McConnell Admits Koch Brothers Are Running The Republican Party
By: Steve - August 31, 2014 - 11:00am
In a leaked audio tape of the Koch brothers top secret June 2014 retreat, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) not only admitted that the Republicans would be lost without the Kochs, he revealed who the real power is in the GOP.
McConnell opened his remarks by saying, "Is this working? I know it's been a long, but very inspiring day. And I want to start by thanking you, Charles and David for the important work you're doing. I don't know where we'd be without you, and um, and I want (inaudible) for rallying, uh, to the cause."
Mitch McConnell has voted against raising the minimum wage 17 times in his career. He has filibustered every recent attempt to raise the minimum wage in the current Congress, so anyone with half a brain should not be surprised that he promised that he wouldn't raise the mininum wage if he becomes Majority Leader.
The main topic of his speech was Citizens United, and how the wealthy and corporations should control our elections. In the process of praising Citizens United, McConnell described how the Koch infested Supreme Court has opened the door to conservative billionaires buying the government, saying this:
"And we've had a series of cases since then that I've filed amicus briefs in and had lawyers arguing in. We now have, I think, the most free and open system we've had in modern times. The Supreme Court allowed all of you to participate in the process in a variety of different ways. You can give to the candidate of your choice. You can give to Americans for Prosperity, or something else, a variety of different ways to push back against the party of government. It has nothing to do with overly political speech."
The little part at the end where McConnell states that the billionaire dollars have nothing to do with overt political speech was a total lie. The Koch money is about buying and electing the candidates who will carry out the conservative billionaire agenda.
Everything links together. Without the Koch infested Supreme Court, the Republican billionaire funding pipeline wouldn't exist. The Koch billionaire group is trying to cut the people out of the democratic process in order to create a government that revolves around their own interests.
The leaked tapes prove that the Republican Party revolves around the interests of billionaires and big corporations. This is obvious to anyone who watches their behavior on a daily basis, but McConnell's remarks are the first leaked to the public admission of the importance of the Koch brothers to the success of the Republican Party.
The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation. The Kochs set the agenda, and if Republicans take back the Senate, the American people will have given control of the Congress to the Koch brothers.
And btw, Bill O'Reilly has said that if anyone has any evidence the Koch brothers are running the Republican party, send it to him and he will report it. So I sent this to him, but as expected, he did not report it and never will.
Another Opinion Of Bill O'Reilly About White Privilege
By: Steve - August 31, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is a copy of an article Justin Baragona from politicsusa.com wrote about O'Reilly and his ridiculous claims of no white privilege. He pretty much mirrors what I have said about it.
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Doubles Down On His Claim That White Privilege Is A 'Big Lie'
By: Justin Baragona
Wednesday, August, 27th, 2014
Ever since protests took off in Ferguson in the aftermath of 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown's shooting death at the hands of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, has used his program to preach to and criticize African-Americans about their culture. Earlier this week, he finally got called out on it by, of all people, Megyn Kelly. The Kelly File host was on O'Reilly's program to discuss Ferguson and race relations in this country. To O'Reilly's surprise, Kelly stated that white privilege is real and something that blacks in this country deal with on a regular basis.
Of course, it being Kelly and all, it wasn't like she gave a full-throated defense of the notion that racism and the existence of white privilege are the overlying reasons behind the issues many blacks face in this country from birth. She made sure to blame President Obama's policies and other facts, while simultaneously relying solely on raw statistics. Still, it was interesting to see a colleague of O'Reilly's take him to task for being completely dismissive of the real-life problems that the African-American community deals with on a daily basis.
However, this is O'Reilly we are talking about, and he wasn't going to let this rest. Especially when he saw how much coverage Kelly's takedown of him got the following day. Therefore, Tuesday night, BillO decided he needed to whitesplain to everybody, but especially blacks, why white privilege does not exist and how too many African-Americans are using it as an excuse to not take any responsibility for their lives. He also decided to bring Asian-Americans into the discussion because in O'Reilly's mind, one minority group is directly comparable to another minority group.
Quote from O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Talking Points does not, does not believe in white privilege. However, there is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding in our society than whites do.
O'Reilly, culture warrior, has never figured out that he has no relevant life experiences or interactions with the black community to justify his constant sermonizing about what African-Americans need to do to improve their lot in American society. He sits in his perch from up high and preaches to blacks about their culture, their way of life, their community, while never even bothering to truly find out how the other half lives. He is an old, right, white guy who lives in an upscale neighborhood in Long Island. He also grew up on Long Island and attended private schools during his childhood.
American children must learn not only academics but also civil behavior, right from wrong, as well as how to speak properly and how to act respectfully in public. If African-American children do not learn those things, they will likely fail as adults. They will be poor. They will be angry, and they often will be looking to blame someone else.
One caveat, the Asian-American experience historically has not been nearly as tough as the African-American experience. Slavery is unique and it has harmed black Americans to a degree that is still being felt today.
But, in order to succeed in our competitive society, every American has to overcome the obstacles they face. And here is where the African-American leadership in America is failing. Instead of preaching a cultural revolution, the leadership provide excuses for failure. The race hustlers blame white privilege, an unfair society, a terrible country.
So the message is, it's not your fault if you abandon your children, if you become a substance abuser, if you are a criminal. No, it's not your fault, it's society's fault. That is the big lie that is keeping some African-Americans from reaching their full potential. Until personal responsibility and a cultural change takes place, millions of African-Americans will struggle, and their anger, some of it justified, will seethe.
However, if you ask O'Reilly, he will talk about how he's earned everything he has achieved and grew up living a hard-scrabble life. He pulled himself up by his bootstraps and is a perfect example of a self-made man. His complete lack of self-awareness regarding race issues in this country is astonishing. Worse, he is paid millions of dollars a year to commentate about topics such as this, which his audience of old, angry white people lap up like dogs at the water bowl. For O'Reilly's racist followers, they just want to be told that blacks are whiny, irresponsible and want to blame all of their problems on white people.
It is really easy for O'Reilly to pontificate about black culture from his television studio or gated community. I'd like to see him actually go to a predominantly black neighborhood, experience first-hand for himself the effects of white flight, and then talk down to the residents there about the need for a cultural shift. But we all know that is never going to happen. Instead, we'll just see more of what we saw Tuesday night.
GOP Poll Shows Most Women View The GOP In A Negative Way
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 11:30am
Two powerful, mostly male Republican SuperPACs commissioned a major poll on what women think of the party and its candidates, and were rewarded with dismal results.
Women view the Republican Party as "lacking in compassion, stuck in the past, and intolerant," according to the report, "Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities," which was obtained by the Politico website.
The project was undertaken by Crossroads GPS, a secretive and partisan nonprofit (that doesn't have to disclose it's donors) founded by Fox News pundit and Bush's brain Karl Rove. That everyone knows is partisan, and yet it is still allowed to be a non-profit, which is just insane.
Crossroads GPS spent $5.5 million in 2010 trying to defeat Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. It was joined by the American Action Network, which also ran deceptive ads attacking the Senate's top-ranking woman.
The poll found that women are "barely receptive" to Republican policies and that the GOP fares "especially poorly" with women in the Northeast and Midwest."
President Obama was re-elected in 2012 based on a double-digit lead among women voters. Despite the dip in Obama's popularity, the Democrats have maintained a substantial lead among women, especially large among working women.
The Republicans vowed to change all that after Mitt Romney's defeat. While not changing any of their policies, all they did was change their propaganda, and it looks like the women of America are not falling for it.
They have put forward Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., a member of the House Republican leadership, as part of a "War for Women." McMorris Rodgers gave the Republican response to President Obama's State-of-the-Union speech last winter.
The GOP has also fielded promising women Senate candidates in West Virginia, Iowa, and Oregon. At present, 16 of the Senate's 20 women are Democrats.
But the Republicans must deal with a grumpy male image, symbolized by the suits who surround McMorris Rodgers at news conferences.
In the news on Wednesday was a statement by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, made behind closed doors to wealthy donors: "That's all we do in the Senate is vote on things like raising the minimum wage."
The report on women voters involved 800 voter interviews across the country as well as eight focus groups. It was delivered to "a small number of senior aides this month on Capitol Hill," Politico reported.
The poll found that 49 percent of women view Republicans unfavorably, and it also showed that the only women with a positive view of the GOP are married women without a college degree.
And of course, O'Reilly has not said a word about the poll, as he denies the Republican party has a war on women, when their own poll shows it is true.
Homeland Security Shows Gutfeld & Baker Are Liars
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 11:00am
On the Thursday O'Reilly Factor fill-in host Greg Gutfeld and the conservative Former CIA official Mike Baker both slammed President Obama and claimed he was wrong to not say ISIS is a national security threat. When O'Reilly's own source for foreign intelligence Stratfor.com and our own Homeland Security Department says they are not a threat within the United States, which is exactly what Alan Colmes also told Gutfeld, and he was told he was wrong.
Baker said this:
BAKER: "ISIS is a national security threat, and there are two things you shouldn't do when confronting an enemy like ISIS. One is that you shouldn't give them advance warning about potential air strikes and the other is that you shouldn't say you don't have a strategy. Today's press conference indicates just how much the administration is struggling."
Gutfeld agreed that ISIS poses a genuine and imminent threat, saying this:
GUTFELD: "It's scary to see our president consumed by climate, not by terror, like a man worrying about dandruff in a plague. ISIS is the deadliest terror group going, controlling turf the size of Maryland with oil fields and weaponry. Until our 'commander-in-cleats' takes it seriously, we're screwed."
And now the facts:
Homeland Security: Islamic State poses no specific threat within the United States
The United States is not aware of any specific threat to the U.S. homeland from Islamic State militants, the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday after Britain raised its international terrorism threat level.
Islamic State militants and their supporters, however, "have demonstrated the intent and capability to target American citizens overseas," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. He noted DHS has taken steps over the summer to strengthen security at overseas airports with direct flights to the United States.
Johnson said he has spoken to UK Home Secretary Theresa May about Britain's decision to raise its terrorism alert to the second-highest level. It is the first time since mid-2011 that Britain has been placed on this high of an alert level.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there was no plan to raise the U.S. threat assessment level.
Alan Colmes said this to Gutfeld in the next segment:
COLMES: "We scare people all the time, and now there's a Republican Senator saying ISIS will come and take over an American city. These are the same arguments we heard about Iraq after 9/11, and we overreacted by going into two countries.
Those are the facts from terrorism experts, not the opinions of partisan hacks who work at Fox News. They say that ISIS is no threat to anyone inside the United States, yes they are a threat to Americans overseas, but not here. So instead of getting the truth from Gutfeld and Baker, we get spin and lies, and then Democrats who report the truth are called communists and terrorist supporters, which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing propaganda to make Democrats look bad.
According to Stratfor, which analyzes geopolitical threats, ISIS couldn't even beat the Kurds in northern Iraq or the Shiites in southern Iraq. This is being ginned up for the purpose of getting American involvement. Wait until it's a true threat to the homeland of the United States."
Open your eyes folks, Fox News is not a news network, they are a propaganda arm of the Republican party. They do noting but spin and lie to you to make Democrats look bad, that is their main goal, to make Democrats look bad so less people will vote for them. And this blog is example #1 million that what I say is true about Fox.
Republican Factor Guest Caught Lying About Obama
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 10:00am
On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor there was a segment on how history will judge President Obama, even though he will still be the President for 2.5 more years so you can not judge his history while it is still in progress. O'Reilly had two guests on to speculate at how history will judge Obama, one Democrat and one Republican.
Which is a violation of O'Reilly's own rules, he says he does not speculate and that he also does not allow speculation on his show. And yet, he had two guests on to speculate how history will judge Obama, with two and a half years left in his presidency.
Here is what the Republican (Jane Hampton Cook) said:
COOK: "I think he'll rank in the bottom 15 or 20, depending on the choices he makes with ISIS. Economic growth has never reached 3% under President Obama, and the disapproval of ObamaCare really started going bad after the rollout."
And those statements my friends are speculation and lies. Nobody knows where he will rank in history until he is out of office and he can be judged for what he did in his 8 years. And while the economy has had slow growth under Obama, it has been improving and almost always showing a positive growth.
Obamacare had a rocky start because of right-wing propaganda about it and because of website problems early on. But what Cook gets wrong is that the economy has had growth of over 3% under President Obama, and now Obamacare is looked at as a good program.
Forbes even had an article asking this:
Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?
In the article they cite the stock market, jobs numbers, the deficit reduction, and on and on, and they make the case that Obama had been the best economic President we have ever had. And that is from Forbes, a conservative financial outlet.
Not to mention, the Republicans blocking every bill Obama tried to pass to help the economy, none of that is mentioned by Cook. And now we have a new report on the 2nd quarter that shows a GDP of 4.2% for Q2 of 2014.
US economy grew at brisk 4.2 pct. rate in Q2
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy rebounded in the April-June quarter, growing at a brisk annual rate of 4.2 percent, slightly faster than first estimated.
The upward revision supported expectations that the second half of 2014 will prove far stronger than the first half.
The Commerce Department's second estimate of growth for last quarter compares with its initial estimate of 4 percent. The revision reflected stronger business investment in new equipment and structures than first thought.
Cook dishonestly used one measure of the economy, the GDP, to claim Obama will be judged badly by history. When all other measures of the economy show good news, jobs, unemployment, the stock market, etc. It was dishonest and biased, and total speculation. Not to mention, it was Bush who got us into this mess and crashed the economy, Obama and his policies got us out of it, something O'Reilly and the Republicans never want to give him credit for.
But O'Reilly allowed it anyway, even though he has a no speculation rule. Which shows his dishonesty and his bias. How about we wait until Obama is out of office before we judge him, that is my suggestion.
NY Times Charles Blow Says Bill O'Reilly Is The Race Hustler
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 9:00am
Charles Blow used his New York Times column Thursday to take aim at Fox News Bill O'Reilly and his claims that "white privilege" doesn't exist. Turning a favorite phrase of O'Reilly's back around at him, Blow writes, "Mr. O'Reilly, it is statements like this one that make you the race hustler."
Blow begins by quoting O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: "Last night on 'The Factor,' Megyn Kelly and I debated the concept of white privilege whereby some believe that if you are Caucasian you have inherent advantages in America. 'Talking Points' does not, does not believe in white privilege. However, there is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding in our society than whites do."
"It is difficult to believe that those three sentences came in that order from the same mouth," Blow writes. Once you admit that it's "harder for blacks to succeed," he argues, then the converse for whites must be "a form of privilege." He adds, "When one has the luxury of not being forced to compensate for societal oppression based on basic identity, one is in fact privileged in that society."
After quoting O'Reilly's most recent use of the term "race hustlers" to describe those who "blame white privilege" for any problems that African-Americans face, Blow concludes:
No, Mr. O'Reilly, it is statements like this one that make you the race hustler. The underlying logic is that blacks are possessed of some form of racial pathology or self-destructive racial impulses, that personal responsibility and systemic inequity are separate issues and not intersecting ones.
A comment on the article by Mara Gottlieb from Fairfield, CT. said this:
This is the false dichotomy that chokes to death any real accountability and honesty. Systemic anti-black bias doesn't dictate personal behavior, but it can certainly influence and inform it. And personal behavior can reinforce people's belief that their biases are justified. So goes the cycle.
But at the root of it, we can't expect equality of outcome while acknowledging inequality of environments.
Only a man bathing in privilege would be blind to that.
As a white person as well as an educator, I believe it's my duty to acknowledge the privilege light skin affords me, whether in choosing a neighborhood for my family to live, or never having to be seen as a representative of everyone with my skin color.
Here is a link to the article:
Mr. O'Reilly should read Peggy McIntosh's brief article (it won't take you long, Mr. O'Reilly) "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." As a human being with the privilege trifecta - gender, class, and skin color - it's no wonder he doesn't see it: it's a pretty comfy place to hide.
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
The Thursday 8-28-14 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - August 29, 2014 - 11:00am
There was no TPM because the far-right loon Greg Gutfeld was the fill-in host for O'Reilly. He started the show with two Republicans, and they all slammed Obama for his statement about ISIS.
Mike Baker and James Carafano were on to discuss it. Baker said this: "ISIS is a national security threat, and there are two things you shouldn't do when confronting an enemy like ISIS. One is that you shouldn't give them advance warning about potential air strikes and the other is that you shouldn't say you don't have a strategy. Today's press conference indicates just how much the administration is struggling."
Carafano said this: "It has been really clear that ISIS is becoming a big problem and to say that we don't have a strategy is unbelievable. This guy's been president for six years - he's predictable, he's reactive, and he's risk-averse. ISIS knows exactly what he is going to do."
Gutfeld said this: "It's scary to see our president consumed by climate, not by terror, like a man worrying about dandruff in a plague. ISIS is the deadliest terror group going, controlling turf the size of Maryland with oil fields and weaponry. Until our 'commander-in-cleats' takes it seriously, we're screwed."
ISIS is not a national security threat, they are in a foreign country and have not been a threat to the United States. Only Republicans think they are a national security threat. Stratfor.com, which is a source O'Reilly uses all the time, says ISIS is no threat at all to the United States. Funny how O'Reilly never mentions that, yeah funny.
Then Alan Colmes was on to discuss it, he said this: "We scare people all the time, and now there's a Senator saying ISIS will come and take over an American city. These are the same arguments we heard about Iraq after 9/11, and we overreacted by going into two countries. According to Stratfor, which analyzes geopolitical threats, ISIS couldn't even beat the Kurds in northern Iraq or the Shiites in southern Iraq. This is being ginned up for the purpose of getting American involvement. Wait until it's a true threat to the homeland of the United States."
Then James Carville & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about a new poll in Iowa that shows Mitt Romney retains substantial support among Republicans. Gutfeld asked Carville and Obenshain if Romney may run in 2016.
Carville said this: "I think there is a good chance that he's running. He's run for president twice and I once said that running for president is like having sex - no one did it once and forgot about it. The Republican field has had a bad year so it looks like it's more of a possibility."
Obenshain said this: "James Carville is the only person in the entire country who doesn't think the country would be better off had Mitt Romney won. There's a lot of buyer's remorse right now, which is why we're seeing those Iowa numbers. But I don't necessarily think he's going to hop into the race and the Republicans need to find somebody who can compellingly articulate the conservative vision."
Which is just ridiculous, because the only people who think Romney would have been a better President than Obama is Republicans, nobody else thinks that.
Then the biased far-right hack Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the polarization of politics and the media, which was most recently on display in the Ferguson case. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, so it was a one sided debate with two Republicans.
Goldberg said this: "We have become deeply divided, where if you just listen to the other guy it's tantamount to treason. In Ferguson, despite the fact that none of us knows what went on, both sides have reached a verdict. The liberal take is that the kid was black, the cop was white, the kid was unarmed, the cop is guilty, case closed. MSNBC had a contributor who said black boys are all under attack, which is insane. But conservatives aren't much better, they've decided that the kid was a thug, he robbed a store, the cop had no bad record, and the cop is innocent. I am not making an argument for wishy-washy even-handedness, but in Ferguson the facts have not come in yet."
And we do not know a lot of the facts in the case, because the police are covering it up and not giving the public the information about the police report or the autopsy, also the cop who shot him has lawyered up and is not talking. From what we know it looks like the cop shot an unarmed black teen, and until there is evidence to show otherwise that is what we know now.
Then the conservative Penny Young Nance was on to cry about Actress Scarlett Johansson, who has designed a t-shirt for Planned Parenthood that mocks Republicans as anti-woman. With no Democratic guest for balance. And btw, she is right, a news poll shows that women see Republicans in a negative light, and say they do not like what policies the Republicans support.
Nance said this: "Why is it that when you're a celebrity, your opinion counts on everything, including abortion? If Planned Parenthood wants to design an ugly t-shirt and sell it, that's great. I would trade that for them to get their hand out of the taxpayers' pocket to the tune of $500-million a year. Let them raise their own money, I'm tired of them pilfering the taxpayer. Raise your own money!"
Former CEO Calls Executive Pay Extreme & Ludicrous
By: Steve - August 29, 2014 - 10:00am
David Dillon, the former CEO of the supermarket chain Kroger, told the audience of an Aspen Ideas festival that his pay in his last year on the job, which clocked in at nearly $13 million, "even seems ludicrous to me."
He said that the package wasn't ludicrous when it was first put together, but rose so high because the company's stock has skyrocketed, and much of his compensation was tied to the stock price.
"I don't really defend that amount, that even seems ludicrous to me," he said. And while he said that even before the large package, compared to his peers, "I generally hit the 25th percentile on the bottom side" for compensation, even that "was pretty damn high."
In a follow up interview with Quartz, he added that the use of the word ludicrous was in comparison "to what I thought was a more logical level of pay for the year."
On the panel, he also defended the idea of designing executive compensation so that CEOs "have enough shareholder interest that they are mentally aligned with thinking about what should a long-term shareholder want out of an organization."
But he also admitted things have gone pretty far. "I also think it's gotten a little extreme, or maybe a lot extreme," he said.
Quartz added, "I personally believe that, generally speaking, executive pay has gotten too high, and it needs to be addressed in appropriate ways. Anybody who looks at CEO pay, even if it was reasonably based, they would say that person is paid way too much."
"I don’t dispute that they ought to be paid really well," he said. "It's just that I think it's gotten a little bit out of hand."
And the numbers back him up. Median CEO pay hit a record earlier this year, breaching the $10 million mark. It rose more than 50 percent over the last four years, while the average American saw her pay increase just 1.3 percent over the last year.
Chief executive pay has risen 127 times faster than worker pay over the last three decades. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay was 259.9-to-1 last year. That compares to a ratio of 20-to-1 in 1965 and even just 87.3-to-1 in the early 90s. Executive pay is even growing faster than pay for the top 1 percent.
And there is little evidence to suggest that these huge increases in CEO compensation are benefitting their companies. There is no evidence to suggest that paying CEOs top dollar means better performance in terms of profitability, revenue, or stock return.
In fact, a study found that the companies that pay their chief executives the most see the worst results for shareholders. Despite the attempt to tie pay to company performance, companies routinely game those systems to ensure that the top executive gets his bonuses and payouts, even if they fail to meet targets.
And btw, almost 40% of the highest-paid CEOs over the last two decades were fired, caught committing fraud, or oversaw a company bailout.
For Bill O'Reilly: 50 Examples Of White Privilege
By: Steve - August 29, 2014 - 9:00am
This is from an article by Peggy McIntosh called: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
It is a great read and should show anyone with a brain what white privilege is, and that is in fact real, including Bill O'Reilly, but I doubt it with him. It's hard to tell a racist they are a racist, they just deny it forever and then slam you for telling the truth about them.
Here are the 50:
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of
most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to
and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting
housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location
neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well
I will not be followed or harassed.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of
and see people of my race widely represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about
I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular
that testify to the existence of their race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher
piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group
I am the only member of my race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another
voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.
12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music
of my race
represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit
my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who
cut my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on
color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from
who might not like them.
15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of
for their own daily physical protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and
tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries
them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this
18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not
without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the
or the illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without
race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being
called a credit
to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial
22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of
color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture
any penalty for such oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I
policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person
charge", I will be facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax
I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books,
dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong
somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered,
held at a distance or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of
race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than
29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of
of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to
me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there
isn't a racial
issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either
than a person of color will have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing
activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any
I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences
of any of these choices.
32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the
powers of people of other races.
33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body
be taken as a reflection on my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer
my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of
episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be
willing to talk
with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political,
professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be
or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that
my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my
not work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to
feelings of rejection owing to my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that
is not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which
only to people of my race.
45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the
testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color
and have them more or less match my skin.
47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting
or hostility in those who deal with us.
48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people
49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly
our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of
50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of
public life, institutional and social.
Read the full article here:
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
The Wednesday 8-27-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 11:30am
The TPM was called: How California Governor Jerry Brown is Undermining American Immigration Law. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Very quietly, Governor Brown has created a sanctuary state in California. That is, the state is not cooperating with the feds by enforcing immigration law. Today Governor Brown gave a speech and told non-citizens, 'you are all welcome in California.' Governor Brown is subverting federal law as well as undermining comprehensive immigration reform.
And I would say the bad guy here is Bill O'Reilly, he is being dishonest. Governor Brown is just living in reality, that immigrants are a net gain for the state. Not to mention this, it's the federal governments job to enforce the immigration laws. O'Reilly ignored all the facts, just read my blogs after this review to see what I am talking about.
Talking Points wants a fair new federal immigration law that all the states obey, but that is not going to happen as long as people like Jerry Brown disregard federal policy. In order to get comprehensive immigration reform, there has to be compromise. But the open border people and the amnesty folks will not compromise if they think they can get what they want without securing the border.
That's the big thing, making the southern border impenetrable to illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and terrorists. First you secure the border in a visible way, then you deal with the millions of illegal people and their children who are already here. But Governor Brown and others have subverted the process.
They are saying to all, you're welcome in California, come on in. That is insane! We all know why Jerry Brown is doing what he's doing - votes. About a third of all people living in California were not born in the USA. In addition, illegal immigration is costing the Golden State an estimated $25 billion a year.
So what do you have to say about that, Governor Brown? American citizens in your state are paying $25 billion because you defy federal law. That's absolutely irresponsible, most likely illegal, and completely insane.
Then immigration advocate Enrique Morones, who was at Governor Brown's speech Wednesday, said this: "It was a great speech and California is a welcoming state. We have a tremendous history of migration to California and these people are putting a lot into the state."
Like Morones, Ben Johnson of the American Immigration Council argued that immigrants are a net plus, saying this: "If you're just looking at the cost, the numbers are big, but the benefits of immigration to California are much larger. We need an immigration system that's designed to maximize the value of immigration."
O'Reilly questioned that math and Governor Brown's logic, saying this: "Mr. Brown never addressed the $25-billion flowing out of the state treasury to support illegal immigration and now he wants more people to come. It's crazy!"
Then the far-right/anti-immigration Laura Ingraham was on with her conservative view of the issue.
Ingraham said this: "Both of your previous guests believe that the whole border thing is overrated, and that Mexico and Mexican workers add so much to the U.S. economy. But American workers and legal immigrant workers are seeing flat-lining wages and a declining standard of living. They're increasingly pessimistic about their ability to reach the American dream."
Ingraham also analyzed a new poll showing that race relations in the USA have gotten worse over the past five years, saying this: "President Obama has been very divisive with the politics of racial division. Most people on the left believe American society is racist, they want a system of racial spoils to level the playing field. When you start with the idea that we're kind of an evil country with an evil history of slavery, you're going to have deteriorating race relations."
Which is just laughable, race relations have got worse, because the Republicans and the Tea Party have been showing their racism even more since Obama took office. They have spoken out with more racism because a black man is in the White House, this has made race relations worse, not anything Obama has done. All he does is speak out against the racism, in Ingrahamworld that is Obama being divisive. So Ingraham wants him to just be quiet about the massive increase in racism from the right, which is just ridiculous.
Then Karl Rove was on, who raised some eyebrows last week when he endorsed Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to visit Ferguson, Missouri.
Rove said this: "While I thought his visit was appropriate. I was concerned because he sounded like he had already come to the conclusion that it was time to get the cop. He's the chief law enforcement officer - it's one thing for him to say we will make certain that justice is served, but it's another thing for him to look like he's putting his thumb on the scale."
