking if the economy is improving, when he knows it is, he just has to pretend it's not because that is what partisan hacks do, here is some real truth.

6 years ago, As Bush was preparing to leave office in January of 2009:

1. The DOW had fallen to 8000
2. The NASDAQ had plunged to 1500.
3. The average American with a 401K lost about half of their retirement savings.
4. Banks that had survived the Great Depression were going out of business.
5. Housing prices were falling like a rock as the bubble burst.
6. The unemployment rate was 7.8%, and going up. In the same month that Bush handed over the economy to Obama, 818,000 workers lost their jobs.
7. The US auto industry was on it's knees begging for a bailout.
8. The Bush administration had to borrow 700 billion dollars from the taxpayers to bail out the banks.
9. In the 4th quarter of 2008, 3 weeks before the torch was passed from Republican President to Democratic President the US economy contracted a whopping 8.9%, the worst in postwar history.

So where are we NOW, 6 years later with a Democratic President.

1. The worst recession in US history is over.
2. People are going back to work. Just 12 months after Bush handed over the worst economy since the Great Depresssion to Obama, the US began adding jobs instead of losing them. The unemployment rate is now 6.1% and headed down.
3. Banks are healthy and profitable again.
4. The US auto industry is the pride of the nation.
5. Housing prices are on the rise again.
6. Home building is up again.
7. The average rate of inflation for the 6 Obama years has averaged a low1.6 percent vs 2.8 percent for 8 years of Bush. Good news for shoppers and savers. Interest rates are low.
8. Consumer confidence is soaring.
9.The Bush war in Iraq is over. No more US soldiers have died there since 2011.
10. Osama Bin Laden is Dead.
11. And the stock market? The DOW is higher than it has ever been in it's history. It's breaking records.
12. The NASDAQ has tripled since the closing days of the Bush administration.
13. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index climbed above 2,000, for the first time in history.
14. In June auto sales rose to an 8 year high.
15. In the second quarter of 2014 the US GDP surged to 4.6% beating Wall Street expectations.

And O'Reilly has not reported any of that, But he sure had time to have one Fox News guest on to question if the economy is improving at all. It's just laughable, the economy is 10 times better now than it was just 4 years ago, and 100 times better than it was when Bush left office in January of 2009.

To even question if the economy has improved under Obama is insanity, it's total partisan right-wing propaganda and bias. O'Reilly ignores the almost daily good economic news, he does not report any of it, those are facts, and instead he does a biased one sided segment with a Fox News employee asking if the economy has improved under Obama.

It's about as biased as a person can get, and this is from the guy who claims to only report the facts, while he ignores all the facts, and then reports pure right-wing propaganda instead. This is the guy who claims to be fair and balanced and have a no spin zone, which is just laughable.

And btw, O'Reilly also said he will confront all his critics, so I sent him and his producers some e-mails asking to be a guest on the show to confront O'Reilly with some of these economic facts, and guess what, they did not even answer my e-mails, nothing, not even a no, they did not reply at all, not O'Reilly or any of his corrupt producers.

The Tuesday 9-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 2, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Ignoring Incompetence. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
Americans are amazed that the White House apparently is not secure. On September 19th a mentally disturbed person hopped a fence and got all the way into the White House without being stopped by Secret Service guards. That is a huge scandal and today the director of the Secret Service, Julia Pierson, resigned.

That's amazing, since the Obama administration rarely holds people accountable for failure. The only other high-level person we can think of who got fired was VA chief Eric Shinseki after the enormous scandal in his department. This week President Obama blamed intelligence chief James Clapper for the ISIS intel failure. But Mr. Clapper is still on the job.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice misled the world about Benghazi and got promoted. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who totally screwed up the roll out of Obamacare, kept her job for eight months before she voluntarily left. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not take the fall for the assassination of Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya. Current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman were both caught up in a scandal, but neither has paid a price.

Talking Points has said numerous times that the Obama administration is not governing the country properly. There are problems everywhere, and few of them are being addressed in an effective way. Perhaps the best example is Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced his resignation last week. Mr. Holder has never explained the 'Fast and Furious' scandal, and now the federal courts are ordering him to turn over documents he should have released months ago.

Yet he kept his job because President Obama likes him. What is forgotten by the media and by the politicians is that public servants are supposed to serve we the people. We need effective problem solvers, not spinners and stone-wallers. Every poll says the same thing: Americans are rapidly losing faith in their government, and they should.
Comment: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, this is not news, every President does the very same thing, Bush did it and Clinton also did it. No President wants to fire anyone they put in place to work with them, because it makes it look like they made a bad choice. All President do it, not just Obama, Bush did it and you said nothing then.