Then the Democrat Allan Lichtman and the Republican Jane Hampton Cook were on to talk about how Obama will be ranked in history.
Cook said this: "I think he'll rank in the bottom 15 or 20, depending on the choices he makes with ISIS. Economic growth has never reached 3% under President Obama, and the disapproval of ObamaCare really started going bad after the rollout."
Lichtman disagreed, saying this: "I think he will go down as the most consequential Democratic president of the last fifty years. His policies on bailing out the auto industry and the financial industry, along with the stimulus, stopped us from sliding into another depression. And with the Affordable Health Care Act he achieved something that presidents for fifty years have not been able to achieve."
Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that. During Monday night's Emmy Awards, actress Sofia Vergara stepped onto a slowly rotating pedestal and displayed her ample assets. It was obviously a satire, but she was widely denounced on social media. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.
MacCallum said this: "Everybody appreciates a sexy, smart, hilarious woman, but this segment was awkward and uncomfortable and unsuccessful. I just wanted her to get off the podium. Sofia Vergara seemed to be wondering why she was there, I don't think they pulled it off. I think that's why people got upset."
And I wonder how this is a topic on a so-called hard news show that only reports the facts in a no spin zone. My God, who cares what she did at the Emmys, nobody I know.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing With Disappointment. Billy said this: "While we all face disappointments, keep in mind that your life will be far smoother if you're able to buck up and accept the inevitable with as much grace as possible."
O'Reilly Cuts Mics Of Two Pro-Immigration Guests
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 11:00am
Now remember this, in the past when a guest slammed O'Reilly for cutting the mics of people O'Reilly said he never cuts any mics and called them a liar. Even though it is true, and here we have another example of O'Reilly cutting someones mic when he did not like what they were saying.
And btw, O'Reilly never cuts the mic of a conservative, never in the history of the show, but he does cut the mics of Democrats and liberals, and he has done it at least 3 times that I can remember.
Bill O'Reilly cut the microphones of two pro-immigration guests because he disagreed with their proposed border enforcement solutions.
On the August 27th edition of his show, O'Reilly invited immigration reform advocates Ben Johnson of the American Immigration Council and Enrique Morones, founder of Border Angels, to talk about solutions to undocumented immigration into the U.S.
During the segment, O'Reilly asked both guests what they would do "to stop people from coming in here illegally," only to cut their microphones off when they tried to explain their solutions, which included improvements in border enforcement.
He asked them the question, then he did not let them answer the question, then cut their mics, and said they were not answering the question.
Later in the show, O'Reilly explained it to the anti-immigration far-right Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham that he "cut them off" because they weren't answering his questions:
O'REILLY: I had to cut them off and be rude because they weren't answering the questions. It was obvious they weren't answering them and I can't waste the viewers' time.
In reality, they were not answering them with what O'Reilly wanted to hear, so he cut their mics. They tried to answer the specific question, but O'Reilly cut them off as they tried to answer and then claimed they were not answering the question. And they were also trying to tell him that immigrants are a net surplus for the state, but O'Reilly did not want to hear that because it's the truth.
O'Reilly's solutions for lessening immigration from Mexico have been criticized as "absurd" and "useless." And recently O'Reilly has advocated militarizing the southern border, flying surveillance flights in Mexican airspace "to pinpoint illegal immigration camps," and building a Berlin Wall-style border fence.
That even most Republicans disagree with, not to mention the cost to build it and to man it, he says the Government is broke and yet he wants to build a 2000 mile Berlin style wall and man it with hundreds of border patrol agents that would cost billions, without saying how we will pay for it, and ignoring the fact that they will just fly over it, or go around it.
Once again O'Reilly has proven to be a lying hypocrite who does not even follow his own rules. He claims to be an Independent with a no spin zone who is fair and balanced to everyone. Except it's all a lie, because he is not fair, he is not an Independent, and he does not have a no spin zone.
O'Reilly Lied About $25 Billion Cost To California For Immigrants
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 10:30am
As usual Bill O'Reilly distorted the facts using a debunked conservative study about the cost to California for their immigrant population. He claims the immigrants cost the state of California $25 Billion a year, which is true. But when he does not tell you is that those same immigrants actually give the state of California a surplus over time.
In other words, the state spends $25 Billion, but they make back more than $25 Billion, so there is a net surplus. Which is what immigration advocate Enrique Morones and Ben Johnson of the American Immigration Council were trying to tell O'Reilly when he cut their mics. He did not want his viewers to see that he was being dishonest with the $25 Billion claim.
Here are the facts O'Reilly did not report, and why he cut their mics:
Immigrants a Boon to State, Study Says
Finances: Legal and illegal, they contribute more in taxes than they cost in services over their lifetimes, researchers say.
A Latino think tank has reached the same conclusion that many immigrant-rights activists have stated in the past: That immigrants -- legal and illegal -- contribute more in California in taxes than they cost in government services.
Rather than using a one-year data snapshot to determine the effects of immigrants on the state's economy, a new study, "Why They Count: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State," uses the long-range premise that most of the state's immigrants will spend the rest of their lives in California and will pay their fair share of state taxes over that span.
"The appropriate question is not whether the 'net costs' of providing services to immigrants yield a 'surplus' or a 'deficit' on an annual basis, but whether over the duration of immigrants' residence in California, the state is able to benefit from a return on these investments," says the study by the Tomas Rivera Center.
The study concludes that immigrants are worth the costs and that California does benefit from them.
For example, the study concludes that an immigrant educated in California costs an average of $62,600, but pays out an average of $89,437 in state income and sales taxes to education alone over more than 40 years of employment.
Researchers reached the conclusion by combining data supplied by the state Department of Education, the California Post-Secondary Education Commission, the National Center of Education Statistics and the state Department of Finance, with estimated total tax revenues -- based on state income and sales taxes.
When tax revenues and costs for education and social service programs are combined, legal immigrants return a net surplus of $24,943 to the state over a lifetime, the study found. Illegal immigrants likewise employed over a lifetime return an average net of $7,890.
"Every [other] study has been a snapshot of one year's worth of expenditures and revenues and not surprisingly," said Harry Pachon, the president of the Rivera center, "they come up with a deficit. A more complete picture is obtained when overall, all contributions and costs are considered."
Pachon said he is willing to defend the worth of immigrants to society, especially to those who would dismiss the study as the product of a think tank sympathetic to immigrants.
"We stand by our figures and we're ready to debate them," Pachon said.
And btw, that is not the only study that says the same thing. In 1985, a Rand Corp. study concluded that Mexican immigrants, including those without legal documents, were "probably . . . an economic asset" to the state. Latino activists and others at the time lauded the findings that "immigrants' contributions in the form of taxes exceed the cost of providing public services that they use."
So Bill O'Reilly was dishonest in only reporting immigrant cost the state of California $25 Billion a year. Because the rest of the story is that they bring in more than what it cost the state over their lifetime. In other words, the state comes out ahead money in the long run, when you figure what they pay in taxes over time.
O'Reilly did not report any of this, and when the pro-immigration guests tried to point that out, O'Reilly asked them a specific question and when they did not answer it in the way he wanted them to he cut their mics, both of them. He did not want you to know the truth, so he cut their mics because they were trying to say the immigrants are a net surplus for the state of California.
That was dishonest journalism by O'Reilly, he tried to spin the truth and when the guests tried to show he was wrong they were shut down and had their mics cut. And this was done even after O'Reilly claimed to report the truth and the facts, when in reality he was lying and spinning and trying to keep the truth and the facts a secret to his viewers.
Insane Bill O'Reilly Says White Privilege Is A Myth
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on his Monday show to have a discussion about the concept of "white privilege." He asked Kelly if she believed it was real.
"There's a lot of evidence behind it," Kelly said. O'Reilly said it was a myth.
Kelly was actually reeling off statistics about everything from poverty to police harassment. O'Reilly's response was to say that Asian-Americans did just fine and that "family culture" was a problem.
"It's not just family culture!" Kelly replied.
This was all such a typical phony Fox Fair and Balanced puppet show. Kelly reads a bunch of stats that, while they may be symptoms resulting from white privilege ( which is, somehow, just a "theory" in O'Reillyworld), are easily dismissed by the race-crazy Fox audience as simply evidence of the black people screwing up.
And how Asians or their family culture has anything to do with the debate of how blacks are treated by the public or the police, or white privilege is beyond me.
How do you have two white people, both wealthy Republicans who work for Fox and no blacks on to describe what blacks feel about being policed by a white police force?
Why does O'Reilly inevitably bring Asians into the conversation when their culture, heritage and academic prowess have absolutely nothing to do with black experience in the United States.
Now here are some comments to it from actual black people, which O'Reilly never had on to debate it, he just had two rich white Republicans on, himself and Megyn Kelly.
Allenels: O'Reilly doesn't have a clue nor does he care to understand what it means to be black and always a suspect in the United States. His so called logical arguments are not only ignorant, they are just wrong!
Fred Smith: O'Reilly doesn't understand that white privilege is waking up every day knowing that you can go about your day and your life without being stopped by police for no good reason, that women won't cross the street when they see you coming or grab their purses a little tighter.
It means never being concerned that you will get the dirty looks of the other whites in a cafe or not having to teach your children to not say anything back to police even when they are right and the police are wrong. White privilege means doing the same crime as your black roommate (like smoking grass) and getting a lighter sentence than the roommate, or none at all.
It means being able to knock on the door of a person after you've had a car accident to ask for help and not getting blasted with a shotgun.
Keith Romero: Plus you can flag a cab, shop without being harassed, drive without anxiety about needless stops, call the police without fear of being arrested yourself, be treated cordially in restaurants, rent any apartment you like, and on and on and on and on...
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a fool. Every white person in America wakes up every day with white privilege, and btw, I am white myself, both my parents were also white, and even I know there is white privilege.
And for most blacks there is a bias and racism against them every day. Which is something only blacks know how it feels, unless you are black you have not been a victim of bias or racism. For O'Reilly to even ask if it is true there is white privilege is just laughable, because it implies there might not be, when we all know there is.
O'Reilly even flat out said it's a myth, and his explanation as to why it's a myth, because Asians are doing ok. Are you kidding me, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How Asians are doing has nothing to do with racism and bias against blacks, or the debate about white privilege. It's an argument a 5 year old with brain damage would make, not a Harvard graduate with a cable news show on Fox.
Whites are not denied loans because of their skin color, whites are not followed in stores because of their skin color, whites are not pulled over by the police for no reason because they are white, but blacks are. Whites are not in jail in the same percentage as blacks for marijuana, even though the same percentage of whites and blacks deal in marijuana, and on and on.
The list is endless, blacks are not hired as much as whites because the white owners sometimes do not like blacks. This never happens to a white person, that alone is a prime example of white privilege, the very white privilege the idiot O'Reilly claims is a myth. Whites never have to do anything while worrying they could be denied a job, a loan, or get pulled over by the police because of the color of their skin.
It's called white privilege, and it is not only real, it's everywhere. To claim otherwise is just insanity, and Bill O'Reilly makes himself look like a fool for making such a ridiculous claim. Not to mention having a debate on "is white privilege real" with no black guests, which is a joke and laughable.
Ferguson Missouri Makes It's Money By Harassing Blacks
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 9:00am
In the chamber where Officer Darren Wilson received a commendation six months before killing Michael Brown, a small court generates major money from the city’s poor and working people.
But there is another, unnoticed irony in the venue itself. Three times a month (one day and two nights) the City Council chamber also serves as home to the incredibly busy and extremely profitable Ferguson municipal court.
A report issued just last week by the nonprofit lawyer's group ArchCity Defenders notes that in the court's 36 three-hour sessions in 2013, it handled 12,108 cases and 24,532 warrants. That is an average of 1.5 cases and three warrants per Ferguson household. Fines and court fees for the year in this city of just 21,000 people totaled $2,635,400.
The sum made the municipal court the city's second-biggest source of revenue. It is also almost certainly was a major factor in the antagonism between the police and the citizenry preceding the tragedy that resulted when Wilson had another encounter with a subject six months after he got his commendation.
And any complete investigation into how Michael Brown came to be dead in the street with a half-dozen bullet wounds must consider not just the cop but the system he served, a system whose primary components include a small court that generates major money, much of it from poor and working people.
Five of the six City Council members who meet in this chamber are white, even though the city itself is more than 70 percent black. The City Council appoints the municipal judge, currently Ron Brockmeyer, who is also white, and the Mayor is also white.
But when this same chamber serves as Ferguson Municipal Court, a disproportionate number of the defendants are black. The immediate explanation is that the bulk of the cases arise from car stops.
The ArchCity Defenders report notes: “Whites comprise 29% of the population of Ferguson but just 12.7% of vehicle stops.
For anyone who will say that blacks merit greater police attention than whites, the report offers another statistic.
"Searches of black individuals result in discovery of contraband only 21.7% of the time, while similar searches of whites produce contraband 34.0% of the time."
That would suggest that whites were more likely to be stopped when there was actual probable cause and that blacks were more likely to be stopped when there was not. And the antagonism sure to be generated by such racial disparities was magnified by the sheer number of cases.
In other words, it shows that the mostly white cops just stop blacks sometimes for no reason because they are black, while not stopping whites unless they have probable cause. Something O'Reilly never talks about, because he has ignored the report.
The report also cites a court employee as saying the docket for a typical three-hour court session has up to 1,500 cases. The report goes on to say that "in addition to such heavy legal prosecution," the Ferguson court and others like it in nearby towns "engage in a number of operational procedures that make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts."
For example, a Ferguson court employee reported that the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defendant arriving even slightly late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.
The lawyers of ArchCity Defenders specialize in representing the indigent and the homeless. They noticed that many of their clients had multiple warrants on minor charges issued by municipal courts in Ferguson and the other 80 municipalities in St. Louis County that have their own courts and police.
"They didn't just have one case, they had 10 cases," says Thomas Harvey, the organization's 44-year-old executive director.
"It kept being about the money," Harvey recalls. "We were telling the court, 'They don't have any money because they're homeless.'"
With the help of college students, ArchCity Defenders started a court watch program eight months ago. They concluded that much of what their clients had been saying was true. Impoverished defendants were frequently ordered to pay fines that were triple their monthly income. Some ended up with no income at all as they sat in jail for weeks, awaiting a hearing.
"It's not just about Michael Brown and this officer," Harvey says.
The statistics assembled for the report concerning race and car stops in Ferguson were no great surprise, especially considering that its police department is proportionately even whiter than its City Council, with just three blacks among its 53 cops. The number that jumped out was the huge revenue, big bucks for a little burg.
"Anybody who makes a revenue source a line of a budget becomes dependent on it," Harvey suggests.
And of course you will never see any of this reported by Bill O'Reilly, because he is a biased right-wing hack who is not a fair and balanced journalist. The Brown shooting was just a small part of why they had the protests, a lot of it was the years of abuse the black people of Ferguson have had to deal with by the mostly white police, something O'Reilly has never reported, and never will.
The Tuesday 8-26-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 27, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Truth about White Privilege. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night Megyn Kelly and I debated the concept of white privilege, whereby some believe that if you are Caucasian you have inherent advantages in America. Talking Points does not believe in white privilege.
Wow! All of that is Bill O'Reilly spin, and has nothing to do with white privilege. O'Reilly is a clueless fool and it is a 100% fact that there is white privilege and it is real. Every white person in America has white privilege, including me. If I walk into a store and a black person walks into a store I am not watched or followed, but the blacks are.
There is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding, but the primary reason is not skin color, it's education. And not only book learning.
Here are the facts: The unemployment rate for black Americans is 11.4%. It is just over 5% for whites; 4.5% for Asians. So do we have Asian privilege in America? The median income for Asians is close to $69,000 a year, while it's $57,000 for whites and $33,000 for blacks. The question is, why? The answer is found in stable homes and the emphasis on education.
Also, just 13% of Asian children live in single parent homes compared to a whopping 55% for blacks and 21% for whites. Children must learn not only academics, but also civil behavior, as well as how to speak and how to act respectfully. If African-American children do not know those things, they will likely be poor, they will be angry, and often they will be looking for someone to blame.
One caveat: the Asian-American experience has historically not been nearly as tough as the African-American experience. Slavery is unique and it has harmed black Americans to a degree that is still being felt today. But in order to succeed, every American has to overcome the obstacles they face. And here is where the African-American leadership is failing.
The racial hustlers blame white privilege and an unfair society. So the message is it's not the individual's fault if they abandon their children, if they become substance abusers, if they are criminals. No it's not their fault, it's society's fault. That is the big lie that is keeping some African-Americans from reaching their full potential.
Until personal responsibility and a cultural change takes place, millions of blacks will struggle and their anger, some of it justified, will seethe. The government cannot fix this. Only a powerful message of personal responsibility can turn things around.
That alone is an example of white privilege, and I could give you a thousand other examples of white privilege. O'Reilly even had white privilege as a kid when his Father got a home in the whites only Levittown, funny how he never mentions that, answer that O'Reilly, was that white privilege in action?
Then Dr. Ben Carson, who is a Tea Party favorite was on to discuss it. With no blacks who disagree with him and O'Reilly, and no Democratic guest for balance. In fact, over the last 2 days O'Reilly has debated white privilege with 2 Republicans, Megyn Kelly and Ben Carson. No black liberals, no Black Democrats, no Democrats at all, which is just laughable for a so-called no spin zone.
Carson said this: "We have a social problem, and not so much a racial problem. If you put any group in an environment where there are no father figures, where people resolve issues with violence, and where drugs and alcohol are easily accessible, they're going to meet up with law enforcement or with other people who are raised the same way. In either case you're going to have a disaster. It's not a racial thing, it's a social thing."
Which has nothing to do with white privilege, so Carson is a fool. White privilege is real, and white people get it every day.
Then O'Reilly had Carson on for a 2nd segment to address the question of whether he will run for the presidency.
Carson said this: "We've started a political action committee to raise money. There's no question that I haven't spent a lot of time in government, but that doesn't mean you can't make sure you have the right people around you. What's more important is wisdom and understanding and knowing how to use facts. You have to listen to your generals."
Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly, Carson, and almost everyone at Fox has slammed Obama for not having a lot of time in Government. They said he can not just have the right people around him, but now Carson says he can. What a massive hypocrite.
O'Reilly even warned Carson that he will face lots of criticism for his lack of political background, saying this: "The thing you will have to overcome is your inexperience in government. President Obama went in fairly inexperienced and we have a management problem that is crushing the country."
Here are the chances Carson has to become the President, slim and none. At least Obama was in Government and a Senator, Carson has no experience in Government, none, and he works for Fox so half the country will not vote for him just because of that, he has no chance, none, it's a total waste of time and money.
Then the biased stooge from Fox Ed Henry was on, he was asked whether President Obama, after being widely criticized for his seeming detachment, is likely to change. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Henry said this: "Everyone likes to get some time off, but playing a round of golf minutes after making a statement condemning the beheading of an American journalist showed a president who is pretty insulated. He doesn't give a fig about his critics, so I don' t see any changes coming."
Which is also ridiculous, because nobody cares about his vacation time, except a few biased right-wing idiots. Bush went golfing right after making a big statement on the Iraq war, but nobody said anything. It's biased garbage, the majority of Americans do not care.
Not to mention, Obama has only taken 100 days of vacation so far, and Bush had taken 3 times that many vacation days at this time of his term. But O'Reilly and Fox said nothing when Bush did it, the whole thing is just sad, and 100% political nonsense.
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl critiqued Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, who went on TV to assert that Michael Brown was murdered. Even though it was simply his opinion based on the facts we know so far. While not saying anything about any conservatives saying Brown was shot while fighting with the cop, when we do not know if that is true or not. They also said nothing about the Fox report Wilson has a broken eye socket, with no facts to back it up, and CNN even reported it was not confirmed.
Wiehl said this: "So many things are in dispute. He said that Michael Brown had his hands up, but that's in dispute. Some witnesses say he was running away, others say he was rushing the officer. These things are for the grand jury to decide."
Guilfoyle said this: "As a professor of law, this is very irresponsible and he should know better. The information is inconclusive and he should be reticent to make these statements and poison the well."
But they have no problem with conservatives trying to poison the well in favor of officer Wilson. Showing they are nothing but biased right-wing hacks, which is why they work for Fox. Nobody takes them serious except the right-wing lemmings that watch them.
Then John Stossel was on with his libertarian outlook on the increasing militarization of local police forces. And for once, Stossel is right.
Stossel said this: "They need some equipment for hostage situations and riots, but most of what they're doing is not that, most of what they're doing are drug raids. They're raiding poker games, they're raiding fraternity houses where there is supposedly underage drinking. We have almost a million police officers, and some are obnoxious bullies."
What he failed to mention is that some of them are also racists who hate blacks, so they abuse their power and violate the rights of many black people.
O'Reilly contended that police are in grave danger and need to be protected, saying this: "In the last ten years 535 American police officers were killed and 580,000 were injured during arrests. If I'm a police officer, I want every piece of gear I could have."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Political Correctness Run Amok. Billy said this: "Some foolish people got very upset because the beautiful actress Sofia Vergara stood on a pedestal to satirize Hollywood's obsession with beauty at Monday night's Emmy Awards. There are a few thousand other, and far better, reasons to be angry."
S&P 500 Breaks 2000 & O'Reilly Totally Ignored It
By: Steve - August 27, 2014 - 10:00am
And that's not all, O'Reilly also ignored the story when the DOW broke 17,000. These are financial records that show the economy and wall street are doing well. But O'Reilly ignores it, because it makes President Obama look good.
The worst part is that under Bush O'Reilly reported all of the stock market news, every time the DOW or the S&P hit new highs or broke records O'Reilly reported it. And not only did he report it, he gave Bush credit for it, and claimed it was evidence President Bush was doing a good job.
In fact, when liberals were guests on the show during the Bush years, and they said Bush is a bad President and he is not doing a good job, O'Reilly would mention the fact that the stock market was doing well and claim that proves them wrong and that it is a measure of how good Bush is doing.
Now that Obama is the President, suddenly O'Reilly does not think the health of the stock market is a measure of how well the President is doing his job. Not only does O'Reilly not use it as a measure of how the President is doing, he does not even report the record highs at all, he ignores it. While at the same time telling his viewers that the liberal Obama policies are ruining the country and that the economy is in chaos.
Even though that is all lies, he keeps saying it in the hopes that someone will believe it. O'Reilly denies reality, because jobs are back, unemployment is down, and the stock market is setting new record highs all the time. O'Reilly ignores all the good economic and financial news because it makes Obama look good, and it makes it look like his policies are working.
O'Reilly also said Obamacare was a disaster and in chaos, when now we know he was also lying about that because it is working great.
Notice that O'Reilly does not even mention Obamacare any more, because he was wrong, he was lying to you, and he can not lie about it now when people can see it is working fine.
Here is the story O'Reilly ignored:
S&P 500 Closes Above 2000 For The First Time
Wall Street's record-setting rally continued Tuesday as the S&P 500 notched its 30th record of the year and closed above 2000 for the first time ever. The Dow also rose but fell short of its record closing high after setting an all-time intraday high earlier in the session.
Investors were encouraged Tuesday by the latest big corporate merger and a jump in consumer confidence and durable goods orders.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 2.10 points, or 0.1%, to close at a record 2000.02 after rising as high as 2005.04. The benchmark index first broke the 2000 barrier on Monday.
The Dow Jones industrial average gained 29.83, or 0.2% to 17,106.70 after earlier hitting an intraday record high of 17,153.80. The Dow's previous closing record high of 17,138.20 was set July 16.
The Nasdaq composite index rose 13.29, or 0.3%, to 4570.64.
The major indexes have rallied three straight weeks as investors bet on signs of an improving U.S. economy and react to better-than-expected second-quarter earnings. Companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index have posted profit growth of 8.4% in the second quarter.
Direct Example Of White Privilege Bill O'Reilly Was Part Of
By: Steve - August 27, 2014 - 9:00am
Bill O'Reilly grew up in Levittown, N.Y., the famed postwar tract suburb on Long Island. And that was a perfect example of white privilege, but O'Reilly never mentions it, here are the facts.
The building firm, Levitt and Sons, headed by Abraham Levitt and his two sons, William and Alfred, built four planned communities called "Levittown" (in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico), but Levittown, New York, was the first.
Levitt and Sons also controversially utilized non-union contractors in the project. On the other hand, they paid them very well and offered all kinds of incentives that allowed the workers to earn extra money, making them often earn twice as much a week as elsewhere.
As demand continued, exceeding availability, the Levitts expanded their project with 4,000 more homes, as well as community services, including schools and postal delivery. With the full implementation of federal government supports for housing, administered under the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Levitt firm switched from rental to sale of their houses, offering ownership on a 30-year mortgage with no down payment and monthly costs the same as rental.
But Levittown would also become a symbol of racial segregation. The discriminatory housing standards of Levittown were consistent with government policies of the time. Before the sale of Levittown homes began, the sales agents were aware that no applications from black families would be accepted. As a result American veterans who wished to purchase a home in Levittown were unable to do so if they were black.
William Levitt attempted to justify their decision to only sell homes to white families by saying that it was in the best interest for business. He claimed their actions were not discriminatory but intended to maintain the value of their properties. The company explained that it was not possible to reduce racial segregation while they were attempting to reduce the housing shortage.
In response to the discrimination of Levittown an opposition group was formed named the Committee to End Discrimination in Levittown. This group protested the sale of Levittown homes and pushed for an integrated community. In 1948 a legal proceeding by the United States Supreme Court declared that property deeds stipulating racial segregation were unenforceable by law.
The "restrictive covenant" in the original rental agreement, which migrated to the sales agreement, stipulated that houses could not be rented or sold to any but members of the " Caucasian" race. The Levitts did not undertake efforts to counteract the racial homogeneity of the suburb and thus the racial composition of Levittown did not change. By 1960 Levittown was still a completely white suburb.
Only well after the 1954 racial integration decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, was Levittown racially integrated, and even as late as the 1990 census only a tiny fraction of the community was non-white, a stigma that still exists until this day.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that was white privilege, your Father got a home in Levittown because he was white, if he had been black you would have never lived in Levittown. Now explain to your viewers how that was not an example of white privilege.
More Proof Bill O'Reilly Does Not Believe There Is White Privilege
By: Steve - August 26, 2014 - 11:30am
On the Tuesday night O'Reilly Factor the Talking Points Memo by Bill O'Reilly is called this:
"The Truth about White Privilege"
As if he is going to give you the truth about the issue, and who is the guest, the conservative Dr. Ben Carson, who is a paid spokesman for Fox News. And of course you can bet Carson will agree with O'Reilly, with no other blacks who disagree, and no Democratic guest for balance.
On the Factor website today O'Reilly says this about the Tuesday night segment:
O'REILLY: "Last night on the Factor, your humble correspondent and Megyn Kelly debated the concept of white privilege whereby some believe that if you are Caucasian, you have inherent advantages in our American society. Talking Points does not believe in white privilege but many in the country do. Tonight we'll break down the facts and ask Dr. Ben Carson what he thinks of the concept."
To deny white privilege is real is just stunning, and I would bet even most white people (including me) know that white privilege is real. O'Reilly seems to be one of the last people on earth to still deny it, because hardly anyone else denies it is real. And it's more proof that Bill O'Reilly lives in his own little world where he believes only what he wants to believe, facts be damned.
It's like denying the sun is hot, or rain is wet, O'Reilly reminds me of the people who once thought the earth was flat, and no amount of facts could convince them it was round. He is just a fool, and I guess he does not see how dumb it makes him look to claim there is no white privilege, or he just does not care it makes him look like a crazy racist fool.
The Monday 8-25-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 26, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Threats From Overseas Mount. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We live in a dangerous world, and under President Obama it is becoming even more dangerous. Reports say that Russian tanks have now moved into southeastern Ukraine, a Chinese war plane apparently buzzed a U.S. Navy surveillance jet, and the ISIS army continues its carnage in the Middle East. It's hard to believe the ISIS situation is so out of control when the president knew about the threat for nearly a year.
And after hearing all that right-wing propaganda, think about this, O'Reilly is a neo-con who wants to bomb every foreign country on earth that does not do what he thinks they should be doing. He has never been in Congress, or any elected office, or the military, so he has no access to top secret intelligence, he is just a right-wing talking head on a biased cable news network that about 1% of Americans watch.
The USA should be doing everything in its power to crush those savages. If we have to bomb them in Syria, we bomb them. If we have to send in drones to kill their leadership, do it. America has been equivocating about this threat for far too long. One of the reasons is that many Americans are fed up with fighting wars abroad.
On the Republican side, Senator Rand Paul is leading that movement, and on the left there is also opposition to using military power. President Obama is correct in being hesitant to put military forces on the ground, but there are other ways to confront villains and threats, and here is where President Obama falls down.
He does not anticipate dangerous situations, he does not have strategies ready to implement. Therefore the terror threat is rising, and it is just a matter of time before America is harmed by bad people. The murder of journalist James Foley was a preview of what is likely to continue to happen on a greater scale.
President Obama must become far more aggressive in blunting threats to this country. And we the people need to start paying attention because it is we who hold the real power in this country. And we are not using it.
Not to mention, he was 100% wrong about Iraq, so now he wants us to listen to him about Russia, China, and ISIS, give me a break, nobody in the Government cares what Bill O'Reilly thinks and nobody is going to do anything he wants them to. The only people who care what he says are the old braindead and brainwashed right-wing fools that watch his fake news show.
Then the Obama hating far-right neo-con fool Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.
Krauthammer said this: "The Chinese are always very careful, but they know a paper tiger when they see one. And they have never seen one more thin and less reliable than Barack Obama. China wants to dominate the region, all of whom are allies with us. The one power that would deter them is the United States, but not with this president. He defines himself as the 'anti-Bush,' he sees his mission in life as taking us out of wars."
O'Reilly blamed not only President Obama, but also the insouciance of the American people, saying this: "Most Americans know nothing about this, the media hasn't said anything about it. I don't even think most people know about ISIS, and if we continue down this road it's going to be disastrous."
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on with their observations of the Michael Brown funeral.
Williams said this: "There was fear that this would become a platform for racial rhetoric, but instead I saw a deep show of faith. This was in the black religious tradition of moving on, even in the face of grief and loss. It was a religious service and I'm grateful for that."
Ham said this: "It was a peaceful coda to the story and I hope it gives some closure. Whenever an incident becomes a 'national conversation' you'll have some political opportunists and even criminal opportunists, but in this new phase it will be easier to get the facts about this incident and not jump to conclusions."
Then 2 Republicans from Fox, Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn were on to cry about Al Sharpton having a media platform.
Kurtz said this: "This is a travesty. You have Sharpton delivering a political speech at the funeral and interviewing Michael Brown's family on MSNBC. And now you have the acknowledgement by Sharpton that he is the conduit for the Obama White House on Ferguson. It just reeks that MSNBC thinks this is acceptable. You can't be a player and cover the game!"
Ashburn of course agreed, saying this: "He should not be colluding with the White House and President Obama. However, the president of MSNBC claims they have been transparent with the audience about Al Sharpton's dual role."
O'Reilly said this: "I believe that Sharpton has almost single-handedly corrupted NBC News."How is it possible that Al Sharpton, the nation's leading racial provocateur, can be paid by NBC News? Isn't it a conflict of interest - especially when it comes to Michael Brown coverage?
Then O'Reilly cried some more about Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton led a rally in New York City this weekend to protest the death of Eric Garner, a black man who was illegally chocked to death during a confrontation with police.
O'Reilly said this about the incidents in New York and Missouri: "The New York City medical examiner has ruled Garner's death a homicide, saying police strangled the man while trying to subdue him. That case, along with Michael Brown, has ignited anger in many African American precincts.
Many black Americans feel they are being unfairly treated. Some white Americans don't understand that, but based upon history and personal interactions with the police, African Americans can make a case that they do not get the same kind of justice as white Americans.
That perception causes some black Americans to reject our criminal justice system entirely. What many Americans, not all of them black, are missing is that no one at this point knows all the facts in both cases. Justice should not be emotional, it should be factual."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to evaluate the theory that America is infused with "white privilege." And she proved it with a list of stats as long as your arm, but O'Reilly was not buying it, saying it was a myth. Which is just beyond insane, because it has been proven a hundred times over that there is white privilege, and anyone who denies it is just stupid.
Kelly said this: "If you look at the statistics, they are alarming. A black child is almost four times as likely to live in a poor neighborhood and the incarceration rate is six times higher for blacks than for whites. The black population feels forgotten, which is why they feel resentful. They don't feel they'll get a fair shake."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting his going to the Emmys. Which is just laughable because all O'Reilly does is slam Hollywood liberals and say we should not listen to anything they say. Then the two-faced jerk goes to the Emmys to hang with the same Hollywood liberals he hates, what a joke.
More Facts O'Reilly Ignored In His Racist Ferguson Rant
By: Steve - August 26, 2014 - 10:00am
Bill O’Reilly criticized protesters in Ferguson, Missouri last week and minimized fatal police shootings against Black men during a phone interview with guest host Eric Bolling.
"'No justice, no peace'? These people don't want justice," O'Reilly told Bolling. "What if the facts come out and say it was a justifiable shooting by the police officer, [that] this guy was coming at him? What if they say that? You think these people are going to accept that?"
What if the police lie and do a cover up and never release all the facts? Answer that O'Reilly.
O'Reilly argued that, according to FBI statistics from 2012, the yearly ratio of 420 fatal police shootings compared to 12 million arrests defused charges that police unfairly targeted the Black community.
"This is an infinitesimal situation," O'Reilly said. "It doesn't happen, and those people who run in to Ferguson or any other city and say that the police are hunting down young Black men are lying. And they're grossly insulting law enforcement across the country. Because this stat shows it all."
WRONG! O'Reilly did not mention that, as USA Today reported on Friday, the study in question only counted data from 750 out of 17,000 law enforcement agencies around the country. Nor did he mention that this type of data is only reported voluntarily.
Funny how Mr. facts never reported those facts, as I have reported here many times, O'Reilly is a biased hack who only reports some of the facts, not all the facts. He only reports the facts and stats he wants you to see, that back up his spin on the story he is reporting on at the time.
FACT: "There is no national database for this type of information, and that is just crazy," University of South Carolina criminologist Geoff Alpert told USA Today. "We've been trying for years, but nobody wanted to fund it and the [police] departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it."
On Monday, O'Reilly said he even supported President Obama's decision to send Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson to supervise the federal investigation into the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown last week.
"The state authorities there have botched the case," O'Reilly said. "And the local authorities are the Keystone Kops. So let's get the feds in and do a transparent investigation. That's what every good American should want, to know the truth, finally."
While at the same time, talking ut the other side of his mouth O'Reilly defended the heavily-criticized decision by local police to release footage of a confrontation between Brown and a convenience store owner prior to the shooting.
"A smear? How can facts be a smear?" O’Reilly asked. "How is that possible? If you want a transparent investigation -- which I do, you have to put the facts out."
While ignoring a lot of the facts, like the fact that the Ferguson only released part of the video that made it look like Brown robbed the store, but ignored the fact that other parts of the video show him paying for the cigars, and the fact that neither the store employee or the store owner called the cops to report a robbery.
O'Reilly ignores all those facts!
O'Reilly also did not mention that Darren Wilson, the officer who shot and killed Brown, was not aware of Brown's encounter at the convenience store when he ordered Brown to stop walking on the street before the shooting happened.
So if only statistics matter, then out of those 420 citizens that were shot and killed by officers - how many were black? Oh! Over 300 you say....hmmm, sounds like 75% in a country where they make up 13% of the population.
Damn, Bill - you are right! Your statistics are damning...just not in the way you wanted to spin it.
And here are some more facts O'Reilly has totally ignored:
"Despite Ferguson's relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of $2,635,400," according to the ArchCity Defenders report.
And in 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants and 12,018 cases, "or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household."
Making the problem worse, the report says, are "a number of operational procedures that make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts."
A Ferguson court employee reported, for example, that "the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defend arriving even slightly late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear."
Which is even more facts O'Reilly has ignored, so when you add it up O'Reilly seems to ignore more facts than he reports, and the facts he reports on back up his spin, while not reporting any facts that he does not like.
Brian Stelter Slams Fox For Reports Of Wilson Eye Injury
By: Steve - August 25, 2014 - 11:30am
Now remember this, O'Reilly has said you should never believe what blogs report because they are unchecked by anyone, and have no editor, etc. Even though the blogs are usually more accurate than the rest of the media, especially Fox. But here he is using an unconfirmed report from the biased right-wing gateway pundit and anonymous sources to report on the so-called eye injury to officer Wilson.
O'Reilly even admitted it was unconfirmed and yet he reported it anyway, breaking his own rules of no speculation, of never using information from blogs, and his claim that he only deals in the facts.
Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter on CNN took Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the rest of Fox News to the woodshed Sunday morning over the claim that Officer Darren Wilson had a fractured eye socket as a result of a struggle with Michael Brown.
The claim, which would seem to make Brown the aggressor and change the dynamic of the shooting, originated from the Gateway Pundit, a conservative blogger, who quoted anonymous sources.
In other words, he just made it up to prejudice the jury pool. And O'Reilly helped him by putting it out to his 3 million viewers.
Stelter sharply criticized Fox for running with the information, saying this:
"Frankly I'm surprised that Fox ripped the information off this blog and repeated it on air," Stelter said. "Later in the day Fox did find its own anonymous source and published its own story, and every one of Fox's primetime hosts picked up on it."
"All day on Thursday, CNN reporters in Ferguson tried to confirm what Fox had claimed over and over again, but instead a source unequivocally refuted it," Stelter said.
"I have yet to see any evidence of an eye socket injury. But that does not seem to matter, because these claims have spread all over the place, sewing doubt in people's minds about what happened that day in Ferguson."
So once again Fox and O'Reilly are not fair and balanced, and they break their own rules about reporting unconfirmed news. O'Reilly is the worst, because he claims to have a no speculation rule, and also says he never reports anything that does not have the facts to back it up.
O'Reilly has also said a hundred times to never believe anything reported by any blogs, especially when they use anonymous sources. Then he does the very same thing he says he will never do, which is more proof he is nothing but a biased right-wing hypocrite hack.
More Racism News About Officer Wilson O'Reilly Ignored
By: Steve - August 25, 2014 - 11:00am
The officer who shot Michael Brown six times on Aug. 9 was a former member of the Jennings Police Department, which its city council disbanded in 2011 over corruption and racial tension among its residents. All 45 officers were fired, including Wilson.
Darren Wilson, who has been on paid administrative leave from the Ferguson Police Department following his fatal shooting of an 18-year-old black man named Michael Brown, has been hidden from the public eye and not spoken out despite the enormous amount of attention the Aug. 9 incident has received.
Much of the discussion of the incident has been about the tensions between predominately white police departments in predominately black communities, and a profile on the officer in the Washington Post reveals Ferguson was not the first time Wilson had to deal with these issues in his career.
The newspaper reports Wilson was employed by the small town of Jennings, Mo., whose officers relationship with the public was so bad the city council decided to take the highly unusual step of firing all of its 45 officers three years ago.
The move was due to a combination of corruption within the department and problems between the nearly all-white department and the community that was 89% black.
The "straw that broke the camel's back" was when a white officer chased a black woman outside of the city's limits over a simple traffic violation and shot at her vehicle with a child in the backseat, Rodney Epps, an African American city council member in Jennings, told the newspaper.
"You're dealing with white cops and they don't know how to address black people," Epps told the Post.
Ferguson is an example of a police department staffed predominantly with white officers, many of whom live far away from, and often fail to establish trust with, the predominantly black communities they serve. Policing can become a tense, racially charged, fearful and potentially violent series of interactions. Distrust becomes institutionalized, as much a part of the local infrastructure as the sewers and power lines.
A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents -- what the group calls a poor-people's tax.
More Racist Ferguson Police News O'Reilly & Fox Ignored
By: Steve - August 25, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is another story about racism in the Ferguson police department, and of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, or anyone at Fox for that matter.
Officer Who Pushed Don Lemon Relieved of Duty After Racist Rant Emerges
The same St. Louis police officer who was seen on CNN last week pushing Don Lemon back during a live broadcast from Ferguson, Missouri, has been relieved of his duty after video emerged of an hour-long speech he delivered railing against African-Americans, the LGBT community and President Obama.
CNN reported the news about Officer Dan Page, who made the controversial remarks at an Oath Keepers meeting just months ago.
"It's wide-ranging inflammatory remarks about a lot of people, about women, about gay people," Lemon reported. "He talks about the president of the United States. He speaks out against affirmative action, women in the military and on and on."
In the video, Page discusses the "four sodomites on the Supreme Court," talks about our "undocumented president" from Kenya, and much more.
And this guy is a cop, with power and a gun, in a 70% black city. If you were a black person in Ferguson and you ran into that cop do you think he would be fair to you, haha, of course not. You would be lucky if he did not beat you with his night stick for being alive, or shoot you for looking him in the eyes.
"What do you say after that?" Lemon said after CNN aired clips of Page's speech. "There's much more of that. at least an hour's worth of him ranting about different people, different situations."
During Lemon's live report on Monday from Ferguson, Page confronted the host, physically pushing him away from CNN's camera. "Now you see why people are so upset here," Lemon said at the time.
This cop is a racist hate filled jerk, and yet he is allowed to be a policeman. Surely they know he is an Oath Keeper, and yet they still allow this white cop to be a policeman in a 70% black city, it's just ridiculous, and O'Reilly never ever says a word about any of it, while implying that the cops never do anything wrong and they are all good guys and not racists who hate all blacks, when that is exactly what we now know some of them are.
In the cops racist rant to the racist Oath Keepers he even says he will kill you if you get in front of him. But in O'Reillyworld none of the cops are racists, or bad guys, even though some of them are, and those are just the ones we know about. Now imagine how many there are we do not know about or hear about.
Bill O'Reilly Gives The People Of Ferguson A Lecture
By: Steve - August 24, 2014 - 11:00am
Protests were peaceful in Ferguson, Missouri Tuesday night, thanks to the police duties being taken over by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, who apparently understand that policing a community means talking to people and working with them instead of clearing them off the streets with tear gas and rubber bullets.
But that's not the only good news for Ferguson's African-American community. They finally have the guidance and leadership they have long been looking for. That's right -- the old white Republican from Fox News Bill O'Reilly is here to tell black people how they should be acting.
Bill O'Reilly, let the people of Ferguson know that they should not be rioting or looting, that they should not rush to judgment on what happened to Michael Brown, and that they should not decide Brown's death is an injustice until Bill O'Reilly says it is.
It's a good thing that O'Reilly has offered his advice to Ferguson's African American community! Without his wisdom, they would hardly know how to react to the violence police brought into their communities.
They would not even know how to feel about cops who harass them on the street for no reason and shoot an unarmed black kid. They owe O'Reilly a debt of gratitude, NOT.
In all seriousness, Bill O'Reilly lecturing the people of Ferguson on how they should feel is like him giving a seminar on sexual harassment in the workplace. After sexually harassing a female producer on his show, then paying her millions in an out of court settlement to keep quiet, after saying she was a scammer and he would fight it to the bitter end.
He has no place to lecture the population on what he calls rioting. If anyone was rioting, it was the thug cops tossing tear gas and clearing a McDonalds of working reporters.
In the last few nights we saw what happens when the police engage the community instead of attacking it. Peaceful protests calling for justice, justice they still deserve. Somehow they managed that without Bill O'Reilly's help.
What's really ridiculous is O'Reilly (the racist) telling black people what to do and how to act, he sounds just like a member of the KKK or the Oath Keepers, and I would not be shocked to find out O'Reilly is secretly a member of a white power group.
Federal Officials Rethink Giving Excess Military Gear To Police
By: Steve - August 23, 2014 - 11:00am
WASHINGTON (AP) -- After a decade of sending military equipment to civilian police departments across the country, federal officials are reconsidering the idea in light of the violence in Ferguson, Missouri.
The public has absorbed images of heavily armed police, snipers trained on protesters and tear gas plumes. Against that backdrop, Attorney General Eric Holder said that when police and citizens need to restore calm, "I am deeply concerned that the deployment of military equipment and vehicles sends a conflicting message."
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said police responses like that in Ferguson have "become the problem instead of the solution." Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said he will introduce legislation to curb the trend of police militarization.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee will review the program to determine if the Defense Department's surplus equipment is being used as intended.
But of course Bill O'Reilly has no problem with it, and has even supported the military police actions, because he is a racist and they did it against black people.
One night after the violence that accompanied the presence of military-style equipment in Ferguson, tensions eased when a police captain, unprotected and shaking hands, walked through a crowd in a gesture of reconciliation. The contrast added to the perception that the tanks and tear gas had done more harm than good.
As the country concludes its longest wartime period, the military has turned over thousands of surplus weapons and armored trucks to local police who often trained alongside the military.
A report by the American Civil Liberties Union in June said police agencies had become "excessively militarized," with officers using training and equipment designed for the battlefield on city streets. The report found the amount of goods transferred through the military surplus program rose in value from $1 million in 1990 to nearly $450 million in 2013.
"Every police force of any size in this country has access to those kinds of weapons now," said David Harris, a police expert at the University of Pittsburgh law school. "It makes it more likely to be used (and) is an escalation all by itself."
In Louisiana, masked police in full body armor carrying AR-15 assault rifles raided a nightclub without a warrant, looking not for terrorists but underage drinkers and fire-code violations. Officers in California train using the same counterinsurgency tactics as those used in Afghanistan.
"They're not coming in like we're innocent until proven guilty," said Quinn Eaker. SWAT teams last August raided his organic farm and community, the Garden of Eden, in Arlington, Texas. "They're coming in like: 'We're gonna kill you if you move a finger.'"
Police found no drugs or weapons and filed no charges after their search, which authorities said followed standard procedure.
In 1990, Congress authorized the Pentagon to give surplus equipment to police to help fight drugs, which then gave way to the fight against terrorism. Though violent crime nationwide is at its lowest level in generations and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely concluded, the military transfers have increased.
Police say the equipment, which includes free body armor, night vision goggles and scopes, keeps officers safe and prepares them for the worst case.
"A lot evolved from the military, no question," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Chief Bill McSweeney, who heads the detective division. "Is it smart for them to use that stuff and perhaps look like soldiers from Iraq going into a place? Is that smart or over the top? I'd say generally that's smart. Now, if you use that every time a guy is writing bad checks, that's getting rather extreme."
The U.S. has provided 610 mine-resistant armored trucks, known as MRAPs, across the country, nearly all since August 2013, including at least nine in Los Angeles County, according to Michelle McCaskill, a spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency.
In rural western Maine, the Oxford County Sheriff's Office asked for an MRAP. Cpl. George Cayer wrote in his request that Maine's western foothills face a "previously unimaginable threat from terrorist activities."
In Orange County, Florida, masked officers in tactical gear helped state inspectors raid barber shops in 2010 to find people cutting hair without a license. Using a mini battering ram and pry bar at times, police arrested dozens of people.
Officials said they found illegal items such as drugs and a weapon.
McSweeney said it's hard to argue that police shouldn't use the best equipment available.
"It's tempting to say, 'Shouldn't we wear these things? Shouldn't we approach this as if we could get shot?'" he said. "How do you say no to that question?"
"The shame of it will be, if somebody does a brushstroke and takes out all the funding and then we can no longer be prepared for that big incident," he said.
The LAPD's deputy chief, Michael Downing, who heads the department's counterterrorism and special operations bureau, said officers are dealing with "an adversary who is more sophisticated, more tactically trained."
Downing emphasized that though police might train with soldiers, they're not warriors with a mission to kill but public servants with no "enemies."
"In police work there are times we have to become soldiers and control through force and fear," Downing said. "But we have to come back to being a public servant as quick as we can to establish that normality and that ethical stature with communities, because they're the ones who give us the authority to do our police work."
When simply trying to serve a warrant for non-violent crimes requires cops to treat people like they are "local threats" with equipment and tactics directly imported from Iraq and Afghanistan you know that the system is flawed.
When the police pretend that they are not given proper "respect" while doing nothing remotely respectable they have failed. And when Conservatives talk about "Law and Order" that has always been code for keeping "those people" in line.
One More Dish TV Update
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 11:30am
It's raining and of course the Dish tv signal is out, so I asked my landlord if Dish ever gives him a credit for all the times the signal is out every time it rains, and he said no.
I would bet it's out for 10 hours a month, and they never give him a credit for it. And one more thing, to add a 2nd receiver to get HD on my tv they say it will cost $95.00 for a technician visit, and $17.00 a month to rent it.
That is ridiculous, with comcast you just pick up a 2nd HD box and call them, they activate it and it's only $7.00 a month to rent it. Dish tv is overpriced and not very good. I wish I was in charge of the tv service here because I would cancel Dish as fast as possible and get comcast.
And with comcast you also get the on demand show archives and free movies for nothing, with Dish there is no tv show archives, and no feee movies. From what I have seen comcast is far better.
The Friday 8-22-14 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 11:00am
Their was no TPM because the Fake Fox News Democrat Juan Williams hosted for O'Reilly. Williams started Friday's show by asking former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark about the brutal terror group ISIS and its threat to America and the West.
Clark said this: "You're going to see the United States increasingly targeting ISIS, and putting more and more combat power to bear. But it's the nations in the region who are on the front lines, they have to step forward and do their part. The solution is not just military, it's also political - the new prime minister in Iraq has to bring that country together so people will fight for the government. It would be great if we could cut off the head of the snake right now, but we're not going to be able to do that by ourselves."
Williams scoffed at the suggestion that Saudi Arabia will join the fight against ISIS, saying this: "I just don't see it coming. We give them lots of military equipment, but I don't see them ever leading the fight."
Then the Republican Cliff May was on to talk about the Obama administration treating the beheading of James Foley as a criminal matter, which is what it was. With no Democratic guest for balance, just like O'Reilly does it.
May said this: "What happened to James Foley is not some garden variety criminal act, it's not murder in the first degree. This is a war crime and a crime against all Americans. If we lose this to a criminal indictment we'll get nowhere and we'll make the same mistake we've been making for a lot of years. This needs to be fought as a war, which means we go after them militarily and economically and diplomatically. The guy who drew the knife across James Foley's neck is not what counts here, what counts is the ideology and all the jihadist movements around the world."
It's not a war crime idiot, it's murder, and that is a criminal matter.
Then Nile Gardiner of the conservative Heritage Foundation was on to talk about some European nations that have been paying huge ransoms to terrorists in exchange for the release of hostages. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Gardiner said this: "It's a disgrace that European countries pay ransoms, and at the top of the list are the French, who have paid out about $60-million over the last five years to various Al Qaeda groups across the world. Spain, Switzerland, Austria, and Germany have paid ransoms, but it's important to point out that Britain and the United States refuse to pay. What you have in Europe is a culture of appeasement towards global terrorism. This actually fills the coffers of Al Qaeda and greatly increases the likelihood that Westerners will be taken hostage."
Then the Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry was on to complain about Obama taking vacations. With no Democratic guest on for balance. Williams said this: "President Obama has increasingly come under fire for putting while the world burns." That I will not report anything else about. And btw folks, only Republicans are complaining, nobody else cares. These are the same people who said nothing when Bush took vacations, and even defended Bush when some liberals complained about Bush.
Oh and btw, here is something O'Reilly, Williams, or anyone at Fox never tell you. President Obama has taken 138 days of vacation so far, at this same time in the Bush administration Bush had taken 407 days of vacation time. But O'Reilly and Fox said nothing about Bush doing it. They only have a problem with Democratic Presidents taking vacations, even when it's about 30% of the vacation time the Republican took in his first 6 years. It's ridiculous, and I will never report on it again.
Not to mention, the so-called Democrat Juan Williams reported this, which is just laughable, because a real Democrat would never report this nonsense. O'Reilly must have made him report it, and the fake Democrat Williams said ok, what a joke. In fact, I would bet O'Reilly planned the entire show, topics and guests, because it's just like O'Reilly is there with a different host.
Then the conservative columnist and author Jason Riley, who has been harshly critical of Al Sharpton and others who are inflaming passions in Ferguson, Missouri was on. And no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Riley said this: "The black base is to the left of Obama on this, and that explains why Attorney General Eric Holder was sent out there. Obama is worried about keeping the support he has among blacks, who want to see the wheels of justice turning faster than they are. There is tension between the black community and the police force, and I don't see how you're going to lessen that tension until you do something about the black crime rate. We talk about unemployment, we talk about poverty, but we don't talk about black crime rates. The cops aren't the problem!"
What a fool, the cops are the problem when they shoot unarmed black kids, while never shooting any unarmed white kids, this Jason Riley is a moron who is ignoring the truth. Yes, most cops are good guys, but some are not and they keep shooting black kids who are unarmed, and those are facts.
And that was the end of the show, even with the so-called Democrat Juan Williams hosting it was still 55 minutes of right-wing propaganda and spin, just as if O'Reilly was there. Only 1 Democratic guest was on the entire show, so much for fair and balanced.
Explain This O'Reilly: Ferguson Police Report Almost Totally Blank
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 10:00am
It’s been almost two weeks since a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, but the police department has yet to offer a full account of the circumstances surrounding Michael Brown's death.
An official incident report, which the ACLU obtained from police and released on Friday, answers none of the pressing questions that hang over the killing. If anything, it raises new ones.
The two-page document is almost entirely blank. It includes the address, time of day and a handful of other bare-bones details, but does not include a description of the scene, quotes from eyewitnesses, names of the officers involved, or any other pieces of information normally found on these type of documents.
"What’s going on?" asked Vanita Gupta, legal director of the ACLU. "What's the Ferguson police chief thinking? What's he doing?"
"We spent a fair amount of time looking at these two incident reports, trying to understand what they say, and frankly, more what they don't say," Gupta added. "They just further demonstrate the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about about the Michael Brown shooting."
The Ferguson Police department only released the document after the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding access to all incident reports pertaining to the shooting, Gupta said. Two and a half lines at the top of the report were redacted.
The release comes two days after the ACLU published a similarly unrevealing report from the larger St. Louis County Police Department. Like the Ferguson document, the county report offers only a bare-bones account of the incident and nothing approaching a narrative.
But it does provide two pieces of information likely to invite scrutiny as outside investigators try to piece together an understanding of what actually happened.