Then James Carville was on to discuss it.

Carville said this: "I think the general thrust of what you said has validity. The president is reluctant to fire people and hold people accountable in some instances, that is a fair criticism. If he's gotten bad intelligence, it's his guy who is the head of the CIA. He is reluctant to fire people who are caught up in things that don't do very well, but I think the IRS scandal turned out to be not much of anything, and keeping Kathleen Sebelius might have been smart because Obama is doing great now."

Comment: In other words, Carville was saying you do not fire good people every time they make one mistake, something O'Reilly does not seem to understand.

Then Republican Congressman Ed Royce was on, he has been trying to get Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi freed from a prison in Mexico. So have Democrats, but O'Reilly never has any Democrats on to discuss it, making it look like only Republicans want him released. Which is dishonest, because many Democrats are also trying to get him released.

Royce said this: "I think he will be released shortly. I had a conversation with the attorney general of Mexico, who indicated that he has the capacity to release Tahmooressi if it can be proven that he had post-traumatic stress disorder. I sent a report to the attorney general showing that Tahmooressi had been diagnosed with PTSD."

Then O'Reilly had a ridiculous segment where he asked this: Is the Economy Improving?

O'Reilly said this: President Obama insists that the economy is on the mend and that Americans are better off than they were six years ago. So I asked FNC's Molly Line to inject some truth serum into that claim.

Comment: As if Obama is lying, and he has a biased right-wing stooge on to agree with him, when the facts clearly show Obama is right and the economy is improving more all the time. Jobs are up, the GDP is at 4.6%, unemployment is down, the deficit is down, the stock market is at record highs, and O'Reilly ignores it all to ask if the economy is improving, which is just crazy.

Line said this: "There has never been a period this long without a decline in private job growth, and what he's saying is that for the past 54 months there has been an increase in private sector jobs. But the average number of private sector jobs created during the Obama administration is less than in previous recoveries. The deficit is lower than it was in 2009, but the national debt has climbed by more than 6-trillion dollars."

Then O'Reilly had another dishonest segment called this: Feud at the View. O'Reilly claimed that Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg, co-hosts on The View, engaged in a nasty off-camera disagreement this week. FNC's Martha MacCallum elaborated on the star-studded dispute.

MacCallum said this: "During a commercial break they got into it. Rosie had stepped on Whoopi a little bit at the end of a segment, Rosie didn't like that, they went back and forth calling each other names, and there were some four-letter words flying around."

O'Reilly said this too: "The other day Ms. O'Donnell stated criticism of President Obama's coffee cup salute was racist."

O'Donnell was not being serious when she brought up racism. And Goldberg was not talking to O'Donnell in her lecture. She was addressing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), though Palin was not actually on The View's set.

McCallum offered somewhat of a fuller picture, noting that Goldberg was "calling out Rosie a bit and Sarah Palin a bit as well." McCallum padded her assertion with a recent anonymously sourced report by The Daily Mail that said Goldberg and O'Donnell recently got into a shouting match between commercial breaks on The View's set.

Comment: Basically, O'Reilly lied, and I will post a full blog about it with the proof he way lying.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting some foundation.

O'Reilly Dishonest In His Segment On Rosie & Obama Racism Story
By: Steve - October 2, 2014 - 11:00am

O'Reilly claimed that Rosie O'Donnell and Whoppi Goldberg got into an argument when Rosie claimed racism in the debate over the Obama latte salute on the View. And nothing could be further from the truth, it was all a lie from O'Reilly, and he knows it, he just did it to make them look bad because they are both liberals and he does not like either one of them.

Here are the facts:

O'Reilly picked up on a clip from The View this week where the women on the View were talking about President Obama's so-called "latte salute."

In the clip, viewers see View co-host Whoopi Goldberg dismissing the salute as a drummed up controversy, to which O'Donnell says, "Yes, and you know, I want to end this debate, so: racism!"

The crowd laughs and claps before Goldberg goes on a little lecture.

"Oh, honey, you know, if you ever really met a racist, you wouldn't throw that word around quite as lightly," she says. "Because racists don't play. They're not cute. They're not cuddly. Nobody says racist just because. There is a history in the country that says hey maybe we got to think about this. So, if you don't get it, I assure you, the indigenous people of Alaska do. They know exactly what we're talking about."