The report notes that the county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., or about 40 minutes after the Ferguson police and others say Brown was shot. And it shows that they didn't arrive on the scene until 1:30 p.m. -- more than 45 minutes later.
Brian Schellman, a spokesman for the county police, said the detectives were slow to respond to the shooting because they were investigating another crime and it took them time to drive from that crime scene to Ferguson.
He added that the document contains only those details that the department is required to share by law. The rest of the information is "protected until the investigation is complete," he said.
And as expected O'Reilly is silent about this news. When normally in a case like this involving a black shooting a white person O'Reilly is demanding answers and asking why the Police are witholding evidence the public deserves to know. Instead O'Reilly ignores it and slams the people who are protesting it, but only when it involves a white person who killed a black kid.
O'Reilly Ignoring Story That Brown Paid For The Cigars
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 11:30am
Folks, this is flat out 100% bias by Bill O'Reilly in the Michael Brown shooting story. There is evidence that Brown did not rob the store, and that he paid for the cigars. Neither the employee working the store or the store owner called the police to report a robbery, something that would surely happen if Brown committed a so-called "strong-arm robbery."
The attorney for the Ferguson Market even says that it was not anyone from the store that called the police.
The very same video the Ferguson police released at the same time they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head shows the opposite of what they claimed.
The video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he thought was a robbery.
How, then, did police get the tape? According to the St. Louis News, the attorney said, "during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape."
In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead.
In their effort to cast Brown in a negative light, they did not tell anyone about the part of the video that actually shows Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.
The video shows Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown then purchased some cigarillos, paid for them, attempt to buy more, then replaced the ones he could not afford.
The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown reached across the counter. Now it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. Because it is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.
At this point, the police portrayal of the video and strategic release have had the desired effect.
Bill O'Reilly and his right-wing friends have labeled Brown a "thug." Even though he has no criminal record and his friends and family say he has never been arrested before.
Somehow, those who are determined to hate every African-American killed by police (or anyone, for that matter) have managed to form an opinion that a simple theft is worthy of a death sentence if one's skin is black.
The Ku Klux Klan and a growing group of angry white people are raising reward money for the murder of "typical low-IQ Negro" Michael Brown. Wilson is already on course to make tens of thousands of dollars for his deed.
FOX News has jumped on the "thug" train, as well, suggesting that the "robbery" video justifies the murder of Michael Brown, and that he was shot in the head because "bullets go that way."
We will never truly know the exact circumstances surrounding Brown's death, as Ferguson police have not bothered to equip their cars with dashboard cameras, but we do know that an independent autopsy performed on Brown's body has revealed not only that there was no sign of a struggle between Brown and Wilson, but that one bullet entered "back to front," and the wounds were consistent with Brown having his arms raised in surrender.
And we also know that the police will not release the full autopsy results, or let anyone else look at Browns clothes, because if they do not have any gunpowder residue it will prove the cop lied when he said he was attacked and he shot him at close range.
Now think about this, Bill O'Reilly does not report any of this, while reporting rumors that the officer has a broken eye socket, even though it was reported to be not true, and after he has said he only deals in facts and never speculates. So here is O'Reilly ignoring all this news because it disagrees with his spin on the story.
This is 100% dishonest and biased journalism by Bill O'Reilly and almost everyone at Fox News.
The Thursday 8-21-14 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 11:00am
There was no TPM because the right-wing goofball Greg Gutfeld was hosting for O'Reilly. Conservative Horace Cooper and liberal Hilary Shelton, both black men, were on to talk about Ferguson and the ridiculous/racist TPM O'Reilly spewed out Wednesday night.
And btw, Shelton was the only liberal on the entire show, so as usual it was 7 conservatives to 1 liberal. Gutfeld started thursday's show with a flashback to Bill's Wednesday Talking Points Memo, during which he slammed Al Sharpton and other race hustlers in Ferguson, Missouri.
Shelton said this: "You may disagree with Al Sharpton, but even Bill O'Reilly would agree that Al Sharpton has a right to say what is on his mind, as controversial as it might be. The high homicide rate in this country should be discussed, but in this case we want to talk about police-community relations."
But of course the conservative Cooper agreed with Bill's denouncement of Sharpton, saying this: "Even if there isn't a crisis going on, he brings a can of fuel and lights it up. If you want to talk about how America addresses how blacks, whites, and browns all get along, Al Sharpton is not the man to do that. But if you want to talk about how the problems can be exacerbated, he's the man to call. The Justice Department and the NAACP and the other agitators are trying to exploit this situation."
And of course none of these biased right-wing hacks mention that Sharpton only went to Ferguson when the family of Michael Brown asked him to, he did not just go on his own, he was asked to go there by the victims family, but neither Gutfeld or O'Reilly ever mention that.
Then the right-wing radio host from St. Louis McGraw Milhaven was on to talk about some black citizens who are demanding that St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch be replaced in the Michael Brown case, partly because McCulloch's father was gunned down by a black man fifty years ago.
Milhaven, who denounced Missouri Governor Jay Nixon for lining up against McCulloch said this: "Since Saturday there has been a state of emergency, but Governor Nixon hasn't held one news conference, he's been in hiding. He released one prepared statement in which he indicated that he is in favor of Michael Brown's family. In this entire crisis, every political person you see is trying to get the next political office. Bob McCulloch is the only one who is not running for anything, he has dedicated his life to victim advocacy. This man has been elected and re-elected numerous times, he doesn't have an agenda."
Then the Republican Dana Perino was on to talk about the Democratic
Attorney General Eric Holder who spent part of the week in Ferguson, where he commiserated with black residents and promised a "fair and thorough" investigation. And of course no Democratic guest for balance.
Perino said this: "I don't think there is any evidence yet, that the local district attorney would not be able to handle this without the involvement of the Justice Department, which would usually get involved if there is some evidence of wrongdoing in the investigation. It is true that the Ferguson police department has had very bad communications and public relations, but the local district attorney seems like he's a stand-up guy who should be given a chance. If this were a white teenager killed by a black police officer, would Eric Holder try to infringe on a local district attorney? The answer is probably no."
Then the biased Republican who hates President Obama Col. Ralph Peters was on to talk about the attempted secret rescue mission that would have freed James Foley and other Americans who were held hostage by ISIS terrorists. With no Democratic guest on for balance.
And of course Peters slammed the Obama administration, because that is what partisan hacks do, he said this: "The administration disgracefully released the details of this raid, because it provided some fictional political cover so the administration could say, 'We were trying to rescue the hostages.' The administration didn't think about the hostages who are still being held, and we still have nothing that remotely resembles a strategy to deal with the Islamic State terrorists. We're doing these little tactical attacks, but the Islamic State terrorists are a huge threat, worse than Al Qaeda. You have to hit them hard!"
Then the right-wing propagandist Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the self-proclaimed American jihadist named Ali Muhammad Brown who has admitted to killing four people in New Jersey and Washington State, calling it "vengeance" for U.S. military actions in the Mideast. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Ingraham said this: "The media are always uncomfortable, in covering these acts committed in the name of Allah. They're worried about the 'Islamophobia' charge, and there are a lot of politically correct fears about how it will be perceived. They don't want to look like they're smearing all Muslims for the heinous acts committed by this thug, and they're just terrified by the idea of reporting on this story in a vigorous way. But we must talk about this - our country's liberty and our national security depends on it."
Gutfeld slammed the media's reluctance to deal with Islamic-related terrorism and criminality, saying this: "Radical Islam is the first real evil that has benefited from the fruits of political correctness. If this politically correct tolerance movement were there during the era of Hitler and you said you hated Hitler, would they call you 'Naziphobic?'"
Then the Republican Bret Stephens was on, he is a biased writer for the Wall Street Journal and he has written that the Obama administration is in a freefall. With no Democratic guest on for balance, so it was all right-wing spin.
Stephens said this: "It's not even in dispute that this president's foreign policy is a total failure, the question is why it is failing. Liberals will tell you it's because the world is a terribly complicated place, America is in decline, and the president simply can't control events. The second theory is that this is an out-of-touch president who is not giving this job his full attention, he is continually caught flat-footed by events. The argument I'm making is that this president is pursuing an ideological goal to reduce America's footprint around the world."
Earth to right-wing idiots, we can not control the world, and usually when we get involved all it does is cost us a forture, get thousands of American forces killed, and we leave the place worse off than before we got involved, did you morons forget Iraq already.
Not to mention this, the majority of American people agree with President Obama that we should not be the police to the world, let them fight their own civil wars, just like we did. Unless it comes to America we should leave them alone.
Six More Journalists Arrested At Ferguson Missouri Protests
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 10:00am
Six more journalists were taken into custody while covering the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, on Monday and early Tuesday, aggravating what one press freedom group has called a "concerted, top-down effort to restrict the fundamental First Amendment rights of the public and the press."
This brings the total number of journalists arrested during the mid-August protests to 11. And this is very disturbing, no matter if you are a liberal or a conservative you should be really worried when journalists are arrested trying to report the news. It's a violation of the 1st amendment, and I for one do not know how this is happening in America. This is what you expect to hear about in Russia or China, not the USA.
Other journalists reported being threatened with arrest and affected by tear-gas on Monday night. Authorities tried to restrict members of the news media to a designated area away from the protests, sometimes nicknamed a "press pen."
The latest arrests came on the same day that President Obama reaffirmed his support for journalists on the ground in Ferguson. "Let me also be clear that our constitutional rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to report in the press must be vigilantly safeguarded, especially in moments like these," the President said at a Monday afternoon news conference.
A couple of hours later, Getty Images photographer Scott Olson was arrested. Getty, one of the main suppliers of photos to news outlets around the world, immediately condemned the police action.
Kerry Picket, a reporter for the conservative website Breitbart News, was arrested around the same time as Olson. She was held for "several hours," the website said.
"Picket was released when it was discovered that the trooper misunderstood directions from his superiors and was told to not allow vehicle traffic through but to allow foot traffic through. Both the arresting officer and his lieutenant apologized to Picket," Breitbart News added.
The first arrests of journalists came last Wednesday when Ryan Reilly of The Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of The Washington Post were arrested inside a McDonald's in Ferguson. They were released 45 minutes later without being charged. Three other reporters were detained for a few minutes on Sunday night.
CNN Contradicts Fox Claiming Officer Has Broken Eye Socket
By: Steve - August 22, 2014 - 9:00am
Fox News and Bill O'Reilly reported that Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown, suffered a fractured eye socket following his confrontation with the teenager. The reporter, Hollie McKay, cited a “source close to the [police] department’s top brass” as providing that information to the network.
However, on CNN Thursday, Don Lemon reported that Wilson did not suffer a fractured or broken eye socket. Noting that specific injury has not been reported by CNN, "but is making its way around other media organization," Lemon cited a "source close to the investigation" who told CNN that Wilson's x-rays came back negative for a fractured eye socket.
"That source says it is not true, at all, he did not have a torn eye socket," Lemon said.
O'Reilly said this Wednesday night:
O'REILLY: "We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blowout fracture of his eye socket. We are only reporting the alleged injury to demonstrate that there will be much more to come in this case. That is why there is an investigation, and a grand jury, and a trial process. But the race hustlers don't care what really happened, they want Officer Wilson punished. And he should be punished if he murdered Michael Brown."
Notice he said alleged injury, he also said the injury was not confirmed. O'Reilly also says he only reports the facts and does not allow speculation on his show, and he has said this a million times over the last 10 years. But here he is speculating that officer Wilson has a broken eye socket, with no facts to back it up, when the video taken after the shooting does not seem to show any eye injury to officer Wilson, and CNN says they were told there is no broken eye socket injury.
Earth to idiots at Fox, we saw video of Officer Wilson standing, calmly, overlooking the body of Mike Brown. At first, Wilson is standing with a colleague, talking with each other. Later, we see Wilson walking back and forth alongside the body of Mike Brown.
Never a motion in acknowledgement of any "eye injury" he sustained.
No medical attention, no EMTs showed to treat the officer, nobody looking at his eye, nothing.
Piaget Crenshaw lives in an apartment overlooking the street in Ferguson where Brown was killed, and she says the police have had her footage since they confiscated her phone following the shooting.
Crenshaw admits that she filmed the scene because, from the beginning, she felt like something was off about the situation. "From it all initially happening, I knew this was not right. I knew the police shouldn't have been chasing this boy and firing at the same time. And the fact he got shot in his face, something clicked in me and I thought someone else should see this so I recorded," she told CNN.
Don't you think if the officer had a broken eye socket (which is very painful) he would be holding his eye, or having someone look at it. Instead he is just standing around casually looking at the body and walking back and forth like he had no injury at all.
That anyone would believe Officer Wilson was suffering from a fractured eye socket all that time defies simple Common Sense. Just look at the video:
O'Reilly ignores all this evidence, to report the officer had a broken eye socket, and he even admitted he could not confirm if it was true, yet he reported it anyway even when there is video showing officer Wilson appears to have no eye injury in the video that was taken right after Brown was shot.
O'Reilly also ignores all the other people who are an eye witess to the shooting, he does not report anything they have said. All he does is slam the protesters, the media, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Normally in a situation like this O'Reilly would have the eye witnesses and the person who took the video on his show, but because it involves a white cop shooting a black kid O'Reilly is not doing it.
According to Crenshaw, the person who saw the shooting and filmed the video, it appeared that the officer was trying to pull the teen into his car when Brown got away. The officer fired his weapon, but Brown avoided being struck. It was then that the teen "turned around (with his hands up) and was shot multiple times."
O'Reilly does not report any of this, when it is eye witness evidence and they have video. But he does report an unconfirmed report that the officer had a broken eye socket. No matter what you think happened, this is biased journalism, because it's ignoring actual evidence to report rumors that favor the officer who shot the kid, and only Fox is reporting it, CNN and other media sources are not, because it can not be confirmed.
And let me add this, It has been nearly two weeks since officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown and according to a new report from the Washington Post, prosecutors in the case have still not spoken directly to the potential defendant.
?St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch is expected to handle the case, despite calls from him to recuse himself because his own father, a police officer, was murdered by an African-American man.
Ed Magee, a spokesperson for the St. Louis County prosecutor's office told the Washington Post that McCulloch "has been in touch with Wilson's attorney but has not spoken to Wilson himself." So the cop is lawyered up and the prosecutor is not even trying to talk to him to get his statement on record. That is what they normally do when a person shoots someone, so that if later they change their story it can be used to show they lied in court.
But the prosecutor is not doing that, giving the officer and his lawyer weeks to put together a story that will be used in his defense. The prosecutor should have got his statement within a day or two of the shooting before he got a lawyer. And btw, O'Reilly has complained about this is the past in other legal cases, but not in this case. He has no problem with officer Wilson lawyering up to get his story straight, and not giving a statement right after the shooting.
Which is ridiculous, what is he waiting for. The prosecutor should have talked to him before he got a lawyer to get his statement on record. O'Reilly does not report this information either, he just ignores it. Which is the opposite of what he does when a white person is shot and killed by someone.
The Wednesday 8-20-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 21, 2014 - 11:40am
The TPM was called: The Truth About Ferguson. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I came back from vacation because I'm furious about how the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown is being reported and how various people are reacting to it. Mr. Brown is a victim, shot six times by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. Some suspect him of murder and a grand jury is hearing the case. Also, Attorney General Holder went to Ferguson today to meet with FBI agents and state authorities, who are conducting separate investigations.
And now a reality check, that is the truth about Ferguson as the old, rich, white, Republican Bill O'Reilly sees it. A man who has never been black, never lived in poor black areas, never had to deal with police pulling you over for no reason 10 times a year, no black experience at all, none. What he just said is all right-wing spin, it's ridiculous.
Good, the Feds should look into this case and their investigation should be transparent. Which brings us to the video of Mr. Brown stealing from a convenience store and pushing the clerk around. Agitators called the release of the video a smear against Michael Brown and his family, but facts are not smears and this goes to Mr. Brown's state of mind on the day he was killed.
You don't suppress an important piece of information when only one side of the story is being reported by the media, which is generally terrified of any racial situation. Then there is the looting. Disgraceful! The people rioting and looting are dishonoring the memory of Michael Brown and his grieving family, they are insulting them. On Monday night 78 people were taken into custody, and we believe about 30 of them have criminal records.
Only four out of the 78 are from Ferguson, many of the others are trouble-makers. But the liberal media will never report that, nor will they report the true picture of criminal justice in the United States. In 2012, there were about 12-million arrests in the USA, but just over 400 fatal police shootings.
And Al Sharpton has the nerve to insult the American police community, men and women who risk their lives protecting us? This charlatan has the gall to do that, and NBC News pays him? My God, why is this acceptable? Also on MSNBC, another agitator named Michelle Bernard said, 'There is a war on black boys in this country.'
The truth is that 91% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks, yet that woman tries to mislead folks by accusing American law enforcement of shooting down young black men in the streets.
The racial agitators apparently believe Michael Brown was trying to surrender when Officer Wilson shot him dead. MSNBC put a person on the air who said Mr. Brown was shot in the back. That turns out to be false, according to an autopsy. We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blowout fracture of his eye socket. We are only reporting the alleged injury to demonstrate that there will be much more to come in this case.
That is why there is an investigation, and a grand jury, and a trial process. But the race hustlers don't care what really happened, they want Officer Wilson punished. And he should be punished if he murdered Michael Brown. But Wilson is entitled to the presumption of innocence, something Al Sharpton will never give him because Sharpton only cares about his own self-aggrandizement. If he has to stoke racial hatred to get that, that's what he'll do.
Finally, the president himself. He was completely correct to call for calm in Missouri. But now the president should step aside and allow his own Justice Department - headed by Eric Holder, certainly sympathetic to Michael Brown - to uncover the facts. As you saw with the O.J. Simpson acquittal, our justice system can be flawed.
But it's all we have, it's the only thing separating us from the anarchy that Al Sharpton and others want to impose. What happened to Michael Brown should never happen to any American, and what happened after his death should never happen in this country. But it is happening, and only the truth will overcome the chaos.
He uses the stats to show the numbers, which is just wrong, it's not as if a company makes 4 bad products out of 100, so that is acceptable. This is unjustified killing by white police against blacks, 1 is too many. How many is ok with O'Reilly, 5? 10? 20? What say you O'Reilly? Your stats argument is insane, we are talking about human life, not a faulty widget, you are a joke, a racist right-wing joke.
Then James Carville and Bob Beckel were on to evaluate the Talking Points Memo.
Beckel said this: "There's not a lot to argue about. The people who have perpetrated most of these crimes are not from Ferguson, and my guess is that many of them don't know Michael Brown's name. But black and white Americans take exactly the opposite view of what happened. Black Americans think the officer probably murdered him, they are used to not being treated fairly and to being harassed by the police."
Carville suggested that black Americans have good reasons to be suspicious of police, saying this: "They live in a world where they're more likely to be stopped by the police and where there is discrimination. People have a right to jump to conclusions, you can't suppress people's First Amendment rights to express their opinions."
And btw, if the cop is innocent why are they keeping him in hiding and not letting him speak to the media, why is he not telling his version of what happened. Could it be they are coaching him what to say to match they story they plan to use at the grand jury or the trial. Why are the cops keeping the full autopsy secret, answer that O'Reilly. If they did nothing wrong why hide all the facts. The cops clearly lied in the other St. Louis shooting, so we know they lie.
O'Reilly mentions none of that, all he does is slam blacks for protesting, and slam the media for doing their job and reporting it. Bill O'Reilly is scum.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, he said this: "Americans do not like the racial hustlers and the exploitation of this situation. Yes, there is a lot of it in the media, but that does not mean that a majority of Americans are not appalled. We do not know what happened that day. We haven't heard from the officers, we haven't seen witnesses on the stand, everybody is jumping to conclusions. That includes Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who said a 'vigorous prosecution' must be pursued. He is presuming that a crime has been committed."
O'Reilly said this: "The media is terrified to go up against the grievance industry for fear of being branded a 'racist' by Sharpton and the other zealots."
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, they simply want the police to release all the information, tell them what they know. They just want the truth, because as we have seen the police investigate their own people and they rarely ever find they did anything wrong. In Wisconsin a teen was shot to death by the police and they found that in the last 50 years only one cop was ever put on trial for wrongful shootings, so they justify them all.
Then O'Reilly had Patrick Lynch of the NYC Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, who is clearly biased, he spoke about another racial controversy. Last month 43-year-old Eric Garner, a 350-pound asthmatic black man, died during a struggle with police.
Lynch said this: "Al Sharpton is trying to take this tragedy, and raise his profile, as he always does. He's also trying to take due process away from the police officer accused. We're just saying that all decisions should be based on the facts, not the emotion. If you watch some of the networks, you would think Al Sharpton is king of the world, but you have to take a step back and look at his history!"
Which is going to trial, the cops will be charged, and the coroner has ruled it a homicide. So it looks like Sharpton is right, and they wrongly chocked the guy to death. But the cops do not see it that way, they think it's ok to choke people to death just because you are in law enforcement.
And finally, Mike Tobin reported live from Ferguson, he said this: "The streets are pretty empty now, but it's not dark yet. I was talking to young people about the visit of Eric Holder and they either don't know that he's here or don't care. They don't think his showing up here is going to do anything for their cause. The people out here marching believe that Michael Brown was just the lighting rod that got them out here, they believe the mistreatment has been going on for a long time."
More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 21, 2014 - 11:30am
And of course O'Reilly ignores it because it shows the economy is doing better and it makes President Obama look good. It also shows his economic policies are working, and it proves O'Reilly is lying to you when he says they are not, and that the economy is a disaster because of the liberal policies Obama has put in place, even though the facts show O'Reilly is wrong, he keeps saying it because he is a right-wing propagandist.
US home construction jumps 15.7 percent in July
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. home construction rebounded in July, rising to the fastest pace in eight months and offering hope that housing has regained momentum after two months of declines.
Construction increased 15.7 percent in July to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.09 million homes, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. That was the fastest pace since November and followed declines of 4 percent in June and 7.4 percent in May.
Applications for building permits, considered a good sign of future activity, also showed strength in July, advancing 8.1 percent to an annual rate of 1.05 million, after declines of 3.1 percent in June and 5.1 percent in May.
The July rebound reflected strength in single-family home construction, which rose 8.3 percent, and in apartment construction, which was up 33 percent.
O'Reilly Ignoring Other St. Louis Police Shooting Story
By: Steve - August 21, 2014 - 10:30am
And this one is all on video, we can see exactly what happened. Here is what I saw, a young black man on a sidewalk, they say he had shoplifted from a store and the police were called. Someone is filming it, the police pull up and the young black man walks towards them telling them to shoot him with a knife in his hand, so the two white cops shoot him 12 times.
He is dead, and while he is laying dead on the sidewalk one cop puts handcuffs on him while the other cop is still pointing his gun at the dead body. You can even hear the guy who filmed it saying he is dead, and asking why they are handcuffing him and why the other cop is still pointing his gun at the dead man.
In my opinion this goes beyond justified force, they could have used a taser gun, they could have used a billy club to knock him out, and they could have used the training they get to disarm him. And btw, the man had mental problems and he had a steak knife.
I mean c'mon, I could have disarmed the guy and I am not a trained policeman. And the worst part is the police lied, they said he came at them with a knife in a overhand grip and was shot when he got 4 feet from them, which is a lie, both his hands were at his side and they shot him when he got roughly 10 feet from them.
And to the 2 e-mailers that said I was anti-cop, you are wrong. I support the police and I have friends that are policeman, one of them is a veteran police officer that I went to school with. I do not have a problem with the police, I have a problem with white cops shooting black kids, they do not shoot white kids, and you never hear of black cops shooting black kids.
The police are trained to disarm people, and they are trained to use non-lethal force before shooting to kill. They could have also shot him in the leg, and they did not, they shot to kill.
Here is the story from the Huffington Post:
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department released cell phone footage Wednesday of the police shooting of Kajieme Powell, a 25-year-old black man killed on Tuesday in St. Louis, according to St. Louis Public Radio.
A convenience store owner called 911 on Tuesday when he suspected Powell stole drinks and donuts from his shop, according to a recording of the call. Another woman called to report Powell was acting erratically and had a knife in his pocket.
Two officers in a police SUV responded to the calls, the cell phone video shows. When the officers got out of their vehicle, Powell walked in their direction, yelling and telling them to shoot him already.
St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said Tuesday that both of the officers opened fire on Powell when he came within a three or four feet of them holding a knife "in an overhand grip."
But the newly released cell phone footage undermines the statement, showing Powell approaching the cops, but not coming as close as was reported, with his hands at his side. The officers began shooting within 15 seconds of their arrival, hitting Powell with a barrage of bullets.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department released the video and 911 calls, telling St. Louis Public Radio that it plans to act transparently.
The shooting death occurred less than four miles from where Michael Brown was fatally shot by a police officer in the suburb of Ferguson on Aug. 9.
The St. Louis Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post.
Warning: The below video includes graphic content.
St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson spoke to CNN's Don Lemon on Wednesday evening about a newly-released video of officers fatally shooting 25-year-old Kajieme Powell on Tuesday.
After they released the video, police have been criticized for using force so quickly. The video shows police confronting Powell after a 911 caller said he had a knife. Dotson initially said Powell had come within three or four feet of police while holding the knife in an "overhand grip," but his arms are down in the video.
On CNN, Dotson acknowledged that Powell's hands were down at the time of the shooting. But he noted Powell was moving toward the officers, and said he was brandishing a knife close enough for it to be considered a lethal weapon.
"The officers did what I think you or I would do, they protected their life in that situation," Dotson said.
Lemon and fellow CNN host Chris Cuomo asked Dotson whether police could have done something else, such as using a taser, particularly since the man was known to have psychological issues.
"Certainly a taser is an option that's available to the officers, but tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that taser misses, that individual continues on and hurts an officer."
Now in my opinion these cops were trigger happy and just waiting to use those guns they target practice with all the time. They did not try any non-lethal force, no tasers, no billy clubs, no nothing. They just pulled up and shot the guy 12 times within a minute of getting there, it was ridiculous. They could have tackled him, one could have grabbed his arm and the other could have clubbed him. Maybe one of the cops gets cut a little, but it does not look to me that they were in fear for their life from a mentally handicapped man with a steak knife.
Instead they pull up and draw their guns ready to shoot, then they shot him 12 times. This is not justified, and if I were these two cops I would be looking for a good lawyer real fast.
More Racist Republican Idiots Speak Out On Ferguson Protesters
By: Steve - August 21, 2014 - 10:00am
And they wonder why people think they are racist, because they keep saying racist things and always opposing anything blacks and mexicans do. Now two more right-wing idiots have made racist statements about the protesters in Ferguson Missouri. This is the Republican racism O'Reilly denies, it's right here, but O'Reilly ignores it all.
Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher posted a racist graphic on his Facebook page Wednesday, it said this:
The best way to end the rioting and looting in Ferguson...
Have a job fair....
They'll scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on!
Earth to Joe the idiot racist, stuff like this is why Republicans are called racists, and it's another reason why 98% of blacks vote Democratic. Keep it up idiot, you will guarantee no Republicans ever get any black votes.
And he is not alone, another Republican Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit also called the protesters in Ferguson roaches. So now it looks like a Republican line, because they said almost the very same thing. Hoft said this on his Twitter feed:
Breaking: Reporters robbed and roughed up by #Ferguson Mob - Protesters scatter like roaches. @gatewaypundit
In case you may not know it, calling black people roaches is racist, maybe they are just too stupid to understand that, but I doubt it. They are most likely proud racists and they do not care if they are seen as racist, in fact, most likely all their followers loved what they said and agree with it. Because there is a culture of racism in the Republican party, no matter how many times O'Reilly denies it.
The Tuesday 8-19-14 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review
By: Steve - August 20, 2014 - 11:30am
There was no TPM because the biased right-wing stooge Eric Bolling was hosting again for O'Reilly. Bolling started the show with the latest from Ferguson Missouri.
Fox News correspondent Steve Harrigan reported from Ferguson, saying this: "There were 78 arrests, and some of them came from as far away as California and New York. Police are concerned that rioters are using the demonstrations as a cover to launch attacks against police. But at the same time, there are a lot of demonstrators who are trying to keep the peace and trying to keep people on the sidewalks."
Notice the bias from Harrigan, he said some of them were from California and New York. This is dishonest and misleading, because he did not give the actual numbers. Here they are, of the 78 people arrested, all of them but THREE were from Missouri. That's right, only 3 of them were from New York and California, and Fox News is trying to make it look like it was a lot, as in SOME.
Harrigan also said this: "This movement may go national on Thursday with a 'day of rage,' and it looks like Monday will be the funeral for Michael Brown, which will be a major event as well."
Then Bishop Edwin Bass was on, who has been trying to restore calm in Ferguson. He said this: "We have a number of clergy out in the community, and we are trying to speak to both law enforcement and the protesters. We hope it will bear some fruit, it wouldn't be a good idea to just sit back and let things take care of themselves."
Then Kirsten Powers was on to talk about Attorney General Eric Holder, who is heading to Ferguson Wednesday, where he'll oversee the federal investigation into the death of Michael Brown.
Bolling asked Powers if Holder can be impartial, which is a stupid and biased question, and Powers said this: "Absolutely, I don't know why he wouldn't be. There is a history of racial discrimination in this country and you seem offended when Eric Holder acknowledges that. The Missouri governor asked the Justice Department to get involved and Holder is the head of the Justice Department."
Powers also said this: "People are wondering what happened and why we've been very slow to get the facts on this case. There are so many contradictory stories and that is not helping the situation."
Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the judicial process in Ferguson.
Wiehl said this: "That's why a grand jury is convened. You bring in all these eyewitnesses and the autopsy reports, and the grand jury looks at whether there is probable cause to hand down an indictment. They will try to determine whether the officer used 'excessive force' when he shot Michael Brown."
Guilfoyle said this: "Was the officer fearing bodily injury or death, was his life in danger, did he think this was an individual who was capable of committing more violence? That is very important because all of this happened in a matter of seconds and the officer has a right to defend himself."
Then Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn were on to talk about the media coverage of Ferguson, who are also biased, so they are not exactly impartial judges.
Kurtz said this: "This media invasion in Ferguson, is inflaming the situation because all the agitators want the exposure. And some of the correspondents are making a name for themselves, they're openly siding with the protesters. It's become a nightly reality show. You have MSNBC acting as the Michael Brown defense network, and then you have conservatives who are defending the police officer."
Ashburn disagreed and applauded the overall reporting, saying this: "Are they supposed to not do their jobs? Reporters are sent there to cover both sides of the story, even at the risk of their lives. Yes, there are some cable pontificators who are pitting both sides against the other, but there are journalists on the streets who are doing a good job."
What is really funny is people at Fox slamming journalists for bias and bad reporting, when they are the most biased and bad journalists in the media, it's like a bank robber telling other people not to rob banks.
Most of the media is doing their job in Ferguson, it's called journalism, the stooges at Fox just defend the cops because they are mostly white. That's not journalism, it's partisan bias. Fox defends the cops, even though they are most likely in the wrong, simply because they are white and the protesters are black. When the protesters are white Fox is on their side and they are great Americans, but when they are black Fox is against them and they are bad Americans.
Then another Fox stooge Mike Tobin was on with the very latest from Ferguson.
Tobin said this: "The authorities have put up a big chain link fence around the QuikTrip, which will prevent people from congregating. That seems to be the strategy - don't let people congregate and you won't have the trouble boiling up."
Which is a violation of their constitutional right to peaceable assembly, but of course Fox does not care because they are mostly black protesters.
Tobin also commented on the news that a St. Louis cop shot and killed another black man on Tuesday, saying this: "A lot of people are accepting the fact that the suspect did go at the officers with a knife, but they keep saying there were non-lethal options like tear gas or a shot in the leg. This goes back to the pre-conceived conclusion that the officers are out to harm the people."
Bingo, why shot them in the head when a leg shot would stop them. Not to mention tear gas or other non-lethal options. It's clear that there is a bias and a hatred towards blacks from white cops, that is why they keep shooting and killing them, while not shooting and killing white kids. But O'Reilly and Fox deny that, because conservatives defend the police no matter what when it involves black people, because they are racists, plain and simple.
State GOP Leader Calls Ferguson Voting Booth Disgusting
By: Steve - August 20, 2014 - 10:30am
Tuesday, the Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party, Matt Wills, spoke with Breitbart regarding reports that voter registration booths had been set up in Ferguson. He was talking about civil rights activists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who have used the protests in Ferguson over the death of Mike Brown to convince local residents to register to vote.
Which did not sit well with Wills and the state's GOP. When contacted by Breitbart to give an opinion on this, Wills said the following:
WILLS: "If that's not fanning the political flames, I don't know what is. I think it's not only disgusting but completely inappropriate."
Which is just ridiculous, and a totally racist statement. Because what they are doing is getting people registered to vote, because the Mayor is white and ran unopposed. It's ridiculous to have a white mayor in a city that is 70% black, especially one who does not care about blacks and was on tv lying that everyone supports him, which is just laughable.
One of the main complaints from black Ferguson residents in the aftermath of Brown's shooting is that they feel shutout of the political process and major decisions affecting them. Despite African-Americans making up 70% of the town's population, the mayor is white, six out of seven members of the school board are white (the other one is Hispanic) and nearly every other elected official in the town is white.
The school system's superintendent, a black man, was suspended without explanation by the school board. He later resigned. The police department has only 3 black officers out of a force of 53.
Sharpton told the black people of Ferguson that if they want to affect change, they need to get to the polls and vote. He loudly condemned the 12 percent voter turnout by black residents during his speech at a rally Sunday. If they want more African-Americans in positions of political power they need to register to vote and get involved. Sharpton put his money where his mouth is and, along with others, set up the voter registration booths in and around the major protest areas.
Basically, if young black people are going to come out and demonstrate, then they should also be given the tools to affect real change.
However, Wills, obviously speaking on behalf of many Republicans, not only in Missouri but this country, feel that this is awful and disgusting. I am shocked I didn't see him quoted as calling Jackson and Sharpton race hustlers, as O'Reilly does, which is also racist. In his mind, civil rights activists shouldn't use an event that is largely happening due to the long-standing racial and political issues affecting a specific area to raise awareness with the people who are most affected.
They need to be solemn and respectful and not try to incite young black people to take any action towards their future. In other words, do what white Republicans want them to do, nothing.
The racist GOP leader Wills also does not think the Mike Brown tragedy has anything to do with race, and he wishes people would stop bringing it up, saying this:
WILLS: "This is not just a tragedy for the African American community this is a tragedy for the Missouri community as well as the community of what we call America. Injecting race into this conversation and into this tragedy, not only is not helpful, but it doesn't help a continued conversation of justice and peace."
Which is also laughable, because it is all about race, it's about a white cop shooting and killing an unarmed black kid in a mostly black city with mostly white cops. This Wills is a joke and he sounds just like O'Reilly, they are both clueless racist Republicans and neither one of them have any business talking about black issues or problems.
Especially O'Reilly, who looks more and more like a racist right-wing fool every time he talks about blacks and their issues. Here is a tip for Wills and O'Reilly, stop saying racist things, then people will stop calling you a racist.
Real Journalsim From Ferguson: Something O'Reilly Knows Nothing About
By: Steve - August 20, 2014 - 10:00am
Here is what you call real journalism, a report from a journalist in Ferguson Missouri who is there to report the actual facts, not the spin you get from right-wing talking heads on vacation like Bill O'Reilly.
Just after 10 p.m. local time in Ferguson, Missouri Monday night, CNN's Jake Tapper asked his cameraman to take a step back and zoom out so he could highlight what he clearly thought was the absurdity of the situation on the ground.
With the National Guard and police sent in to disperse what appeared to be almost entirely peaceful protesters, an incensed Tapper told viewers what was really going on.
TAPPER: I want to show you this, okay? To give you an idea of what's going on. The protesters have moved all the way down there... they're all the way down there. Nobody is threatening anything. Nobody is doing anything.
None of the stores here that I can see are being looted. There is no violence.
Now I want you to look at what is going on in Ferguson, Missouri, in downtown America, okay? These are armed police, with -- not machine guns -- semi-automatic rifles, with batons, with shields, many of them dressed for combat. Now why they're doing this? I don't know.
Because there is no threat going on here. None that merits this. There is none, okay?
Absolutely there have been looters, absolutely over the last nine days there’s been violence, but there is nothing going on on this street right now that merits this scene out of Bagram. Nothing.
So if people wonder why the people of Ferguson, Missouri are so upset, this is part of the reason. What is this? This doesn't make any sense.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, until you put your feet on the ground in Ferguson and do some real journalism, shut up. Nobody cares what you have to say about it from your vacation, because you are a liar, a biased right-wing liar.
NYPD Ray Kelly Slams Ferguson Police: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - August 19, 2014 - 11:50am
Here is even more evidence Bill O'Reilly is ignoring a lot of the story about the Ferguson protests. The NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly slammed the Ferguson police for racism, and for their lack of training. And notice that O'Reilly never says one word about the people in Ferguson being 70% black, with 53 cops, only 3 are black. O'Reilly ignores all that, because he is a biased and racist hack.
The guy who basically created the stop-and-frisk policy calls out the Ferguson Police Department as a racist organization, as well as incompetent and unprofessional, that is a big deal.
It is "mind-boggling" that the Ferguson Police Department is overwhelmingly white, former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly told Bloomberg News, and called for the force to increase its diversity. (The department has 53 officers, with only 3 of them African-American. Ferguson is 70% African-American.)
Other things that are mind-boggling to Kelly, who served nearly 14 years as New York City's police commissioner: that the Ferguson police are not even "trained in policing tactics," or tactics that even the military would use: "Military don't do that; that's not in their core mission."
He also criticized Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson for profoundly messing up the entire situation by not immediately releasing the name of the cop who killed Michael Brown, and dragging the fact-finding process out for days.
"You tell them what you know and tell them what you don't know, rather than dribbling it out," he said, adding that the more information a community had about a controversial event, the further it would go towards "quelling or lessening disturbances."
Sadly, we can't go back in time and turn the Ferguson Police Department into a competent organization that can effectively police a small town: "The toothpaste is out of the tube here," Kelly reiterated. "There"s lots of things that should have been done differently, and you have to live with them."
There you have it folks, Ray Kelly is saying the Ferguson Police Department is not a competent organization that can effectively police a small town. But you never hear any of this from O'Reilly, all he does is slam the protesters, the journalists reporting on it, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson.
And btw Kelly's tenure as Police Commissioner under Mayor Michael Bloomberg saw the crime rate in New York City drop to a 50-year low, but also garnered criticism for what many saw as race-driven tactics to achieve that end. And even he is saying they are racist, and that they do not know what they are doing.
But if you watch the Factor for your news you do not know any of this, because O'Reilly does not report any of it.
Dish TV Has One Big Problem
By: Steve - August 19, 2014 - 11:30am
I know this is off topic for my blog but I wanted to report this for the people who might be thinking about getting Dish tv.
Every time it rains you lose your signal, a big pop up windown comes on the tv screen that says partial signal loss, and the picture and sound are gone, or it will say complete signal loss and the picture and sound are gone.
This can last anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes, or longer, depending on how long the rain storm lasts. When I was living with my Father and we had comcast, this never happened, the cable never went out.
I am sitting here now and it is raining, and of course the signal for Dish tv is out. And they sure do not tell you any of this in the million commercials a day they run on every channel.
And let me tell you something else, we called to get internet added to the Dish package my landlord already has and they wanted $50.00 a month, with a 2 year contract, which was so ridiculous we just hung up on them. I called comcast and got internet for $19.99 a month for the first 6 months, that goes up to $34.95 a month after 6 months. And no contract at all, none, you can cancel it at any time.
They do not tell you any of this in their commercials, but they do offer you $50.00 if you refer someone to Dish, which I would never do, even though I need the money, because it is not good, for the above reasons.
The channel selection is good for the price, but you lose your signal every time it rains and their internet deal is way overpriced and just ridiculous. If I had a choice, I would go with comcast over Dish 100% of the time.
The Monday 8-18-14 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review
By: Steve - August 19, 2014 - 11:00am
Their was no TPM because the far-right Eric Bolling filled in for O'Reilly, proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased Republican for letting Bolling host his show, and not an Independent, or ever a Democrat.
Bolling started Monday's show with the latest news from Ferguson, Missouri, where Governor Jay Nixon has called in the National Guard to deal with rioting and looting. Bill O'Reilly called in to talk about the deteriorating situation.
O'Reilly said this: "The facts tell the story. According to stats from the FBI, there were 12-million arrests in the United States in 2012 and the police were involved in about 420 deaths. So this is an infinitesimal situation and those people who say the police are hunting down young black men are lying and grossly insulting law enforcement across the country. And in Ferguson, as far as we can tell, there has never been a police shooting!"
Which is total right-wing spin from O'Reilly, because no matter what the stats are he never mentions that these white cops are only shooting unarmed black kids, they never shoot unarmed white kids, O'Reilly ignores that.
O'Reilly also said this: "Everyone should know that most television journalists are terrified of being labeled 'racist,' so they will never challenge any kind of smear. For example, MSNBC put on a woman who claimed that Michael Brown was shot in the back. That was a lie but it was not challenged by MSNBC. I am very upset that Michael Brown's family and friends have to go through this, but when people are trying to exploit a case you have to put the facts out. And the facts are that this young man did something wrong and was walking down the middle of the street and a confrontation happened. We don't know why, we don't know how, but the justice system has to play out. Let's have a transparent investigation."
And as usual O'Reilly lied about MSNBC, they did report the facts, that he was not shot in the back. O'Reilly has his facts, that are not facts, just his opinion, all the facts are not in. But we do know an unarmed black kid was shot and killed by a white cop, and that they never shoot and kill unarmed white kids.
Then Juan Williams was on to talk about how black and white Americans are deeply divided over Michael Brown's death and the ensuing protests. Eric asked Fox News analyst Juan Williams about the involvement of Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther Party.
Williams said this: "The New Black Panthers are a bunch of fools, but they're a small element that doesn't deserve our attention. They say crazy things, but it plays to fears. There are fears in the black community because a young boy was shot six times, which seems excessive, and there are fears in the white community of crime that comes disproportionately from young black males."
Williams also suggested that officer Darren Wilson probably overreacted, saying this: "The local police have not come forward with their version of events. Even if this was a large kid running at you, why do you have to shoot him six times?"
Then Jonathan Turley was on to talk about the New York Times reporter James Risen who has labeled President Obama "the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation."
Turley said this: "I voted for President Obama the first time around, and he certainly didn't create this problem of the rising 'uber-presidency.' But under President Obama it has reached a critical tipping point. He has essentially become a government unto himself when he asserts these unilateral actions. I agree with James Risen's assessment that President Obama has launched a comprehensive attack on press freedom. It's not just the surveillance of reporters, but it's his use of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and reporters. He is using executive power to an extent that is almost Nixonian."
Then Republican Congressman Paul Ryan was on to talk about the challenges facing America.
Ryan said this: "What's going on in Ferguson shows the underpinnings of racial grievances that are real and true. Of all the things we need to do, we should try to heal our country and come together. Those of us who are leaders should be offering solutions, and that's what I'm trying to do. The American ideal is that the condition of your birth doesn't determine the outcome of your life, you can make it in this country. But a lot of people don't see that any more, and we need to reignite that. This book is about how to reclaim this great country that is on the wrong track right now."
Except nobody likes his solutions, his budget plan was a joke and barely passed the House along party lines, 10 Republicans even voted against it. He was also a disaster as a Vice President with Mitt Romney. Saturday Night Live even did comedy skits about him. His budgets are laughable and will never pass the Senate, let alone get approved by President Obama. His solutions are ridiculous and will never happen.
Then Anti-war activist Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, was on to talk about ISIS and what the USA can do to deter that band of terrorists.
Benjamin said this: "U.S. involvement is counter-productive, because it's emboldening ISIS and getting new recruits from around the world. It's telling the Sunnis that the U.S. is supporting the very repressive Shi'a government in Baghdad. We need to make sure that there's a real change in the government in Baghdad so that the political grievances of the Sunni population are heard. We invested $20-billion in Iraqi security forces and they are unable to fight because they aren't invested in a clean and democratic government."
And finally, the Republican Mike Tobin from Fox was on with a live update from Ferguson.
Tobin said this: "The number of people has been thinner today, but as the sun is going down the numbers are picking up. Tonight there will be more police officers than in previous nights when they tried to pull back the officers so there would be less friction. That didn't work, we had violent clashes every night. So now they're allowing the demonstrators to come out and march, but the catch is that they have to keep marching. They aren't allowing people or groups to loiter."
Watch Out: Republicans Are Creating Fake News Websites
By: Steve - August 19, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about any of it, because he is a Republican and he supports them doing the fake news websites to counter what he calls liberal propaganda.
Recently, Jason Easley discussed the dangers of conflating trustworthy media with media that tells us what we want to hear. He says something important about the danger of falling into the same trap that people who rely on Fox or Rush Limbaugh for their news and ideas.
Aside from understanding that propaganda comes from all areas of the political spectrum, it's as important to understand the tactics involved. The more obvious tactics include editing comments and images to distort their original content and context. Another obvious trick, favored by the Koch brothers, is buying deceptive ads where actors are presented as victims of the Affordable Care Act.
Since it is election season and the GOP's attempt at re-branding was a flop, they are focusing on what they do best -- spreading lies and misinformation.
The NRCC has been busy creating over 20 fake news websites. They look like they could be new sites, but the content reads like something you'd see in a political ad or on Fox (which in many ways is one long political ad).
All the NRCC websites come from the same domain: www.electionupdate2014.com. The sites are called (name of City) Update. They contain "analysis" of a Democratic opponent's record that reads like a partisan hatchet job.
One example is a site called "San Antonio Update."
The site has the appearance of authenticity at least until you go to the bottom of the page where in very small letters, the NRCC comes clean, acknowledging that it paid for the site:
Obviously, the NRCC is hoping people won't read the full content, let alone they see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.
Republicans may be thinking they have a first amendment right to lie to voters. However, in his own advertising one Democrat points to the obvious shortcoming of fake news sites, saying this:
Aside from being unethical, it's a dirty trick that is also pretty insulting. The implication here is that our opponent and his friends think Texans are too dumb to know the difference between a real news website and their fake one.
The fact is political ads are part of the landscape, but most of us recognize that advertising isn't news. Advertising is intended to sell a product, a service or in the political context a candidate, a political party or a position on a political issue. That means in the best of circumstances, political ads will emphasize the positive in a chosen political candidate and the negative in an opponent.
While there are rules that preclude deception in most forms of advertising, the same is not true of political advertising. As the Supreme Court ruled, political speech that includes outright lies is protected speech under the First Amendment.
News, at least as most of us understand it, is supposed to be factual and it is supposed to expose lies, misinformation and distortions. That's what makes this use of fake news sites so insidious. And O'Reilly, who claims to oppose dishonest tactics by political parties and the media says nothing, he is silent, because the Republican party is doing it.
Lawmakers Try To End Transfer Of Military Equipment To Police
By: Steve - August 18, 2014 - 11:00am
WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers alarmed by the aggressive police response to protests in Ferguson, Missouri, are pushing for Congress to limit the Pentagon's ability to provide civilian police departments with military equipment such as armored vehicles designed for the battlefield.
Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson wrote colleagues in the House of Representatives this week seeking support for legislation to curtail a program that passes surplus equipment from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to municipal U.S. police forces, free of charge.
Because of the program "our local police are quickly beginning to resemble paramilitary forces," Johnson said.
Three other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, to ask for a committee hearing on "recent incidents of local law enforcement using excessive force." They pointed to events in Ferguson, where demonstrators have protested the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager by police, and elsewhere.
The "brutal force" used against the Ferguson demonstrators, including the use of riot gear, armored vehicles, and tear gas and rubber bullets, raised concerns that "local law enforcement is out of control," the lawmakers said.
The letter was written by Representatives John Conyers, Steve Cohen and Bobby Scott.
Days of protests over Brown's death have cast a spotlight on racial tensions in greater St. Louis, where civil rights groups have complained in the past of racial profiling by police.
A House Judiciary Committee spokeswoman on Friday stopped short of promising a hearing on the Ferguson events, but said Goodlatte supported efforts to conduct a thorough investigation into the events surrounding Brown's death.
"The committee will be monitoring the results of the investigation and surrounding events," the spokeswoman said.
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, expressed shock on Friday at the "military-like" police response in Ferguson. "Equipping police officers with the tools of war does nothing to repair a torn community," he said.
A Johnson spokesman said on Friday he would introduce his bill when Congress returns to work in September. It would limit the type of equipment that the Pentagon can transfer to police.
Johnson's letter said numerous cities and towns around the country had acquired free MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) armored personnel vehicles from war zones in recent months.
"Unprecedented amounts of military equipment" were given away not only to police in cities, but on college campuses, Johnson wrote. "Ohio State University recently acquired an MRAP. Apparently college kids are getting too rowdy."
The issue was already percolating in Congress before the Ferguson events. In June, the majority Republican House of Representatives voted 355-62 against a proposal to block funding for the military equipment transfers to police.
O'Reilly Slams Al Sharpton For Going To Ferguson
By: Steve - August 18, 2014 - 10:00am
Even though he was asked to come by the family of the kid who was shot. And notice that O'Reilly never slams anyone who is white who goes to protest something, he only slams blacks who do it. And he never says a word about the racist and vile things Ted Nugent says about Obama and other Democrats, he ignores it and acts like it never happened.
Bill O'Reilly was supposed to be on vacation Friday night. But he was apparently so angry over the coverage of the situation in Ferguson, Missouri that he decided to call into a special primetime edition of The Five to vent over what he sees as a false narrative being put forth by what he claims are "racial agitators."
When in fact they are just trying to give national attention to an injustice by the police. To be honest, O'Reilly is a racist and he does not like it when blacks protest over something a white man did.
O'Reilly said this: "I want the Factor audience and everybody else it know that this is just bull, just bull," O’Reilly said via phone.
Even though it was not the Factor audience, it was a special edition of the Five. And it's not bull, it's a valid protest over the wrongful shooting of an unarmed black kid.
O'Reilly said he condemned people for trying to convey the truth of what caused a police officer to shoot and kill 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown when they have "no blanking idea" what happened.
Which is just wrong, because we do know what happened, the Police even told us what happened, and there are also witnesses.
"When the story first broke we were told that the victim was just a regular guy," O’Reilly said later. "Now we know he is not a regular guy. We see it on tape. We saw what he did in that convenience store. He's not a regular guy."
O'Reilly was referring to photos and video released by Ferguson police that allegedly shows Brown stealing cigarillos from a convenience store shortly before he was killed.
When Bob Beckel pointed out that the cop did not know Brown was a suspect when he stopped him, O'Reilly brushed that notion aside, saying, "We don't know what he knew."
Which is another lie from O'Reilly, because the Ferguson police chief gave a press conference and flat out said the cop did not know Brown was a suspect in the shoplifting case. And I need to say again it was not a robbery, it was simple shoplifting, not a robbery. So we do know what the cop knew, he did not know Brown was a suspect in the shoplifting of cigars.
The police chief said Brown was stopped for walking in the middle of the street and blocking traffic, so O'Reilly was lying.
O'Reilly also said this: "Now I'm hearing from the National Action Network, which is a despicable organization, that this is a smear that they put out of this video of the victim assaulting a clerk and stealing some stuff in a convenience store. There comes a point where we know what your up to," he said to the racial agitators out there.
And that is also wrong, because we now know the justice department told the Ferguson police not to release the video, and that it would not be admissable as evidence if there was a trial, which there will not be because the kid is dead now. It was released to make the kid look bad, even though it had nothing to do with his shooting, or the cop confronting him.
So O'Reilly has almost all the facts wrong, and is lying to smear Sharpton, proving once again what a biased right-wing racist he is. If this involved a white kid and a black man shooting him O'Reilly would be defending the white kid, but when it's a black kid O'Reilly is on the white guys side.
Later, O’Reilly invoked the name of MSNBC's Al Sharpton specifically, saying this: "I hate this 'No Justice, No Peace' slogan. I hate this," he said. "Whose justice are you talking about? Yours? Al Sharpton's justice? If you want Al Sharpton's justice, you are going to have anarchy in this country."
Yeah, O'Reilly hates it because he is a racist who does not care that white cops are killing unarmed black kids, while they never kill unarmed white kids.
Actor Russell Brand also had a message for Bill O’Reilly this week, this time tackling his coverage of the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri following the fatal shooting of 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown by police.
"Bill's racism comes bubbling out all the time," Brand said after playing clips of him saying he trusts Attorney General Eric Holder to handle the situation appropriately "in this case."
"It's almost, Bill, like you're living in a really unequal, unfair society that hasn't recovered from the massive wounds of slavery and the continued inequality subjugation of the non-white population," Brand said later, responding to O'Reilly's surprise over the looting and rioting in Ferguson. "Eventually, inevitably, there will be flare ups."
Ferguson Police Ignored DOJ Warning Not To Release Brown Video
By: Steve - August 17, 2014 - 11:00am
And of course O'Reilly has not reported any of this, because he is a biased racist who defends the cops when there are black victims, even though it sure looks like the cop is guilty of an unjustified killing of an unarmed black kid.
The DOJ warned Ferguson Police not to release the video of an alleged theft Friday in their attempts to avoid taking responsibility for their previous inaction after one of their officers shot and killed Mike Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old teenager, but they did it anyway.
Ferguson Police released the video, claiming that they had received multiple freedom of information requests, tensions reared again.
This is the George Zimmerman playbook of smearing the dead victim, especially given that the police officer who shot and killed Mike Brown did not suspect him of the alleged theft at the time of his stop. The Ferguson police are so obsessed with justifying the shooting of an unarmed African-American teenager that they intentionally fanned the flames of violence by releasing the video in such a way that it was guaranteed to raise tensions.
Zimmerman got away with shooting and killing unarmed teen Trayvon Martin by smearing the victim. The Ferguson police are following the same plan. The fact that the officer who shot Michael Brown didn't know that he was a suspect in a robbery undercuts the police attempts to sell the story that Brown deserved to be shot and killed.
The Department of Justice knew what would happen if that video was released. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew what was likely to happen when the video was released. The behavior of the police department continues to confirm that one of the primary obstacles blocking the defusing of this situation remains the Ferguson Police.