"Bravo," O'Donnell replies.

The show then went to commercial.

So Tuesday night O'Reilly jumped all over it, saying this: "The other day Ms. O'Donnell stated criticism of President Obama's coffee cup salute was racist," before playing the clip.

O'Reilly then framed Goldberg's remarks as a type of lecture to O'Donnell on the real definition of racism.

The problem here is that O'Donnell was not being serious when she brought up racism. And Goldberg was not talking to O'Donnell in her lecture. She was addressing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), though Palin was not actually on The View's set.

Viewers who watched the full segment know this because Goldberg is: 1. Looking at the camera, not at O'Donnell during her tirade; and 2. The entire View segment was centered on Palin's recent speech at the Values Voter Summit, during which she mocked the Obama salute.

Palin had said in her speech (part of which was played on The View) that, "Those truly prejudice folks (just remember this) they scream racism our way just to end debate."

Palin was talking about liberal Democrats who counter any criticism of Obama by labeling his opponents as racists.

O'Donnell was referencing that part of Palin's speech when she jokingly yelled, "racist!" at Goldberg. And Goldberg's reference to "indigenous people of Alaska" at the end of her garbled soliloquy was a shot at Palin.

O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, not a word about Palin, or that Rosie was mocking what Palin said by saying racism to end the debate, O'Reilly ignored all the facts to claim Rosie was serious when she said racism. When the whole thing was a joke, and nothing but mocking the Palin speech at the voters values summit.

O'Reilly's take on the matter was flat out dishonest and misleading, in other words, he put a spin on the whole story to make Rosie look bad. His colleague Martha McCallum offered somewhat of a fuller picture, noting that Goldberg was "calling out Rosie a bit and Sarah Palin a bit as well."

McCallum padded her lies about the racism claims with a recent anonymously sourced report by The Daily Mail that said Goldberg and O'Donnell recently got into a shouting match between commercial breaks on The View's set.

Goldberg was lecturing Palin, not Rosie. And if you watch the entire segment it is clear that is what happened. O'Reilly did what he says he hates when the media does it, he cherry picked a partial quote and took it out of context to mislead the people.

Roise was joking, she was mocking what Palin said about liberals using racism to end debates, and that is a fact. O'Reilly lied about it and reported that she was serious, when the full clip of the show clearly shows that O'Reilly is wrong. Proving once again that he is a dishonest and biased right-wing hack.

Stewart Slams Fox For Criticizing President While At War
By: Steve - October 2, 2014 - 10:00am

Remember back to the terrible days when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were running the country, the economy crashed, the stock market crashed, jobs were going away at a rate of 750,000 a month, and we were in a useless and un-needed war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Almost every night O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News said it was not only un-American to criticize the President while we were at war, it was borderline treason. At one point O'Reilly even called people who simply disagreed with the President traitors, then after taking some massive heat for it he changed it to calling them bad Americans.

He even called for some of the dissenters to be tried for sedition. As in Professor Ward Churchill, here is a partial transcript with Grege Noone, Former. Judge Advocate General, from April of 2005 when Bush was still in office:
O'REILLY: OK, would you -- the last treason case was brought in 1949 in the USA. Do you think that Churchill runs the risk of being tried for treason here?

NOONE: In my opinion, Bill, no. There have been only been 30 prosecutions in the history of the United States. The last eight or so related to World War II, what you're talking about.

O'REILLY: All right, he's not there yet. All right, let's go to sedition, a federal crime supporting revolution against the government. Certainly he's doing that, or supporting an enemy of the nation in time of war through speeches, publications, and organizations. Certainly he's doing that.

The problem is we're not in a time of war because Congress hasn't declared war.

NOONE: Right.

O'REILLY: Can you get him on sedition anyway?

NOONE: No, I don't think we can. I mean, you know, this guy -- I think the only thing we can charge him with at this point is exceeding his 15 minutes of fame and give him a one-way ticket back to obscurity. This is guy is not someone who's going to rise to the level of treason or sedition.
Now think about that, if we use O'Reilly's own argument today from 2005 he is guilty of sedition. Because O'Reilly is slamming the President every day, while we are at war, O'Reilly himself even says we are at war with ISIS and slams Obama for not declaring we are at war.

So using O'Reilly own position on the issue of criticizing the President during a time of war, he is guilty of sedition.

Jon Stewart even slammed the morons at Fox for that very thing a few days ago.

Stewart: " and all your false patriotism. When Bush took us to war, any criticism was shouted down as treasonous. But a president you don't like has the country poised on the same precipice (and) no transgression -- no matter how immaterial and ridiculous -- is too small to cite as evidence that this president isn't as American as you are."

That was Jon Stewart pummeling the people at Fox and finally doing what's needed to be done for months into years now.

As Bob Cesca has documented so well, Fox News's flexible stance on criticizing the president while troops are in harm's way has always amounted to the worst and most indefensible kind of hypocrisy. And yet to the best of my knowledge no one with any real authority in the media has ever called them to the carpet on this.

No one with the clout of a Jon Stewart -- and certainly no one who's ever appeared on Fox News -- has been able to force guys like Hannity and O'Reilly and the rest of the self-righteous bloviators who circled the wagons around the office of "The President of the United States" for eight years to explain their behavior over the last six.

In other words, it proves their right-wing bias and their double standards, to them it's wrong to criticize the President during a time of war, but only when a Republican is in the White House, when a Democrat is there suddenly it's not only ok, it's encouraged daily by O'Reilly and Fox.

The explanation for why it's suddenly okay to disregard their past articles of faith and tear down this president for everything from latte salutes, to teleprompters, to his affinity for spicy mustard and gherkins, to mom jeans and tan suits is nothing more than cheap partisan politics.

But rarely has there been an example of their own naked hypocrisy that's so easy to throw back in their faces. Hannity would have nowhere to run if someone forced him to try to explain why he once said it was almost treasonous to attack the president during war-time but now apparently thinks it's perfectly alright.

Watching him attempt to weasel out of his past remarks or jump through semantic hoops to get himself off the hook now would be entertaining as hell. But you'll never get him in that position.

As for Eric Bolling, who has a history of letting Stewart get under his skin, he'll probably just say that he wasn't at Fox News during most of the Bush years and therefore can't be held accountable for what the rest of the bellicose white guys at the network were saying back then.

But Stewart's smackdown of Fox News overall double-standard remains -- and it's going to go unanswered for the simple reason that Fox News has no answer to it, because other than patent dishonesty, there is none.

It's flat out bias and dishonesty, to O'Reilly you are a traitor if you criticize the President during a time of war when we have a Republican President. But it's fine to do it when a Democrat is in the White House.

The Tuesday 9-30-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 1, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama Gets Blowback from the Intelligence Community. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is deep anger among some working in American intelligence agencies. That's because president Obama told '60 Minutes' it was an intel failure - not his fault - that ISIS grew into a monster. President Obama has not taken responsibility for the botched intelligence on ISIS, and that has led to some evaluations.

On November 13th, 2013, State Department official Brett McGurk told Congress that 'ISIL is growing roots in Syria and in Iraq.' That means the president had to know that the State Department believed ISIS was a threat. Talking Points believes Mr. Obama does not want to engage the war on terror. Yes, he will order drone strikes and some Special Forces activity, but he does not want the USA to launch major offenses to degrade terror groups.

The president looks away, hoping that a situation like ISIS and Syria will go away. And now President Obama is paying a price for his passive approach to the jihad, and the anti-terror situation is bleak. For decades Pakistan has undermined Afghanistan and America by harboring the Taliban. President Obama is well aware of that. Iran has funded Hezbollah and trained a variety of Shi'a terrorists on Iranian soil.

President Obama, well aware. The al Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri is still at large, but where is he? Some country has to have him, but the pro-terrorist nations around the world do not fear the United States. What did we do to Pakistan when they harbored bin Laden all those years? Nothing. And when the Pakistanis imprisoned the man who helped bring down bin Laden, President Obama again did nothing. So Mr. Obama's resume on terrorism is about as weak as you can get. And that's a fact.
Comment: Haha, those are not facts, they are mostly the opinion of the biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly, to call them facts is laughable.

Then the Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Monica Crowley critiqued the Talking Points Memo and the failure to confront ISIS earlier.

Powers said this: "I don't think the case you made shows that President Obama is in denial. You're suggesting that people were ringing alarm bells over ISIS, but that's not what those clips show. I think President Obama knew they were a threat, but I don't think he knew that they were going to overrun Iraq."

Crowley said this: "This is a man who won the presidency as an anti-war leftist, and he is completely committed to that. He has spent his president minimizing the jihadist threat, so when it came to ISIS he lapsed into his pattern of deny, deflect, delay, and then stonewall."