Arrested Post Reporter Puts The Smackdown On Joe Scarborough
By: Steve - August 17, 2014 - 10:00am
Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery, who was arrested along with Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly in Ferguson last night, told Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough to basically shove it and be a real journalist, not a talking head in a tv studio drinking starbucks coffee.
Scarborough had scolded Lowery earlier in the morning, saying the reporter should have more readily complied with the officers. CNN's Kate Bolduan asked Lowery about Scarborough's comments on New Day, and Lowery did not hold back, saying this:
I would invite Joe Scarborough to come down to Ferguson and get out of 30 Rock where he’s sitting sipping his Starbucks, smugly.
And I say good job man, it's about time somebody told these cable tv studio talking heads to shove it and get out on the scene and do some real journalism.
I would invite him to come down and talk to the residents of Ferguson where I’ve been since Monday afternoon having tear gas and rubber bullets shot at me, having mothers and daughters crying, a 19-year-old boy crying -- he had to run and pull his 21-year-old sister out from a cloud of tear gas, thinking she was going to die.
I invite Joe Scarborough down here to do some reporting on the ground. Then maybe we can have an educated conversation about what’s happening here.
Let me be clear about this: I have little patience for talking heads. This is too important. This is a community, a community in the United States of America, where are things on fire. This community is on edge.
There’s so much happening here, and instead of putting more reporters on the ground we have people like Joe Scarborough running their mouth and have no idea what they’re talking about.
Laura Ingraham Shows Her Bias In Protest Coverage
By: Steve - August 16, 2014 - 11:00am
Laura Ingraham's opinion on the merits of a protest movement seem to vary considerably from month to month. Ingraham recently characterized protestors in Ferguson, Missouri as a "lynch mob" and downplayed the story as a "local, criminal" story, but in April the radio host helped to elevate the standoff between scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy and federal law enforcement agents while suggesting his supporters violent threats against the government constituted a simple "act of civil disobedience."
Police in Ferguson, Missouri are currently using heavy force to crack down on citizens protesting the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen, at the hands of an officer of the mostly white St. Louis County Police Department.
Journalists have been arrested on baseless or suspect justifications, and events in the St. Louis suburb have exploded into a national news story.
On August 14, conservative radio host (And O'Reilly Factor Fill-In Host) Laura Ingraham complained that the events were receiving too much attention and suggested Brown's death was nothing more than a "local, criminal" story.
Ingraham, a nationally syndicated radio host and contributor for both ABC and Fox News, blamed the media for sensationalizing and nationalizing the story, claiming the media presence "perpetuates the unrest and the discontent on the ground."
"You bring in the satellite trucks," Ingraham said, "And then people start playing to the cameras on scene."
Ingraham's disdain extended to the protestors, who she equated to a "lynch mob."
But Ingraham had a much different tone earlier this year, when racist right-wing Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to comply with court orders instructing him to remove his trespassing cattle from federal land.
Conservative media outlets (And everyone at Fox News) hyped the situation at the time, and gun-toting, (mostly white) militia members subsequently streamed into Nevada from across the country to confront federal agents of the Bureau of Land Management with threats of violence.
Which Ingraham and most of the right-wing not only supported, they promoted it as a good thing.
As some protestors set up sniper positions with guns aimed at federal officers, and others warned that enforcement efforts against Bundy would be met with violence, Ingraham appeared on Fox News to help nationalize the story and suggest the NV protestors were merely engaged in "an act of civil disobedience."
The Bundy Ranch confrontation, according to Ingraham, was the front lines of a larger, national battle against federal government land grabs, and she characterized the use of 200 agents needed to enforce the law as "a ridiculously disproportionate response."
On her radio show at the time, Ingraham even characterized Bundy's supporters as "new Freedom Riders," likening them to a renowned group of civil rights activists who protested segregation in the 1960s.
In other words, in the world of Laura Ingraham if you are a far-right Republican you are a great American to protest, but if you are a black person who is protesting you deserve to have cops in riot gear and military gear shoot tear gas and rubber bullets at you.
And one last thing, the corrupt media keeps saying Michael Brown was on video robbing a convenience store, this is a lie, stealing cigars is not robbery, it's shoplifting. Robbery is when you hold a place up with a gun or knife, or break into a house, stealing a pack of cigars is shoplifting, not robbery. And he still did not deserve to be shot to death for stealing cigars.
Two Journalists Arrested In Ferguson & O'Reilly Is Silent
By: Steve - August 16, 2014 - 10:00am
Not only were they both arrested, they were both roughed up by the police in Ferguson, and then later released with no reason given for the arrests and no charges being filed.
Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery was arrested and subsequently released by Ferguson police. Lowery called into Rachel Maddow's show to describe how he was placed in restraints and even assaulted by the cops right after he was just doing his job.
Lowery, who was arrested alongside Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly, said that journalists were using the McDonald's for the past few days as a media center. And then earlier tonight police decided to just shut it down. Lowery started to record what was going on around him.
And as he was packing up and heading out, they decided to arrest and restrain him. He had tweeted he was slammed against the soda machine, but Lowery told Maddow he wasn't hurt nearly as much as Ferguson citizens have been hurt in the past few days.
And in case there was any question of them not knowing he was a journalist, Lowery says his credentials were on his neck. Maddow observed that based on what he's describing, the police gave him "no way to avoid being arrested."
Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly spoke to MSNBC's Chris Hayes over the phone tonight minutes after he and Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery were released after being arrested by police in Ferguson, Missouri. Reilly told Hayes that he was not informed as to why he was being arrested.
Reilly explained that he was sitting in McDonald's when the SWAT team decided to just shut it down and told everyone to leave. And apparently he wasn't leaving quickly enough, because one officer "decided that he was going to help me pack and grabbed my things."
Reilly was subsequently arrested and the officer "used his finger to put a pressure point on my neck."
Reilly did not discover what he was under arrest for, or the identity of the officer who arrested him, despite repeated requests. And Reilly said this officer even "slammed my head against the glass purposefully, and then sarcastically apologized for it."
And Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it. O'Reilly has also ignored the fact that the swat team shot tear gas and rubber bullets at the protesters, even though they have a constitutional right to protest in a peaceful way, which is what they were doing. The protests were 100% peaceful, and the Ferguson police moved in on them with tear gas and rubber bullets.
But if you watch the O'Reilly Factor, you do not know about any of this, because O'Reilly does not report it. And btw, CNN and MSNBC showed live coverage of the tear gas attacks by the police, Fox did not, they showed their regular right-wing propaganda programs, the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity.
The Thursday 8-14-14 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 15, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Our Presidential Pundit. The biased and dishonest far-right hack Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: President Obama interrupted his vacation today to chime in on the racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. He said 'there is never an excuse for violence against police' and 'no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests.' The leader of the free world, with sagging approval numbers, is jumping into another local criminal justice situation before all the facts have been gathered, before authorities on the ground have completed their investigation.
And that my friends is pure 100% right-wing propaganda, none of that is true, Laura Ingraham is a spin doctor and all of what she said is biased and wrong. And O'Reilly let her host his show to say that right-wing nonsense, which means he supports her and what she said.
Remember his 'beer summit' after his silly comments on the Henry Louis Gates break-in? Or his 'If-I-had-a-son-he'd-look-like-Trayvon' remarks? These interjections have stoked racial discord in America, and have sown more distrust between minorities and local law enforcement. Think about what the president said today - while urging calm, he also intimated that the Missouri police are out of control, targeting the largely minority crowds with unreasonable force.
This is irresponsible and dangerous speculation, especially coming from the president. There is the distinct possibility that politics is really the impetus driving the president's involvement. His numbers are down and his party is looking vulnerable in November, so he switches the focus to racial injustice in Missouri and away from his policy failures to try to gin up the base. This is textbook Obama.
The country is facing serious national issues every day - a demoralized middle class, mass illegal immigration, major foreign policy quandaries. He should stop micromanaging local police and stop playing the politics of division. There is supposed to be a difference between being the president of the United States and a liberal commentator on Salon.com.
Then two Republicans Mike Tobin and St. Louis radio talk show host McGraw Milhaven were on to talk about Ferguson Missouri, with no Democratic guest on for balance.
Tobin said this: "Police Chief Thomas Jackson says his officers have come under fire from rocks and Molotov cocktails, and that the police helicopter has been fired on. He said that is what led to the amount of force that they showed here today. But if this was intended to calm things, it's had the opposite effect. Now the demonstrations are about both the death of Michael Brown and police tactics as well. Protesters feel that President Obama came down on their side and put the weight of the White House in their corner."
Which is a lie, reporters on the scene said the protesters did not throw rocks or Molotov cocktails until after the police brought out the tanks and military gear and started shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at them.
Milhaven said this: "People have been talking about police brutality for the past five days, but do you know how many people have been injured by police over the past five days? Zero! No one has been injured and the police brutality angle on this is absurd."
Which is another lie, the cops have roughed people up and they tear gassed them, among other things.
Then Howard Kurtz was on to talk about the media that have flooded to Ferguson. And no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Kurtz said this: "There does seem to be an anti-press attitude among some members of the police force, and firing tear gas at a camera crew is an attack on journalism. I am troubled by the way the national media feasts on these racially charged cases, but also by the cops arresting reporters and asking them to turn off their camera phones."
Ingraham said this: "I am not a police apologist, but in some cases the journalists are all hopped-up. Everyone is looking for a confrontation."
Which is ridiculous, what they are doing is called real journalism, something Kurtz and Ingraham know nothing about.
Then Ingraham had attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing the family of slain teenager Michael Brown on.
Crump said this: "The family was heartened, to hear President Obama address Michael and the situation in their home town. These parents are trying to deal with the reality that their son was shot multiple times by a police officer in broad daylight when he was clearly unarmed. They continue to wait for answers from the police department, but the police won't even give the name of the officer who shot their son. We want an independent autopsy because there is no way to justify doing this to this kid."
Then the best of Watters world, which was a re-run clip segment that I am not reporting on.
And that was the end of the show, Ingraham did not have a tip of the day.
O'Reilly Ignoring The Facts In Michael Brown Shooting
By: Steve - August 15, 2014 - 10:00am
There are numerous reports from a witness that the 18 year old Michael Brown had his hands up and was not a threat to the police when he was shot, and O'Reilly does not report any of it. All he does is defend the police and say the protesters do not have the facts, while he ignores what an eyewitness is saying.
Just days before he was supposed to head to college, the 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown was shot by a white police officer in his hometown of Ferguson, Missouri.
Ferguson police have yet to speak with witness Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown's friend who was with him at the time of the shooting, however NBC News interviewed the 22-year-old about the events leading up to Brown's death.
Johnson clocked the altercation with the officer at about 2 p.m. on Saturday, while he and Brown were walking in their neighborhood.
He said the confrontation quickly escalated from the officer ordering them onto the sidewalk to grabbing hold of Brown and threatening him with his weapon. After an initial shot was fired, both Brown and Johnson ran, the former ducking behind a car.
Johnson offered an emotional account of the incident, saying Brown turned to the officer with his hands in the air to explain he was unarmed but was unable to finish before the officer fired several shots at him.
Johnson said he never once heard "freeze," "stop" or "hold."
"It hurt him a lot. I could see it in his eyes."
Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, also condemned the shooting of her son, "you don't do a dog like that."
Johnson was resolute in his conclusion the officer acted unlawfully.
"It was like putting someone to execution... I definitely think he is guilty of murder."
Notice O'Reilly does not report any of that, he ignores it, while calling the protesters wrong, and not talking about the witness statement at all.
The Wednesday 8-13-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 14, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Democrats Split Over President Obama's Troubles Abroad. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we have suggested time and again, the major problem with President Obama's foreign policy is that he doesn't anticipate problems. And when they arise, he seems paralyzed. The new war in Iraq between the terrorist ISIS army and the people of that besieged country has deeply embarrassed the administration, as thousands of innocent civilians are being slaughtered.
Which is ridiculous, and nothing but lies from O'Reilly. One Democrat speaks out about the Obama foreign policy, and it was just political spin to begin with, and O'Reilly claims there is a split in the Democratic party on the Obama foreign policy.
U.S. airpower and military advisors are trying to blunt the terrorist advance, but this should have been done a long time ago. As we have reported, former Secretary of State Clinton has hammered the president over foreign policy. Tonight there's a big party on Martha's Vineyard with scores of Democratic fat cats , and Mrs. Clinton says she is going to hug President Obama. But it is clear that if she wants to be the next president, Hillary Clinton cannot embrace President Obama's foreign policy, which is in shambles.
So Mrs. Clinton will have to either say nothing or distance herself from the president. That will present problems because if President Obama gets teed off, he can hurt her presidential chances. The far left wing of the Democratic Party has already repudiated her, thinking she is too conservative. However, the Obama administration does not want a fight with Hillary Clinton, and so the Democratic Party finds itself in an awkward position.
But for everyday Americans, the real question is, 'How much damage is being done to this country because of President Obama's ineffective foreign policy?' In my opinion, tons.
It's a lie, it's not true, it's right-wing spin and propaganda from O'Reilly. The facts are that 99% of the Democratic party agree with Obama, that is not a split, and it's not even close. Kirsten Powers even said that to O'Dummy Tuesday night but he keeps calling it a split anyway, when it's not, a split is 50/50, 99/1 is not a split.
Then the two Republicans James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on with their analysis. And as usual no Democratic guests were on for balance.
Rosen said this: "Mrs. Clinton has chosen to display her distance from the president, specifically on the question of whether the U.S. should have armed the Syrian rebels early on. She says the failure to do that allowed terrorists to fill the vacuum, but the president calls that a fantasy. One problem for Mrs. Clinton is that two-and-a-half years ago she said arming the Syria rebels wasn't 'viable,' but now she says the failure to do that enabled terrorists to fill the vacuum. She will not be allowed to have it both ways."
Cameron said this: "There are a lot of things she is doing that run against the popular tone of the Democratic Party. She told the president on the phone that she wasn't attacking him, but shortly thereafter her aides put out a statement with absolutely no words of apology. So she's denying being critical while referencing their disagreements. She's bad-mouthing the president and Obama loyalists resent that, while Democrats in general see her making all the same mistakes that lost her the last race in 2008. She's like a bull in a china shop and she's breaking the china!"
What a load of dishonest right-wing garbage. Here is what Hillary is actually doing, she is pretending to slam Obama for his foreign policy to appeal to the center right voters and the Independents. When the election comes up she can say she spoke out against the Obama foreign policy, when she really supports it then, and now. It's all political, and O'Reilly, Rosen, and Cameron all know it, yet they spin out this right-wing BS that Hillary is bad-mouthing the President, it's a lie.
Then the far-right Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the Department of Homeland Security, who issued a report showing that hundreds of criminal illegal aliens were released by the Obama administration early last year. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, so the entire segment was nothing but right-wing spin.
Ingraham said this: "This administration is just not serious about enforcement, and they decided this was a good way to put pressure on politicians to pass an amnesty bill. They were saying if you don't give us amnesty it's going to endanger the public. But now 70% of Americans think illegal immigration is hurting our economy and our way of life, this issue is at a tipping point. This is not against Latinos or Mexicans, a lot of these people are here legally and are being hurt by criminal immigrants."
Then the biased pro-life Republican Kristen Waggoner was on to talk about staffers at Planned Parenthood clinics who have been caught on tape giving improper counseling to underage girls. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Waggoner, whose pro-life organization alleges that Planned Parenthood in Arizona illegally protected an 18-year-old named Tyler Kost, said this: "Mr. Kost has been indicted on 30 counts of sexual assault, some of them involving girls under 15 years of age. One 14-year-old reported her rape to Planned Parenthood and we have filed a formal complaint to have the state investigate this."
Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she screened video of a confrontation in Arizona that began when police pulled over an illegal alien. A crowd of protesters gathered around, trying to prevent his arrest. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.
MacCallum said this: "This man had been here for ten years. He was making an illegal turn when they pulled him over - he is still in custody and could be deported. There is a social network in Tucson where people notify each other and they show up when something like this happens."
MacCallum also commented on actors Mickey Rourke and Steven Seagal, both of whom have expressed great admiration for Vladimir Putin, saying this: "I would recommend that they take time to figure out what Putin's policies are, and Putin has a notorious history. So I'm going to have to put devil horns and weird mustaches on posters of these actors in my office."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting some premium feature on his website.
Cops Kill Unarmed Black Man & O'Reilly Slams The Protesters
By: Steve - August 14, 2014 - 10:00am
Talk about an outrage, this is it. Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be looking out for the little guy, he even says he is looking out for you. Has decided to slam the people who are protesting the cops killing another unarmed black man.
Tuesday night O'Reilly asked if the Black Community Should be Criticized For its Outrage Over The Shooting. He said this:
O'REILLY: "Do we as a society -- what do we do? Do we weigh in as the boy's father -- and if it were my son, I probably would have said same thing, but he's obviously talking through an emotional prism. His son is dead. He believes, probably -- I know he believes -- that it was an injustice, that it was done for nothing, it was a murder. And many, many African Americans believe that without knowing the facts. Do we criticize them, or do we remain silent?"
That implies he does know the facts, which he does not, because the police are not telling anyone the facts, they are covering it up because they most likely can not justify the shooting.
But O'Reilly automatically assumes the cops were justified, and slams the black community for the protests, when this stuff is happening more and more, and it's always to an unarmed black kid or man.
Here is a question for Bill O'Reilly. How is an unarmed teenager walking to his grandmother's house who was shot multiple times for jay-walking not a victim of injustice.
I do not care what he did, if he was unarmed and shot dead it's wrong. All we know is that he was unarmed and the cops shot him dead, so for O'Reilly to slam them for not knowing the facts is an outrage. Because he does not know any more than we do, we know the kid was unarmed and now he is dead, how can that possibly not be an injustice.
And I bet if a black man shot and killed a white kid or man O'Reilly would be outraged and support the protesters 100 percent.
The Tuesday 8-12-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 13, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Real Story Surrounding the Death of Robin Williams. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Authorities in Marin County, California have told the world that Robin Williams hanged himself in his bedroom. The media is playing the Williams story big and some believe it might be too much, but Talking Points does not believe the coverage is overdone because this is a very important story.
Then Patty Duke and Connie Francis, two stars who also suffered from depression, were on to discuss it.
Apparently Robin Williams suffered from depression, as 16-million Americans do, and it was the depression that likely caused him to take his own life. Mr. Williams was one of the last entertainment icons, meaning that most of the country knew him and his vast talent.
Today we are a fractured society, and never again will entertainers like Williams be so prominent in the nation's mind. Mr. Williams had a unique talent. I saw him at Carnegie Hall a few years ago and almost his entire act was extemporaneous, off the cuff.
Brilliance doesn't even begin to cover it. His peers knew that, they understood the giant talent of Robin Williams. It is a sad fact that many creative artists are tortured souls. Ernest Hemingway committed suicide, so did Kurt Cobain, and hundreds of other artists have destroyed themselves with drugs and alcohol.
There is a unique pressure on famous people. Everyone has high expectations of them, and it is very difficult to live as a normal human being. I met Robin Williams one time at Yankee Stadium. He seemed to be a good guy, he made everybody in the box laugh, and he was very courteous.
So the nation mourns the death of Robin Williams, and hopefully all of us will become more aware of the depression situation. It is a terrible disease, but one that can be overcome.
Francis said this: "I've been sent involuntarily to mental institutions 15 times, where you're in shackles and put in isolation. But my family finally told me to get off my behind and get going and do something about it."
Duke said this: "I just screamed, 'no, no, no.' I wondered why he, of all people, couldn't get the help he needed - perhaps his illness was as unique as his creative genius. I suffered from bipolar illness from 35 years, which was completely out of control except when I was working. I tortured my family and I was abusive to my children until finally I was treated with medication. For the first time in my life I was able to make decisions for myself."
Then the biased right-wing hack Karl Rove was on to talk about some Democrats, Hillary Clinton among them, who have been critical of President Obama's foreign policy. Even though it's rare and less than 1% of them are saying anything. And of course no Democratic guests were on for balance.
Rove said this: "Hillary Clinton wants to divorce herself from Barack Obama, whose popularity on foreign affairs is at an all-time record low. She wants to separate herself from the failures of the administration, which causes some people on the left of her party to come out against her. On the other hand, she has to somehow convince people that she should not be held responsible, even though she was Secretary of State for four years."
O'Reilly reminded Rove that the GOP's record is also unpopular, saying this: "The Republican Party's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan looks horrible to regular folks. They see Afghanistan and Iraq as not being worth it!"
And what O'Reilly did not say is that the Republican popularity approval on foreign policy is lower than Obama or any Democrats. No matter what the foreign policy is they are not going to do what we want, so it will never be popular, whoever the President is, we can not control what other countries do.
Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers were on to talk about the Democratic dissatisfaction with President Obama's foreign policy.
Powers said this: "I would not say the party is divided. Some people are criticizing him, but they are few and far between. I don't think Hillary Clinton is in sync with most Democrats on the issue of saying we should have been arming the Syrian rebels."
Crowley said this: "Americans like to win and we did win in Iraq, but now Barack Obama is in the process of losing. So the Republicans may have an opening in saying that we had the situation relatively stable, we had victory in our sights and this president has lost it."
Haha, Crowley is delusional, because we did not win in Iraq, overall we lost and it was a disaster, O'Reilly even admits it.
Then the biased Dr. Ben Carson was on to talk about the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson that has been hit by protests and looting after a police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Carson, a Tea Party favorite said this: "I think these people have not studied history. The reason Martin Luther King was so effective is because he quelled the temptation toward violence and brought a lot of attention to injustices. If in fact an injustice has been done in this case, these people are actually detracting from the injustices by rioting and hurting people. They're not helping the young man's family, and I hope there will be some leaders who will point that out to them. We need to hear from this police officer, we need to understand why he decided to shoot to kill and not shoot to stop."
What a joke, the kid had his arms up and the cop shot him 8 times, it was an injustice and Carson is a stooge who is defending a white and most likely racist cop.
Then Charles Krauthammer, who is another biased right-wing hack, was on to slam Obama. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Krauthammer said this: "I think it starts with the series of speeches he gave after being sworn in 2009. It was a 'confessional tour' where he spoke about all the sins America had committed. I think he's one of the rare presidents who really thinks that America has done more harm than good, and I think he sees his role as restraining American power. He presented himself to the nation as the man who would end the wars, this is his self-image, so to act decisively would be a contradiction of his self-image."
O'Reilly said this: "He doesn't come across as someone who is irrational, but President Obama and his advisors knew that ISIS was growing in ferocity and power, that they would rape people and enslave people. For one solid year the most powerful man in the world allowed ISIS to murder human beings at will."
Which is just laughable, it's a foreign country and we should not be involved, let them kill each other, it's God's way or sorting out the idiots, we should not be the police to the world, and the majority of Americans want us to stay out of it, only the neo-con right-wing fools like O'Reilly want us to get involved.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Everyday Folks Doing Great Things. Billy said this: "We would all do well to follow the lead of the Wolcott County Fair in Connecticut, which is donating all its parking fees this coming weekend to help wounded veterans."
Congress Ignores Worker Wages As Corporate Profits Hit Record Highs
By: Steve - August 13, 2014 - 10:00am
And it happened with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate. Even though O'Reilly and the Republicans say Obama and the Democrats are bad for business. Which proves they also lied about that.
Sam Ro at Business Insider wrote that corporate profit margins just hit a new high. They have done this on the backs of workers, who they have squeezed more and more productivity out of in order to cut costs.
Ever since the financial crisis, corporations have managed to deliver robust profit growth by offsetting the drag of weak sales growth with widening profit margins. These fatter profit margins come from cutting costs, which usually means getting more productivity out of a fewer number of workers.
So, under a Democratic President, corporations are hitting new highs for profit margins.
And that's not all. Based on the analysts forecasts of S&P 500 companies, those profit margins will average 9.3% for the year and then jump to 10.0% in 2015.
As this is happening, Republicans in the House are trying to pass unpaid for tax subsidies and credits for business, to the tune of adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. Yet these same Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage and to extend long term unemployment, even as the businesses they are catering to are laying off workers and forcing other workers to do the job of the laid off workers.
These same Republicans are against Social Security as it exists and functions right now. They'd rather privatize it by tying it to the market, you know, the MARKET.
The market that crashed several times under Bush, costing investors their entire portfolio at times. The market is not the same as Social Security, which is there no matter how well or poorly the market performs or the economy is doing. This is, of course, the entire point of calling it security.
Over and over, Republicans stick it to the workers of this country while giving handouts to corporations. Corporations made it through the Bush recession by harming workers. Corporations are doing pretty well, but then, they've been subsidized by taxpayers in many cases, while the workers of America have not.
Ironically, the workers of America built that new high profit margin on their backs.
It was Mitt Romney's father, yes the same fellow who was once on welfare, who as chief executive of the American Motors Corporation reduced his own and other executives salaries by up to 35%, while taking cost cutting measures.
As a believer in competitive cooperative consumerism, Wikipedia notes he was against the twin evils of big business and big labor. The stock options soared from $7 to $90 a share. George Romney was a man who took leadership seriously and knew that it was not sustainable to be a greedy pig on either side of the trough.
Meanwhile, Republicans keep accusing this president of being a Marxist Socialist hell bent on killing capitalism. The evidence is in: President Barack Obama is really bad at being a Marxist and a Socialist. To be fair, the President has been pushing good jobs for his entire presidency, but the Republican House has refused to even pass his jobs bill.
Obama has resorted to working with governors and states and businesses in order to compel them to raise the minimum wage and get Americans trained for better jobs. He can't do it alone, though.
The workers of America deserve better than they are getting from this current Republican Congress.
The Monday 8-11-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 12, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: When the Most Powerful Man in the World Does Not Want to Lead. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is almost beyond belief that the U.S.A. and its Western allies have allowed a terror army to gain so much power. ISIS is now ruling thousands of square miles, slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians, and has publicly stated it wants to establish an Islamic caliphate and eventually attack America. From the beginning, President Obama underestimated the threat posed by these terrorists, telling The New Yorker magazine last January that they were the jayvee team.
Said the right-wing propagandist who hates Obama, I'm sure the President cares what a biased cable news host says, not! And btw, this is the same guy who was all wrong on Iraq, dead wrong, but now he wants us and the President to listen to him, what a joke. He does not have access to the top secret intelligence and he is not in the Government at all, O'Reilly is nothing but a biased cable news hack and nobody should listen to a word he says.
The fact that President Obama and his advisors did not think that a well-funded terror army was going to cause enormous damage is simply inexplicable. I mean, what did Mr. Obama think these people were going to do? They are killers. They murder women and children. They rape. They target Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim religions. They are the absolute worst of humanity. And for one solid year, the most powerful man in the world did absolutely nothing to contain this threat.
Talking Points has said this before: There is no difference in the mentality of the Nazis and ISIS, they are identical in their hate and tactics. But the American media will not tell you that. In fact, they are busy replacing the word 'terrorist' with 'militants' and 'rebels.' The left-wing media well understands that Americans viscerally respond to terrorists and want to punish them. And since many on the left want to diminish the terrorist threat, that's why these words are being used.
It is frightening that the most powerful man in the world does not want to confront evil. He simply wants to remain detached, hoping for some kind of mythical coalition to deal with deadly threats. For him, there is always a political solution, a consensus, a discussion. And it's not only the ISIS situation that is looming. We now know that Russia has violated the arms agreement and has been testing medium-range cruise missiles, a treaty violation.
Iran certainly is not going to give up its nuclear research, it well understands the weakness of the west. Finally, when people like Hillary Clinton and other stalwart Democrats begin to criticize President Obama's foreign policy, you know things are out of control. And they are, but hopefully all the chaos will wake up Americans who are again asleep, just as we were before 9/11.
American power should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary to save lives and defeat evil. We can't right all wrongs on this planet, but if we allow Islamic terrorists to grow in power and to slaughter human beings at will, we are putting ourselves in grave danger. President Obama has to wise up, and fast.
Then the two biased Republican military analysts Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer were on to assess the growing crisis in Iraq. With no Democratic guests for balance, none.
Shaffer said this: "We should be talking about victory and defeat, and the way you do that is to go in overwhelmingly. I don't think we need to have our boots on the ground - the Kurds are a very viable military force and they have already taken back cities. I would use B-52s and do carpet bombings whenever the terrorists try to amass their troops just to show that we are in this to win."
Hunt said this: "We've been bombing Iraq for 25 years under four presidents and it does not work. I believe we should helping with humanitarian relief and we can use cruise missiles and drones, but bombing will never solve the problem with ISIS."
Then O'Reilly talked about the stunning news that comedian Robin Williams was found dead of an apparent suicide. James Carville and Andrea Tantaros were on with their initial reactions.
Tantaros said this: "If you look at Twitter and social media right now, most of the comments are about how much love people had for him. He transcended generations, there are young kids who are grieving."
Carville recalled meeting Williams prior to an appearance on a late night talk show, saying this: "We were in the green room and he performed for 25 minutes. He was nothing but energy, he couldn't turn his switch off, and I suspect that he put a lot of pressure on himself. He struck me as a guy who was constantly performing and who was constantly under pressure to perform."
Then McGraw Milhaven & George Sells were on to talk about the
riots and looting that have broken out in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, where a cop shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.
Sells said this: "People are apprehensive and wondering what might happen tonight. The family of the dead teenager has called for peace and calm, but there is also a unified voice is calling for the police officer to be charged with murder."
Milhaven denounced the looters and the general mayhem, saying this: "Most of the looters are from outside of the region. Ferguson is a close-knit community and yet many of the people looting came into the area to try and take advantage of the situation. There are stories here of local people protecting businesses from the looters."
Then former Tonight Show producer Dave Berg, who knew the late Robin Williams for more than 20 years was on to discuss his death.
Berg said this: "The thing about Robin Williams, is that he was always on, he was always performing, he was always putting on a show backstage. I remember wondering what happens when there is no audience there to laugh. I think he was just a guy who liked to please people, no matter who the audience was. I once brought my two young children backstage and Robin put on a show for them."
Then Jesse Watters was on, he was at Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama and his family are again spending their summer vacation, and surveyed a few locals and tourists.
Some of their observations: "He's going to jam up all the roads and ruin everybody's vacation" ... "I want to hug him, I love a good-looking man" ... "I think he's doing the best he can" ... "He's a great president."
Back in the studio, Watters summarized the mood of the Martha's Vineyard crowd, saying, "They own this guy and they're going down with the ship, they're still with him."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Fighting the Good Fight. Billy said this: "When you have a strongly-held belief that is under attack, stand up and fight."
Obama Destroys Right-Wing Lies About Leaving Troops In Iraq
By: Steve - August 12, 2014 - 10:00am
At a press conference, President Obama set the record straight on the Republican claim that the current crisis in Iraq was his fault because he didn't leave combat troops in the country. Obama called the entire Republican analysis "bogus and wrong."
Question: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. -- is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?
OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government.
In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn't be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.
And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left.
We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you're democratic, you're sovereign, except if I decide that it's good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don't have a choice -- which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.
So let's just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were -- a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.
Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 -- if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn't be holding together either.
The only difference would be we'd have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I'd have to be protecting them, and we'd have a much bigger job.
And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.
So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.
President Obama is correct. The Iraqi government no longer wanted U.S. troops in their country.
Time magazine described the Iraqis desire to get the U.S. troops out: "But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki's ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.
Even the Obama Administration's plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based."
When the Iraqi government refused to grant U.S. troops immunity from local prosecution, that was a deal breaker.
A big point that Republicans overlook is that it was George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement that set the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in motion. When President Bush signed the agreement in December of 2008, he said, "We're also signing a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq’s democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year.
This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq -- a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge."
The Republican plan, to the extent that there was one, always involved keeping a lid on the conflicts inside Iraq with U.S. combat troops for as long as it takes. The problem was that the Iraqis wanted the troops out, and the American people wanted the troops home. The Bush administration was trying to clean up their legacy by signing the Status of Forces Agreement.
The instability in Iraq was caused by the Bush decision to launch a war of choice. Republicans can't pass off their own failed war in Iraq on Obama. It is interesting that the same Republican Party that claims to love freedom is so willing to violate the freedom of the Iraqi people by forcing combat troops on them.
The inescapable truth is that President Obama is still cleaning up after Bush’s failed war. And btw, O'Reilly also reports the right-wing lies, because he is a biased Republican who hates Obama and all of his policies.
Election Expert Report Debunks Right-Wing Media Voter ID Lies
By: Steve - August 11, 2014 - 10:00am
A new report has debunked the primary voter fraud argument O'Reilly and the right-wing media have used for years to promote unnecessarily strict voter identification laws, which alienate eligible voters and often have the effect of suppressing the vote in minority and heavily-Democratic jurisdictions.
These kinds of voter ID laws, which require voters to present certain forms of ID at polling locations when attempting to vote, disproportionately affect people of color and can cost states millions of dollars to implement. But the right-wing media have continued to promote them, especially since 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that prevented suppression efforts in states with a history of racially-motivated voting laws.
As Ezra Klein noted, the right-wing media have consistently raised the specter of in-person "voter fraud" to justify their support for these redundant and highly restrictive voter ID laws.
But as election law experts repeatedly point out, the specific type of fraud that voter ID can prevent -- voter impersonation -- is extremely uncommon.
National Review Online contributors John Fund and Hans von Spakovksy have been at the forefront of the right-wing media's push for burdensome voter ID laws, calling Texas's law "a good thing," despite the fact that voters reported being turned away from the polls.
Both Fund and von Spakovsky have advocated for further gutting what's left of the Voting Rights Act, making it nearly impossible for citizens who have been prevented from voting due to needlessly cumbersome election laws to legally challenge these oppressive regulations. Fund has also downplayed how difficult it can be for citizens -- particularly people of color, women, and low-income voters -- to obtain the right kind of identification needed to vote.
In response to a Pennsylvania state court case that found the state's voter ID law unconstitutional, Fund called evidence that thousands of voters lacked the proper ID nothing more than an "inflated estimate."
While evidence of widespread voter fraud has yet to surface, right-wing media figures have nevertheless insisted that "there are plenty of instances" of voter fraud and that there is "concrete evidence of massive voter fraud."
But according to a new study by Loyola University law professor Justin Levitt, the in-person voter fraud that strict voter ID prevents is still nearly non-existent.
Levitt's study, which "tracked 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" found just 31 instances of this potential voter fraud between 2000 and 2014. According to Levitt, "more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period."
Election fraud does happen, but's it's very rare. And the right-wing ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you'll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren't designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers).
Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that voter ID laws can stop.
Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.
GOP Candidate Paints Over Republican On Her Own Campaign Signs
By: Steve - August 10, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly, because he is a Republican and he does not want anyone to know how hated Republicans are. But if a Democrat did the very same thing, you can bet the farm O'Reilly would report it on his show.
New Mexico's Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran is going to some extreme lengths to hide her party affiliation from voters. Duran's campaign has painted over the word Republican on her own campaign signs.
"After ProgressNowNM staff spotted Duran campaign signs which had been partially painted over at the Billy the Kid Pageant days in Lincoln last weekend, we asked campaign staffers to explain. Campaign volunteers told us that identifying with the Republican brand is 'bad in print' and that her party affiliation was 'not a good thing for them to know.'"
Yes the Republican brand is so damaged that their own candidates are blacking out their party affiliation on campaign signs. But of you watch the O'Reilly Factor or any Fox News show, you would think the Republicans are liked and that the people want them to be back in power, while the opposite is true, their approval numbers are lower than the Democrats, and people still remember how Bush almost destroyed the country in 8 short years.
Republicans are really not popular in New Mexico, as only 1/3 of the state's voters are registered Republicans, but the painting over of party affiliation on campaign signs is a stupid and desperate move. It's hard to believe that Duran's campaign could not afford to print up some new signs without the party affiliation on them.
Painting over the signs is the kind of dumb stunt that was destined to be caught by somebody. There is an obvious blotch of paint that doesn't match the rest of the sign.
Duran is one of the state's two highest ranking Republican officials. The other is Gov. Susana Martinez, so one would think it would be to her benefit to play up the fact that Duran is one of the top Republicans in New Mexico if it weren't for the fact that the New Mexico Republican Party was caught training poll watchers to turn away handicapped and Spanish speaking citizens in 2012.
Maybe Duran wants voters to forget how she wasted taxpayer money on a voter fraud investigation that turned up no cases of improperly registered voters actually voting.
The next time O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media starts talking about the decline of President Obama or the 2014 Republican wave remember that there are Republicans out there who are blacking out their party affiliation on campaign signs, and that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack who is lying to you about Republican popularity.
Fox Silent After Congressional Report Finds No Benghazi Scandal
By: Steve - August 9, 2014 - 10:00am
Fox News has gone silent on Benghazi amid reports that the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no intentional wrongdoing in the Obama administration's response to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on August 1st (8 days ago and O'Reilly has still not said a word about it) that the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee voted to declassify findings from its investigation into the 2012 attacks on U.S diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, and "concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack."
The intelligence community "did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened," the process used to create administration talking points was "flawed" but "reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis, and "there was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel," Ranking Member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) said in a statement laying out the committee's findings.
It's a clinical, point-by-point refutation of the Benghazi hoax Fox has pushed for nearly 2 years.
Yet Fox News made no mention of the report. In sharp contrast to its current silence, when House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a select committee to investigate Benghazi in June, Fox devoted 225 segments to the topic over just two weeks, an estimated publicity value of more than $124 million.
Fox's sudden lack of interest in congressional investigations into Benghazi comes less then one week after Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the select committee, announced - in what Fox News billed as an "exclusive" interview - that he would hold more public hearings on the attacks in September.
"The American people have not been given clear answers to things like Benghazi," Bill O'Reilly said Friday night on Fox. But O'Reilly's audience didn't learn the answers that the House Intelligence Committee declassified last week, because he has ignored the new story.
This is how O'Reilly works folks, he only reports the news he wants you to see, not all the news, proving his right-wing bias once again.
The Thursday 8-7-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 8, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The USA Stands Down in the Face of Hostile Action. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'Reilly: The ISIS terror army is now fighting the Kurds in Iraq and Lebanese forces as it tries to establish a Muslim caliphate in the Middle East. At least 2,000 refugees have fled these killers, who are murdering Christians and others in grisly ways. Yet President Obama has not yet ordered the U.S. military to move against them, although today there were indications that some bombing is being considered.
One liberal on the entire show, with 6 Republicans, 7 when you include O'Reilly. Which is all you need to know when the question is asked if O'Reilly has a right-wing bias, haha, of course he does. And for the millionth time, WE CAN NOT BE THE POLICE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD. When we get involved it usually make the situation worse, and then the world hates us, which also leads to more terrorism against Americans, O'Reilly does not seem to understand that.
The administration understands that most Americans do not want any re-involvement in Iraq and are tired of sacrificing for foreign nations. But the ISIS army could be downgraded by using American air power and drones without the USA getting involved with Iraqi politics. America looks weak in the face of the jihadist threat and Putin's aggression. The Russian tyrant is massing forces on the border of Ukraine, continuing to saber-rattle despite economic sanctions.
It is completely understandable that many Americans do not want involvement in faraway places, but the world is interconnected. For example, if the Taliban defeats the Afghan forces that we armed and trained, yet another terror state will emerge. They want to kill us and other infidels all over the world.
Talking Points has said for years that American power is the last hope in defeating worldwide terrorism. But President Obama seems comfortable staying on the sidelines with the rest of the world, allowing ISIS and Putin to disrupt civilization. The longer we wait, the more painful the inevitable confrontation will be."
Then former NATO commander General Wesley Clark was on, he said this: "ISIS is not a threat to the United States right now, but it's certainly a threat to governments in the region. We should work with allies in the region to bring various nations to put their power to work against ISIS. I want a coalition of the people who are there and are most affected. The Kurds are going to fight, the Turks have an interest in this, the Saudis are engaged, and the Lebanese army is going to fight."
Then O'Reilly asked Clark whether he would bomb ISIS, Clark said yes, saying this: "Under the right circumstances American air power can be usefully employed."
Note: Obama has ordered air strikes in Iraq, and he did it after O'Reilly taped his show.
Then Ed Henry was asked whether economic sanctions were harming Russia, President Obama seemed to give two conflicting answers. O'Reilly asked Henry to sort out the apparent confusion. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Henry said this: "I think what the president was trying to say, is that the goal was to punish Putin and hit the Russian economy and that there are signs that it is working. But where the president is having difficulty is that it's not changing Putin's behavior. He has more than 20,000 troops amassing around the Ukrainian border and he has extended Edward Snowden's visa. He's thumbing his nose at the White House."
Then Heather Nauert was on to respond to emails from some angry viewers. One of them, Californian Vicki Fergon, is indignant because President Obama recently celebrated the Muslim holiday of Ramadan at the White House.
"He has celebrated Muslim and Jewish holidays in equal numbers since he has been in office," Nauert reported. "It's an even deal and Vicki is wrong." Another viewer, Jude Basso of New Jersey, is peeved because illegal aliens are enrolling in public schools with few questions asked.
"Federal law states that every child in America, regardless of their citizenship status, is 'entitled' to equal access to basic education," Nauert explained. "Schools are preparing for a major influx of students who will be coming - many of them do not speak English and many are below grade level."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about husband and wife actors Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, who signed a petition accusing Israel of "genocide," but most prominent Jews in Hollywood have been silent about the war."
Goldberg said this: "Many liberal Jews in Hollywood know that Hamas started this and wants to kill every Jew, but if people like Spielberg speak up against Hamas, some people will say, 'The Jews are all sticking together against the poor Palestinians.' For that reason the Jewish population in Hollywood wants to keep hands off for as long as they can."
Goldberg also evaluated the overall coverage of the war, saying this: "The problem is that video is a very powerful force, especially when it's showing death and destruction. Video shows rubble and dead babies, but it doesn't explain the fundamental truth that one side wants to live in peace and the other side wants to kill as many Jews as possible. I wonder how the people covering this war would cover Hiroshima and the bombing of Dresden. I don't think a lot of reporters back then were concerned about the 'disproportionate' number of deaths."
Then Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld commented on the upcoming vote in Washington, D.C. to legalize marijuana. "Pot is needed in government," Gutfeld said, "because I am against an activist government. I want the IRS too stoned to take my money and the EPA too high to enact new regulations. The only way to curb government is to make sure they're stoned out of their gourds."
McGuirk turned to an FCC investigation of Miley Cyrus's raunchy performance on NBC, saying this: "NBC knew what they were getting," he said. "She did a concert on TV featuring huge bananas and dancing joints. When you watch it you want to put on a surgical mask and rubber gloves and then take a shower afterwards."
Which is the same way I feel when I am watching the O'Reilly Factor, haha.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: How Athletes Can Help Their Country. Billy said this: "Big-time professional jocks should follow the example set by the New York Mets, who recently paid a visit to some wounded warriors at the Walter Reed National Military Center in Maryland."
It's not a tip, and it is not really helping the country, or the wounded warriors, helping the country would be to donate some money to charity, and helping the wounded warriors would be donating some money to their charity.
Military Charity Caught Sending Donations To Tea Party PAC
By: Steve - August 8, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly has never said a word about it, but when so-called liberal charities get caught misusing money O'Reilly is all over it.
A prominent charity that's enlisted Presidential help in raising money for troop care packages not only misrepresented their achievements, but also funneled "millions of dollars in revenue" to its founder's political allies and Tea Party consulting firms, Pro Publica.
Move America Forward, a charity that sent care packages to troops deployed overseas, employed all sorts of tactics to raise money -- from actual events like throwing telethons at the Ronald Reagan Library with conservative celebrities like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and both President Bushes, to completely fabricated claims, like boasting a partnership with Walter Reed Medical Center (which the Department of Defense claims has never existed), or using stock images of veterans and other charities photos in their testimonials.
But the care packages they purported to send never made it to the troops: in one case, they bragged about sending packages to 800 Afghanistan-based Marines part of a battalion nicknamed Geronimo, failing to realize that the battalion was actually based in Japan.
So how much money did MAF actually raise, and where is it going? Pro Publica estimates that the charity exaggerated how much it had raised, but its tax returns show that it funneled the money into conservative political action committes that lean towards the Tea Party -- specifically, groups connected to MAF’s founder, Sal Russo:
Russo is better known for helping to form the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, also known as the Tea Party Express, one of the largest Tea Party groups in the country. Consultants from his Sacramento-based firm, Russo, Marsh and Associates, also set up two other PACs, the Move America Forward Freedom PAC and the Conservative Campaign Committee, to aid conservative causes and candidates.
In other words, the whole thing was a scam. And btw, charities that accept tax-deductible donations, such as Move America Forward, are prohibited by law from using their donations to fund partisan activities.
Russo and his associates have previously drawn attention for lavishing funds raised through the committees on themselves, using this money on an Alaskan cruise and fancy hotels as well as paying themselves huge consulting fees.
According to its five most recent tax returns, Move America Forward paid out more than $2.3 million to Russo or Russo, Marsh and Associates for services including "program management and advertising. That's about 30 percent of the charity's overall expenditures over that time."
Okay O'Reilly, this is right up your alley, when are you going to report it? What say you?
The Wednesday 8-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 7, 2014 - 10:00am
The TPM was called: The Folks Send President Obama a Message. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll is proof that Barack Obama is in trouble. A whopping 76% of Americans are not confident that life for our children's generation will be better than it has been for us, and 71% say the nation is headed in the wrong direction. In Congress, they blame Republicans more than Democrats, but both parties are scorched.
Wow! That is 100% pure lies, because the economy has improved, the stock market is at record highs, unemployment is down, jobs are being added by 200,000 or more every month, Obamacare is doing great and way more people have health care, and things are much better since Obama took office, O'Reilly is simply a right-wing propaganda machine.
And President Obama receives low numbers on just about every vital issue. Some liberals claim Barack Obama is stymied primarily by the problems he inherited, but that's false. There's no need for a magic wand when you have six years to improve things. Ronald Reagan inherited a mess from Jimmy Carter and turned it around.
Abraham Lincoln walked into incredible chaos, largely the fault of James Buchanan, but prevailed. President Obama did inherit a terrible economy, but a fairly stable foreign situation. Not only has Mr. Obama failed to improve the economic story, but on his watch foreign policy has nearly collapsed.
By nearly every measure, things are worse than when Mr. Obama took office. The American people are sending President Obama a very clear message they are losing faith.
Then President Obama's former economic advisor Austan Goolsbee was on, who flat out disagreed with the dishonest O'Reilly.
Goolsbee said this: "I think you're being a little unfair. If you take the economy and look at the last two years, we have had modest success and things have been coming back. We've added more than 10-million jobs in the last four-and-a-half years, so I don't think you're fair to say everything is worse. When the economy is not growing as strongly as it traditionally has, people tend to be pessimistic about the future."
Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the isolated case of two illegal aliens, both of whom have been deported numerous times, who are accused of murdering a Border Patrol agent in Texas.
Dobbs said this: "These guys crossed the border multiple times, and were sent back to Mexico. One of them was apprehended four times! They shot this man in front of his wife and his three children as he tried to defend himself, it is horrific. But the Border Patrol under President Obama has a policy that you have to be deported at least seven times before anyone gets serious."
Then O'Reilly introduced a new segment called "Truth Serum." In the first edition, Fox News anchors Eric Shawn and Molly Line assessed Republican Senator Rand Paul's apparent flip-flop on U.S. aid to Israel.
Line said this: "Rand Paul is kind of doing a dance here. When asked directly about his position on aid to Israel, he now says he never had a 'legislative proposal' to do that. But he has talked about it on camera in the past, he has advocated cutting all foreign aid, including aid to Israel."
Shawn said this: "This is cockamamie, it's not true. In 2009, the first year of President Obama's administration, there were 11.3-million illegal immigrants, and there has been an increase of 400,000 since then. There has been an explosion on the southern border."
Then the so-called social media experts Katie Greer and Chuck Williams were on to say if Facebook is detrimental to children. Which is their opinion, and proves nothing, no matter if you are a social media expert or not.
Greer said this: "What makes Facebook so wonderful for kids also makes it so dangerous. Kids love to share and connect, but they also over-share and over-connect. If kids are getting some oversight from home and if they are following the rules, I'm okay with it. But there's a big concern for me when it comes to privacy and sharing with strangers."
Williams said this: "I believe we're letting parents off the hook. Far too many parents and adult caregivers are not aware that the kids are signed up, and they're not aware of the dangers. There is cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking and child exploitation. The latest trend is kids setting themselves on fire, videotaping it, and putting it on line. Parents are burying their heads in the sand!"
Then the best of Jesse Watters most memorable segments, this one a visit to Key West, Florida. These were a few observations about life in Margaritaville: "I moved here in 1999 and I'm just wasting time" ... "You come Key West on vacation, you leave on probation, and you come back on violation" ... "I trade food stamps for beer and vodka and cigarettes" ... "When you live here you forget about the rest of the country."
Back in February, Watters attended some Super Bowl soirees at which he interviewed various luminaries. Perhaps the pithiest comment came from radio host Howard Stern: "I don't like Watters' World, all of America rejects Watters' World, even Bill O'Reilly doesn't like Watters' World."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Give With Wisdom. Billy said this: "Always be as generous as you possibly can be, and choose the recipients of your generosity wisely."
Notice How O'Reilly Has Stopped Talking About Benghazi
By: Steve - August 7, 2014 - 10:00am
And here is why: House panel: No Obama Administration Wrongdoing In Benghazi Attack
The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee.
The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public.
Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."
That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.
Among the Intelligence Committee's findings:
-- Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."
-- "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."
-- "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."
-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."
Those talking points included assertions that those who attacked the compound were angered by an obscure anti-Muhammad video posted to YouTube in the U.S. There is disagreement to this day about whether that was the case.
Remember this, when the Republican talking points propaganda was out that said Obama and Hillary were involved and they gave a stand down order O'Reilly reported it every night, with every right-wing hack in America, so much that I even stopped reporting on it.
But now that Obama and Hillary have been cleared O'Reilly is silent. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing propaganda machine who puts out all the right-wing talking points as if here were the head of the RNC, while denying he ever uses any Republican talking points.
The Tuesday 8-6-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 6, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: America's Weakness - Part 2. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: When Talking Points began listing all the situations where the U.S.A. is getting hammered, the evidence overwhelmed those who support the Obama administration. So a new strategy emerged. According to those happy with the state of the union, America is not getting weaker. It is simply changing - 'realigning' - and I am too dense to understand that.
So then Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it.
You've got to hand it to the left. They are creative spinners, and to them the country is not really in trouble abroad or economically - it's just a changing world and O'Reilly is too dim to understand. Really amazing, but that's what they are selling. One of the main reasons the USA is in steep decline is resentment towards fellow citizens. Many of us no longer work together, preferring to demonize people with whom we disagree.
Left-wing professor Michael Eric Dyson recently groused about 'white peoplehood, white property, and white privilege.' White peoplehood? When skin color overrides honest debate, everything falls apart. How many times have we heard that criticisms of President Obama are race-based? I believe it's the Democrat leadership in Congress that has designed the divisive strategy, but President Obama is allowing the nonsense to flow.
If you can't defend your record, if the facts stack up against you, deflect and pettifog reality. We need to get back on track, halt the nonsense, and demand our elected leadership solve problems that threaten our well-being. The day of the ideologues is ending, TV and radio ratings prove it. Americans are slowly wising up. And that's the first step in recovering the strength of America.
Powers said this: "I think there is a problem with divisiveness, and I agree it's not good to point fingers at certain groups of people. We all agree that it would be wrong to talk about black people in the way that white people are being talked about, so I don't think the solution is to demonize white people."
Crowley said this: "The president has actively engaged in dividing us, such as his presiding over the 'war on women.' He gives speeches on class warfare and wealth redistribution. This is a man who is not just presiding over the collapse of American power and prestige, he's actively accelerating it!"
Then Olivia Hammar was on to talk about 25-year-old Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi who was jailed in Mexico four months ago when he allegedly made a wrong turn and inadvertently transported guns across the border.
Hammar, whose son Jon also spent four months in a Mexican prison in 2012 said this: "The trial of Thamooressi could last six to eight months, and it's staggering that President Obama hasn't even responded to a petition. I think Mexico has decided to take a hard line on this, but I don't think our government is going to take a stand."
Hammar added that her own son is still feeling ill effects from his ordeal, saying this: "He's doing well and he's recovering, but there are long-term effects to this. There's a price to be paid."
Then Jesse Watters was on for his so-called greatest hits, including his visit to New Mexico for the annual convention of the National Organization for Women.
He got these comments from some of the feminists. "I object to the term 'gal,' I am not a gal" ... "The whole structure is designed to have men be dominant" ... "There is actually an all-out war on women raging right now." Before long, though, some NOW bosses called the (male) security guards and had Watters forcibly escorted from the premises and threatened with arrest.
Watters also hit the beaches of Southern California to ask some barely clad folks about their governor. A few of the responses: "He's raising taxes again and he won't go on the O'Reilly show" ... "He should go on The Factor, Bill will treat him right" ... "Who's Jerry Brown?"
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to report on the latest on Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held by the Taliban in Afghanistan before being swapped for five terrorists.
Wiehl said this: "Tomorrow he will be questioned by a major general in Texas, about the circumstances of his leaving his unit. They'll want to know whether he left intentionally and whether he had the intent to leave forever, which would lead to a charge of desertion. This is the first time he'll be questioned."
Guilfoyle predicted that Bergdahl will likely exercise his right to not incriminate himself, saying this: "I don't see any incentive for Sgt. Bergdahl to cooperate, I expect to see him plead the Fifth Amendment and not give any information. He is the worst witness against himself, and if he doesn't say anything he remains on active duty in good standing."
In other words, they have no proof he is guilty of desertion, and O'Reilly failed to report he was cleared of the charges, so as usual O'Reilly only reports some of the facts, not all.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to speculate why some Americans and Europeans, many of them on the far left, side with the terrorist organization Hamas in its fight with Israel. Now get this, O'Reilly even said he was speculating, even though he has a no speculation rule. I guess he just forgot, yeah right.
Krauthammer said this: "When it comes to Europe. I think the overwhelming factor is raw anti-Semitism. For a while they discovered that if you used the cover of 'anti-Zionism' you could get away with it in respectable society, but the veneer and the cover is gone. This is raw anti-Semitism finding a semi-respectable outlet. But in the United States it is very different and anti-Semitism is not a major factor.
I think the most important factor here is sheer, raw ignorance. They have no idea what Hamas is, they have no idea that there is no occupation in Gaza. Are they aware that the Hamas charter calls not just for the destruction of Israel, but for the killing of Jews everywhere in the world? This is an openly genocidal organization."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Pecuniary Power of Prayer. Billy said this: "If you find yourself in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, pay a visit to Mary's Gourmet Diner, which offers a 15% discount to people who say grace before dining."
Juan Williams Calls Out Republican Racism Over Obama Impeachment
By: Steve - August 6, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course he is right, but O'Reilly still denies it and says there is no racism against the President by Republicans or the Tea Party. Which proves that O'Reilly is a Republican in denial who basically has his head in the sand.
Fox News pundit Juan Williams on Sunday suggested that conservatives calling for President Obama's impeachment are racist given that they mostly come from white people.
During a "Fox News Sunday" panel, Heritage Foundation CEO Michael Needham said that while conservatives were concerned that Obama is "lawless," Democrats are pushing the impeachment rhetoric.
Williams then slammed Needham, explaining that conservative pundits and some elected officials have been pushing for impeachment.
"You listen to Michael, and you understand why there are lots of Republicans who think, 'This man's a demon, this guy's awful, we got to get this guy out of here any way we can, he's breaking the law,'" he said.
"And then you come on and say, 'Oh, no. We're not talking about impeachment, that's the Democrats.' All the Democrats are doing is taking advantage of the fact that you guys have demonized President Obama to this extent," Williams continued.
He then said that some criticize Obama because of his race.
"Lot's of people see it, especially in the minority community, as an attack on the first black president, think it's unfair, so it's going spur their turnout in midterms which is going to be critical in several races," Williams said.
Fox host Chris Wallace then jumped in to ask if Williams really meant to accuse conservatives of racism.
"Well, all I can do is look at the numbers," Williams responded. "If you look at the core constituency of people, let's say, who are in tea party opposition support of impeachment, there's no diversity. It's a white, older group of people."
And what he did not say, is that it's a white older group of right-wing people, no Independents or Democrats are saying it, only old right-wing whites are, and that is a fact that nobody can honestly deny.
Needham then jumped back in to accuse Williams of "demonizing" conservatives. Because that is their only defense, attack the messenger, they can not deny it.
"He might have well just said, 'And they're all racists,'" Needham said.
The Monday 8-4-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 5, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: America's Weakness. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Economist magazine recently asked a provocative question: 'What would America fight for?' The magazine editorialized that President Obama's 'cumulative message is weakness.' In Iraq, the Al Qaeda offshoot ISIS is 60 miles from Baghdad. President Obama has done little to degrade the ISIS army and now it is taunting the president, who told us weeks ago that he was 'studying' the ISIS situation. That's the pattern - the president studies, analyzes, then does nothing, which shows America's weakness.
Said the biased Republican who hates Obama and thinks we should bomb every country that does something we do not like to project strength and send them a message, and the guy who was totally wrong on Iraq. Almost none of what O'Reilly said is true, it's all Republican spin. Oh and btw, the debt has went down, O'Reilly just will not admit it or report it. And wages are down because the corporations do not pay a living wage, while Republicans refuse to vote for a minimum wage increase, that is not Obama's fault.
We all know about Putin's aggressive moves, China is threatening to take islands in the Far East, and all over the world there is fear in the air. Back home, the earning power of the American worker continues to decline, with median income down 7% since President Obama has been in office. This weakens the average American home, causing millions to turn to the federal government for financial support.
That raises the debt, which is now projected to be $20-trillion by the time Barack Obama leaves office. Then there is social weakness. We are living in a society that is largely secular, where narcissistic behavior and selfish pursuits are on the rise. Millions of Americans are addicted to the Internet, spending vast amounts of times texting, tweeting, and watching dubious entertainment.
The crusade to legalize marijuana is nearly hysterical, with pot proponents almost making it a Constitutional issue. Coupled with that is the incredible sympathy some on the left have for drug dealers of all kinds. When a society goes soft on evildoers, it becomes weak, and people who sell narcotics are evil. How about American children? In many public schools they are getting an inferior education. The cold truth is that American society is growing weaker, and anyone who challenges that trend is demonized by the liberal media.
The left screams about income inequality when its own policies are downgrading job development and failing to help the poor. The Obama administration stokes that fire. Rather than laying out a road map of self-reliance, liberal politicians and the media encourage 'social justice' and income redistribution. Summing up, President Obama ran on a platform of prosperity, uniting American, and a bold new progressive vision that would provide for the poor and ensure a level playing field.
None of that has come to pass. What we have is declining power overseas, an enormous debt, a porous southern border, and a population of 320-million Americans, many of whom are apathetic and ill-informed. I have never seen America weaker than it is today.
And look at the TPM O'Reilly wrote, if a Democrat had wrote that under Bush O'Reilly would have slammed them as un-American and called them a traitor.
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss the Talking Points Memo.
Ham said this: "We have a president who is pretty uncomfortable with the idea of American strength being a force for good in the world. I agree with you on the jobs and some of the worries about education, but I disagree with you about the marijuana issue, and when it comes to the Internet, I love it. There are some tendencies towards narcissism, but I don't think the solution is to go back to card catalogues."
Williams argued that America has endured times that were just as rocky as today, saying this: "I would take you back 40 years to Watergate, which was a pretty bad time. We were still suffering from the aftermath of Vietnam and people were reluctant to do anything militarily. So there have been other times when we were highly divided and we are now still the unrivaled superpower of the world."
Then Australian columnist Nick Adams was on, he explained how his nation has controlled illegal immigration.
Adams said this: "For the last seven months we have not had one single illegal immigrant arrive in Australia, but it wasn't always that way. When a center-left government full of secular-progressive pinheads got elected, they dismantled our border protection policy with the usual claims that it was 'inhumane' and 'immoral.'
Over the next four years more than 50,000 illegal immigrants arrived in 800 boats - they were getting free plasma TVs and free mobile phones. But the conservative government came in and said that we will determine who comes into this country and they used the Australian military and Navy to sort it out. Most important, our prime minister got out and said, 'If you come to Australia illegally, you will never get to stay!'"
And of course O'Reilly endorsed the use of the military, saying this: "I've called for the National Guard on the border to physically turn people back."
Yeah we know Billy, and it's a bad idea so almost nobody agrees with you, especially when the law says they can not do that, moron.
Then the conservative author Ron Kessler was on to promote his new book about the Secret Service. The whole segment was just to promote a conservative book.
Kessler said this: "The Secret Service is in serious need of an overhaul, and it needs an outside director to shake things up. There is a culture of corner-cutting, which means they sometimes let people into events without metal detection screening. The agents are very impressive, but management has a lazy culture of making do with less."
Kessler insisted that the gossipy details in his book are strictly non-partisan, which means he is lying, because he is a partisan Republican. Kessler said this: "Hillary Clinton is so nasty to her agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment. But on the other hand, Barack and Michelle Obama are very respectful of agents and treat them with consideration. The book reveals negative material about every Republican from Spiro Agnew to Jenna Bush."
Then O'Reilly did a total waste of time segment called the Best of Watters world. Jesse Watters started with his visit to Brown University's "Nudity Week." "It's just providing a comfortable space for people to express themselves," one young woman told Watters. Another said, "We allow people to do whatever they want and whatever furthers their best interest."
Watters also visited Toronto and asked some locals about their crack-smoking Mayor Rob Ford. Some of their responses: "He probably dabbled in it once or twice" ... "It's his personal behavior, it has nothing to do with the country."
How that is news is beyond me, it's worthless nonsense to get ratings, I think? Watters is a moron, and the segments he does are tabloid garbage that is not news.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Risky Business. Billy said this: "Adventure is a great thing, but if you're doing something extremely risky such as shark-fishing, make sure you go with experienced people who know what they're doing."
Obama Tears Boehner's Lawsuit Against Him To Shreds
By: Steve - August 5, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because he likes it when Republicans do these political stunts, he thinks it will help them win the White House back and get the majority in the Senate. If Democrats did this against a Republican President O'Reilly would lose his mind and report on it every night, but when Republicans do it he says nothing.
President Obama took the stage in Kansas City, MO, and while discussing the economy tore Speaker of the House John Boehner's lawsuit against him to shreds.
The president began his speech in Kansas City by talking about the improving economy, the need to raise the minimum wage, his desire for workers to be able to retire with dignity and respect. The president said that the measure of a good economy is that it is doing well for people who are working hard and not always getting a fair shot.
Obama said that people's struggles are more important than the phony scandals. He said, "Imagine how much further along the economy would be if Congress was doing its job too. We'd be doing great." The president added that if Congress felt the same sense of urgency that the American people did we could help a lot more families.
Later the president said that Republicans keep blocking and voting down every idea that would have an impact on middle class families. Obama said, "They haven't been that helpful. They haven't been as constructive as I would have hoped."
Obama later told Congress to come on and help a little bit, "Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hating all the time."
The president said that the main vote that House Republicans have scheduled for today is to decide whether or not to sue me for doing my job. He said, "But think about this, they have announced that they are going to sue me for taking executive actions to help people.
So you know, they're mad because I'm doing my job, and, by the way, I told them, I said I'd be happy to do it with you. So the only reason I am doing it on my own is because you don't do anything, but if you want let's work together. Everybody recognizes this is a political stunt, but it's worse than that, because every vote they're taking like that is a vote they are not taking to actually help you.
When they had taken fifty votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, that was time they could have spent working constructively to help you on some things. By the way, do you know who's paying for the suit they are going to file? You. No, no, you're paying for it, and it's estimated that by the time the thing is done, I would have already left office, so it's not a productive thing to do."
The president ripped Boehner's lawsuit apart in a few minutes and demonstrated why this obvious political move is such a disaster for the Republican Party. Democrats have been easily able to turn the lawsuit into an indictment of Republican priorities. The president didn't have to say that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money. He let the Republican actions speak for themselves. His comments focused on the opportunity costs behind the Republican decisions to vote dozens of times to repeal the ACA, and file lawsuits.
The key word in the president's remarks was productive. The one political hurdle that congressional Republicans can't overcome is how unproductive they have been. The president didn't need to treat Boehner's lawsuit as a threat to his presidency because it isn't.
He also doesn't need to whip up Democratic outrage. Democrats are already livid. President Obama tore apart Speaker Boehner's lawsuit in the best way possible. He treated it like the joke it is while pointing out why the Republicans have got to go.
America deserves better than John Boehner's political circus, and President Obama is making sure that the American people understand that they are getting ripped off by the House Republican sideshow.
Florida Judge Rules Republicans Illegally Gerrymandered District Maps
By: Steve - August 4, 2014 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly did not report it, because he is a Republican and he supported it, he even defended it when it happened, saying both parties do it.
But this is different than normal gerrymandering, this was illegal and ruled unconstitutional.
Last month, a Florida trial court ruled that the state's gerrymandered congressional maps (maps that enabled Republicans to capture 17 of the state's 27 U.S. House seats despite President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney on the very same day) violate the state's constitution.
On Friday, Judge Terry Lewis issued a new order saying that the unconstitutional maps may not be used in the 2014 election. Lewis floats the possibility that he may order Florida's 2014 congressional elections to be delayed, at least in some parts of the state.
Although top Florida Republicans have indicated they will not appeal Lewis original order declaring the state's maps unconstitutional, they asked him to delay the impact of his decision until after the 2014 elections, essentially allowing one more slate of lawmakers to be elected using the illegal maps.
Which is an outrage, they know it's illegal and unconstitutional, and yet they want the order delayed until after the elections so they can cheat one more time. And O'Reilly does not say a word, now imagine what he would say if Democrats in say California were trying to do the same thing. O'Reilly would lose his mind and report it every night for a month, but when Republicans do it he says nothing, zero, not a word.
In his original order, Lewis determined that two districts were drawn in order to transform a bloc of four districts "from being four Democratic performing or leaning seats in early maps to two Democratic and two Republican performing seats in the enacted map."
Thus, if the old maps are allowed in 2014, Republicans will likely gain two more seats in the House than they would under lawful maps.
In Friday's order, Lewis ordered the state legislature to "submit a remedial or revised map no later than noon on August 15, 2014." Though Lewis does not reveal what he will do next, he does note that "there is authority that both justifies pushing back the November 4th election date and suggests that logistically, it can be done. Under the circumstances before me, I believe that the law requires that I at least consider the possibility."
The authority he refers to is a 1982 case where a court ordered Georgia congressional races delayed after the state drew two congressional districts that violated the Voting Rights Act. If Lewis were to take a similar action in this case, that could mean that he would order congressional races delayed in the districts most impacted by his decision, while allowing elections in the rest of the state to move forward on schedule.
Republican Admits Boehner Lawsuit Against Obama A Show
By: Steve - August 3, 2014 - 10:00am
Right after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) vehemently denied that he was gunning for impeachment with his lawsuit against the President, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) insisted that Boehner should stop the "theater," calling his lawsuit a "show" that will waste millions of taxpayer dollars.
Now, it's not that Jones is against a partisan witch hunt. It's not that Jones is pulling for his party to find some measure of sanity. Oh, no. His suggestion is that Boehner should just impeach the President.
Jones said, "Why not impeach instead of wasting $1 million to $2 million of the taxpayers money? If you're serious about this, use what the founders of the Constitution gave us."
This came out on the day that Republicans are voting on their lawsuit (aka, Get Out the Vote project), which the Republican lawmaker from North Carolina has just made sure you know is going to cost you between $1-2 million dollars.
And just yesterday Boehner said it was a scam for Democrats to claim Republicans wanted to impeach the President. And yet, as I detailed yesterday, there has been a steady drumbeat by Republicans for impeachment and it comes from the same folks who managed to get the Republican Party to shutdown the government. It's not as if they aren't running the show.
Jason Easley busted Boehner in a massive lie as he made the scam charge:
Rep. Boehner claimed that the impeachment talk was started by the president and Democrats, only it wasn't. Back in January, Boehner hinted at impeachment. We're just not going to sit here and let the President trample all over us. This idea that he's just going to go it alone, I have to remind him we do have a constitution. And the Congress writes the laws, and the President's job is to execute the laws faithfully. And if he tries to ignore this he's going to run into a brick wall.
Here is the truth, Boehner can't even control the press his caucus puts out, let alone the bills they kill or their government shutdowns.
In May 2013, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) claimed that President Obama could be impeached for Benghazi. During an August 2013 town hall, Rep. Blake Farenthold admitted to constituents that House Republicans are aching to impeach the president.
In October 2013, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) threatened to impeach the president if the country defaulted. In June 2014, the South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution that called for Obama to be impeached. Sarah Palin claimed that God wants President Obama impeached.
The list of Republican calls for Obama impeachment is endless, so it is a ridiculous lie for Boehner to claim that Democrats are behind the impeachment talk.
Here's an idea for the Republicans. Instead of wasting $1-2 million on a meritless lawsuit against the President and instead of trying to impeach him for acting like he's president, why don't Republicans actually do something that will give them something to run on – give people a reason to vote for them besides hate.
In the meantime, Representative Jones has done the public a service by reminding them that they are footing the bill for Republicans political desperation.
The 12 Worst Shows In Cable News
By: Steve - August 2, 2014 - 10:00am
And to no surprise 5 of the 12 shows are on The Fox News Network. This list is from Mediaite.com.
1) Fox & Friends
There may be no sadder sight in cable news than watching Fox's morning power trio try and fail to prosecute a conservative talking point. Even staunch conservatives understand the show is embarrassing.
2) Nancy Grace
Nancy Grace is a terrifying force of nature. On CNN's lowly sister network, she has carved a niche for herself as the huffing-and-puffing, fire-breathing, ambulance-chasing, crime-porn host with a flair for "guilty until proven innocent"-style punditry.
Sean Hannity is the living embodiment of talking points regurgitation. It is your one-stop shop for red-blooded conservatism and the near-constant yelling at liberals. No, seriously, the show is probably the most likely to feature shouting at and among guests of any show on Fox News.
4) PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton
It might feel lazy simply pointing the finger at Al Sharpton as the reason for his program making this list. But there's no way around it: It's Sharpton. PoliticsNation itself is almost entirely unremarkable -- it's a sleepy cable news show, inoffensive in terms of production value.
5) The Ed Show
Consider Ed Schultz the Alan Grayson of MSNBC. Much like the rest of his network, Schultz loves nothing more than to bash the GOP and conservatives whenever humanly possible, but his criticism often veers into venomous, over-the-top cartoonish rhetoric.
6) Justice with Judge Jeanine
To understand just how pandering and shamelessly blowhardified this weekend show can be, all you really need to do is watch this self-satisfied, demagogic monologue from Jeanine Pirro.
7) Ronan Farrow Daily
With a resume and pedigree like Ronan Farrow's, you can't help but wonder if he joined MSNBC's daytime lineup on a dare. How did a Yale graduate who once served as a special adviser to Hillary Clinton end up doing TV segments on Sharknado?
One question: Why was this necessary? Last summer, CNN broke Jon Stewart's heart by announcing they would bring Crossfire back to life. Things didn't get much better when they revealed that failed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and Obama flack Stephanie Cutter would be half of the four rotating hosts. It's so dull, you almost forget the show even exists.
9) Morning Joe
Every morning, we all must bask in the glow that is how super-important and well-connected the Morning Joe hosts and their gaggle of regulars truly are. Did you know they love and are friends with Gov. Chris Christie? Did you know that some people think Joe Scarborough might make a good 2016 GOP candidate? And despite all the bright minds at one desk, you leave every morning disappointed that their ridiculous format forces them to graft, Frankenstein-style, a political talk show onto an inane morning gabfest.
10) Fast Money Halftime
Finance and economics are incredibly serious topics, but why do we get the feeling we're watching the Jerry Springer version of financial reporting? While we single out Fast Money for its increasingly frequent shoutfests and nonsensical quad-box pile-ons, this criticism actually applies to most of CNBC's programming.
This is what happens when you take the internet joke "Amirite ladies?" and turn it into an hour-long Fox show. Seemingly conceived to combat accusations of sexism on Fox, it morphed into an artificial format that enables men to say outrageous things - often about gender - and then have women react (in a loving way) to how outrageous the man's statements are.
If there were an award for Least Improved, Howard Kurtz would win it. The former Reliable Sources host landed at Fox after leaving CNN and being fired from the Daily Beast for, as Tina Brown put it, "serial inaccuracy." Kurtz's MediaBuzz is yet another serving of just askin style of talking point iteration, with the least imaginative guests possible (just ponder the inspiration it took for a Fox media criticism show to go down the hall and book Bill O'Reilly). Lazy criticism, bland television.
And I would disagree with one show on the list, The Ed Show on MSNBC is actually pretty good, he tells the truth with facts and slams the GOP for lies and propaganda. I think Mediaite added him to make it the top 12 just to balance out the 5 Fox News shows they listed. So Republicans would not claim the list is biased because it has so many Fox shows.
O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Bob McDonnell Corruption Trial
By: Steve - August 2, 2014 - 9:00am
This is a big news story about corruption in Government, by a former Republican Governor. This is what journalists are in business for, to report on corruption cases like this, and yet, Bill O'Reilly has ignored the entire story and the trial, despite having a weekly legal segment on his own show.
According to prosecutors, the McDonnells used their governor's perch to improperly promote Williams company. Maureen McDonnell arranged for Williams to have access to her husband, for example, and the couple made introductions to other officials for the businessman, among other allegations.
When Democrats are charged with corruption O'Reilly has extensive coverage of it, at least once a week if not more, with follow up segments. When John Edwards was charged with possibly using campaign funds to buy a house for his mistress O'Reilly covered it a lot, doing at least 20 segments on it over a 3 or 4 month period, he was all over it.
But when Republicans are charged with corruption O'Reilly not only does not have multiple segments on it, he does not have any segments on it, none, not one. Because the guy is a Republican and O'Reilly does not want to make him or the Republican party look bad.
The former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen are charged with selling political favors in exchange for lavish gifts, trips, and shopping expeditions. Over the past week, jurors have heard scintillating testimony and jaw-dropping allegations from the prosecution’s star witness, Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams.
Everything from a $20,000 New York City shopping spree Williams took Maureen McDonnell on making stops at Louis Vuitton, Oscar de la Renta, and Bergdorf Goodman to a $6,000 Rolex Williams bought for the governor at the request of his wife.
So many of the tales are eyebrow raising, but much of it is detailed in the evidence entered in to court, including photographs of the then-first couple of Virginia enjoying Williams Ferrari to the personalized engraving on the back of that pricey watch to text messages with the key parties.
Among the lavish gifts from Williams to the McDonnells was a Rolex watch costing more than $6,000. Williams testified the then-first lady said upon seeing Williams own Rolex said, "I'd really like to get one of those for the governor. He just wears these old watches."
Williams then said he told Maureen McDonnell, "Do you want me to get one of these watches for the governor?" Williams testified that she answered, "Yes, that would be nice."
In his testimony, Williams has now said, "It was a bad decision on my part to buy that watch when she asked for it...I shouldn't have had to buy things like that to get the help I needed." Maureen McDonnell has said she gave the watch to her husband as a Christmas gift.
And O'Reilly does not say a word about any of it, he ignores it all, while complaining the other news networks ignore news that is negative to President Obama and the Democratic party. While he is doing the exact same thing with Republicans and the Republican party. It's a double standard, hypocrisy, and a violation of the rules of journalism. And more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing Hack of a pretend journalist.
The Thursday 7-31-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 1, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Do Republicans Hate President Obama? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that relations between the Republican-controlled House and President Obama are at their lowest point ever. Yesterday, the House voted to sue the President in federal court because the President has changed or delayed parts of ObamaCare without Congressional approval. Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the suit will be thrown out and is essentially a waste of taxpayer money because it has no hope of success.
And that is what you call right-wing propaganda, almost none of it is true. Republicans do hate Obama and have voted against everything he wanted to do, for purely political reasons. Obama's policies are succeeding, just look at the stock market, the jobs numbers, the unemployment rate, the GDP increases, and on and on, it's all a success, O'Reilly and the right just refuse to admit it for political reasons.
Republicans argue that it's a Constitutional play and that the President should be held accountable for over-stepping his authority. From the beginning, conservative Americans were suspect of President Obama, who is the most liberal President this country has ever had. His philosophy of social justice and income redistribution puts him in a position where detente is difficult with the right.
Then there is his personal style. The President does not like the political game, so he doesn't even try to win over his opposition. But the staunch opposition means he can blame failures on Congress, as Mr. Obama has done with the border situation and things in general.
If President Obama's policies were succeeding, the GOP could not block him effectively - he could appeal directly to you, the folks. But Mr. Obama's vision has failed at home and abroad. So now he has only his core supporters left, and a House of Representatives that will defy him on almost everything.
Then Democrat James Carville and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the conflict between President Obama and Congress.
Obenshain said this: "You might think there are a bunch of pinheads in the House, and I don't dispute that. However, the president has been sitting back knowing that anything the House puts forward will be killed in the Senate. It would be a great thing if the president stopped calling Republicans 'haters' and 'hostage takers.'"
Carville mocked Republicans for failing to pass an immigration bill Thursday, saying this: "They couldn't pass their own bill, this had nothing to do with Obama. The Senate has already passed an immigration bill, the House has not!"
Then the Republican O'Reilly said this: "The sad truth is that there is a total collapse in Washington and a lot of it is President Obama's fault. You have a president who is not managing and the country is being run into the ground."
Which is just laughable, because it is all the fault of the Republicans in the house who decided years ago to block everything Obama does so he can not get any political credit for it, and to keep the economy running as slow as possible because if they worked with Obama to improve it he would look good. O'Reilly refuses to admit that because he is a Republicans who also wants to make Obama look bad, even when things are going good.
Then Simon Rosenberg & Chad Sweet were on to talk about a new report out of Texas that says state authorities are overwhelmed by violence and humanitarian chaos at the border.
Republican Chad Sweet said this: "I praised Mexico when their former president had an extremely aggressive anti-smuggling program, but President Nieto has taken his foot off the gas. The flood of unaccompanied children coming to the United States is a direct result of Mexico turning a blind eye."
The Democrat Rosenberg praised Mexico for its efforts. saying this: "Mexico is taking responsibility for the first time to fortify the border. They're moving far more resources there and they've committed to working with the United States. The flow coming into the United States is down."
Then Heather Nauert was on to answer emails from some angry viewers. Among them - Floridian George Szrenaiwski, who is irate over the lack of coverage of ISIS slaughtering Christians in Iraq. "We went to war in part to free those people from a brutal dictator," Nauert said, "and I believe it's our moral responsibility to help these Christians in Iraq. The president has not said anything and it doesn't look like we are doing anything to reach out to them."
And of course, no Democratic guest was on for balance.
Another Floridian, Rick Golden, is outraged because taxpayers are footing the bill for convicted spy Bradley Manning's sex change therapy. "He is serving 35 years," Nauert reported, "and Army psychologists say he has gender identity disorder. He is going to get some kind of sex change treatments and this will be paid for by the Department of Defense."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura who won his defamation lawsuit against the widow of famed Navy sniper Chris Kyle.
Goldberg said this: "I don't know if this was the correct verdict, and I think there is a good chance this will be overturned on appeal. But from a public relations point of view, Jesse Ventura should have walked out of the courtroom and said that he did this to clear his name. As for the $1.8 million award, he should have said he's giving it to the widow of the Navy SEAL. That would have been a public relations success, but he didn't do that and this will haunt him for a long time."
Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about the costumed characters who are harassing tourists in New York City's Times Square. "I blame the tourists," Gutfeld said, "because they see these loons like celebrities. That is not really Elmo, that is a felon in a costume made of stained carpeting. If you don't want to deal with this, don't go to Times Square!"
McGuirk laid the blame on the furry and masked characters, saying this: "They need to be regulated and fumigated, these people are disgusting. I walked through Times Square yesterday and there are bugs jumping off these people. I'm longing for the old days with the peep shows, but the place is now full of pink-faced, overweight European tourists with too-tight shorts and sandals."
How that is news is beyond me, but that is what O'Reilly reported on his so-called hard news show.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Friendly Advice. Billy said this: "Good friends are a treasure and an important part of life, so nurture and cultivate those friendships."
Another Dishonest Fox Chart On The Obama Approval Rating
By: Steve - August 1, 2014 - 10:00am
And remember this folks, this is not just a once in 10 years accident, Fox gets caught doing this kind of stuff almost every month, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, while crying about media bias at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and ABC.
A recent Fox News segment displayed a misleading chart based on a poll that appeared to show 110 percent of Americans disapproved of President Obama's job performance.
On the July 30th edition of Special Report, the following chart was shown during a report by Fox News political correspondent Carl Cameron on Obama's popularity in the "twelve states most likely to decide Senate control":
Without showing the number of likely voters who approve of Obama's job performance, viewers are left with the impression that more than 100 percent of respondents disapprove of the president's job performance. Even though his approval ratings are about 40%, and without noting the fact that it is so low because all the Republicans give him a disapproval rating.
The actual poll from Democracy Corps showed the president's job approval holding steady in battleground states at nearly 40 percent and his approval rating nationwide remains over 40 percent.
But if you only watch Fox and saw that segment you are left with the impression that 110% of the people disapprove of the job Obama is doing, even though polls can only add up to 100%, so the graphic is totally dishonest. And they know it, but they