Comment: Once again, those are opinions, one from a Democrat and one from a Republican, they are speculating and they are not facts.

Then Karl Rove was on, he talked about 42-year-old Omar Gonzalez, who recently scaled the White House fence and actually entered the building.

Rove said this: "This is very troubling. This guy got through the front door and went a long distance before being tackled by an off-duty officer. There's supposed to be an alarm that goes off when there is a breach, but that alarm apparently did not go off. There may be some mitigating circumstances, but they have to change the procedures."

O'Reilly then called for the firing of Secret Service boss Julia Pierson, saying this: "The culture is undisciplined and slipshod at the White House. That man could have had a suicide vest on, he could have blown up the White House. She has to go and the whole culture has to change!"

And for once I agree with O'Reilly, when someone gets over the fence and inside the White House whoever is in charge of security has to be fired, and should have been fired yesterday.

Then Howard Kurtz was on to talk about how the media reports on Obama.

Kurtz said this: "Whatever romance existed between Obama and the media is over. It's a bad marriage and journalists are now quick to push back against what they see as excuses. It started with the botched ObamaCare rollout and then the VA scandal. The press likes it when the president takes personal responsibility for screw-ups, not when he pushes it off to other agencies, and they're now trying to hold him accountable."

But of course O'Reilly was not buying it, he argued that most major media outlets are still very reluctant critics, saying this: "They're embarrassed because they threw in with President Obama early and now it's all coming apart. But their heart isn't in it."

Comment: To begin with, the media has never thrown in with President Obama, that is a right-wing myth. They reported honestly about him, which O'Reilly hated, because he wanted them to report on him like he does and like Fox does, in a biased way. And nothing is coming apart, things are getting better, yes we have a problem with ISIS, but they are not a threat to anyone on American soil, which is what Homeland Security said.

Then O'Reilly has the crazy right-wing nut Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on for some strange reason, she is retiring at the end of the year, and she joined The Factor and discussed President Obama's delayed response to the ISIS threat.

Bachmann said this: "We heard about the group almost two years ago, and we watched as the hoof beats got louder. Before Christmas of 2013 we knew this was a real problem and the president had at least as much information as we had. The administration lived in a fantasy world where they pulled all the troops out of Iraq and kept saying they had Al Qaeda on the run. They couldn't take the fact that reality didn't match up with their fantasy."

Comment: Once again, that is all right-wing talking points and her opinion, not facts.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on, he laid out his concerns about Iran's nuclear future. Notice that O'Reilly did not call Krauthammer dumb for saying his 25,000 man mercenary army is a bad idea, he only called Colbert dumb for basically saying the same thing Krauthammer said about it.

Krauthammer said this: "This is the biggest story, and history will remember this year for our surrendering Iran. It's not being talked about, partly because we are trying to get Iran to tacitly help us with the war on ISIS, and most importantly because President Obama gave up on these negotiations long ago. He weakened the sanctions when sanctions were the only thing that brought Iran to the table in the first place. Iran is a few months away from a bomb - we know it, Obama knows it, Iran knows it, and the world knows it."

O'Reilly said he was worried about the possibility of another conflagration in the Middle East, saying this: "If you're correct in all this, Israel is going to do something. They're not going to sit back and let Iran get these weapons."

Comment: And I say so what, let Israel deal with it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a book about pop music.

Republican Quotes About Not Criticizing The President During Wartime
By: Steve - October 1, 2014 - 10:00am

President Obama launched the first sorties into Syria, targeting ISIS terrorists. Within 24 hours, however, Republicans everywhere decided to turn an awkward salute into a near-impeachable crime against humanity, thus violating one of their most sacred rules from the Bush administration era: never criticize the commander-in-chief during wartime.

Here's just a reminder of what I thought was the rule about this kind of behavior (note that O'Reilly and Hannity have been especially critical of Obama):
"You don't criticize the commander-in-chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale."

--Bill O'Reilly, April, 2004

"The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong."

--Sean Hannity, 10/18/06

"He's the commander-in-chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats -- you have undermined our president..."

--Sean Hannity, 03/19/06

"You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm's way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?"

--Sean Hannity, 11/12/07

"I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war..."

--Sean Hannity, 11/05

"I've held this in long enough. I really suspect that these liberal tactics are damaging, maybe even killing the morale of our troops."

--Rush Limbaugh, 6/14/07

"Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?"

--Michelle Malkin, 11/23/05

"On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief (thereby emboldening the terrorists to kill more Americans in Iraq)..."

--Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, 04/11/07

"And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."

--Pat Robertson, 12/07/05

"While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief."

--Zell Miller, Republican National Convention, 9/01/04

"Through their relentless, vicious attacks on Bush, they systematically undermined the public's confidence in the war and our ability to optimally wage it."

--Conservative Columnist David Limbaugh
Funny how O'Reilly and Hannity never mention any of this now, while they slam Obama every night during a time of war. Here is the way I see it, you either support the president in wartime or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Unless you work for Fox News, because they clearly can have it both ways.

O'Reilly: Un-Scientific Website Poll Proves 70% Support His Mercenary Plan
By: Steve - October 1, 2014 - 9:00am

Now this is not only funny, it's sad. After the COMEDIAN Stephen Colbert took down O'Reilly for his insane 25,000 man mercenary army idea O'Reilly went nuts and attacked Colbert, even though Colbert is just a COMEDIAN who has a show on the Comedy Network.

Colbert destroyed O'Reilly by comparing his plan to one that Colbert had when he was in grade school. Colbert brought out his old 4th-grade notebook, which contained 'Stevie's Sooper Soljer Sqwad' made up of double mutant ninja super soldiers with laser nunchucks.

Colbert also played clips of Fox News personalities criticizing O'Reilly's plan, including a Factor Regular Charles Krauthammer (who even O'Reilly says is smarter than he is) who said his plan is off the wall, too expensive, and said it will never work.

But O'Reilly did not attack Krauthammer or anyone at Fox, he goes after a COMEDIAN on the Comedy Network.

O'Reilly didn't take too kindly to Colbert viciously taking him down. In O'Reilly's 'Tip of the Day,' he explained to his viewers that you need to run away when dealing with "dumb people," claiming that Colbert has no idea how to fight a jihad. As if he does, when he dont.

Notice that O'Reilly did not have an actual segment on it, with guests from each side so that it is at least almost a balanced debate, the coward used his tip of the day to slam Colbert because then nobody could disagree with him or argue that his mercenary army idea is stupid. So much for fair and balanced debate.

Before chastising Colbert "and his ilk, aka liberals" O'Reilly showed poll results claiming that 70% of people are in favor of his plan. Of course, the poll was on his personal website, and only of the show's audience, and not a scientific poll.

On the Factor polls it says this: "These polls are not scientific. Only one vote per visitor per poll is counted by the system."

They are not scientific because they are website polls, taken on a personal website by people who watch his show and then visit the website to vote, in other words, these type of polls are worthless.

And yet, O'Reilly called Colbert dumb for disagreeing with him, called liberals dumb, which implies that only Colbert and his liberal friends think his mercenary army is a bad idea. While claiming that 70% of the people agree with him so he must be right. Except 70% of the people do not agree with him, 70% of the biased people who watch his show and then voted in the website poll agree with him, which turns out to be about 15,000 people.

Not to mention, 30% of the people disagreed with him, in his own poll on his own website, which is not good for O'Reilly. Basically O'Reilly implied that 70% of the American people agree with him on the mercenary army idea, based on the poll he ran on his website, that is not a scientific poll. Which is a lie, and he knows it.

The fact is, O'Reilly has been slammed by everyone over his stupid mercenary idea ever since he first brought it up. The only people he can claim support him on it are the former CEO of Blackwater and Henry Kissinger. Basically, a guy who would profit greatly from a large-scale mercenary operation and another guy who was Nixon's Secretary of State when Nixon was illegally bombing Cambodia.

Everyone else has mocked O'Reilly for his crazy plan, regardless of ideological bent. But he still refuses to admit it, and then attacks a COMEDIAN claiming all liberals are dumb because they do not support his insane plan to fight terrorism and his biased and unscientific website poll (where he only got 70% support for it) proves he is right.

Now think about this, O'Reilly claims to have an independent, hard news no spin zone show, that only deals in the facts with no speculation allowed. Then he comes up with this crazy mercenary army idea, everyone says it is a bad idea, even most conservatives, and he refuses to admit it, then attacks a COMEDIAN and all liberals, claiming they are dumb because they do not agree with his crazy idea.

He has no facts, he is not a military expert, he is not in Congress, he was dead wrong about Iraq, and he has no experience in fighting terrorism. But he wants you to all support his army idea, based on nothing but a biased personal website poll that he himself admits is not even scientific, wow!

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: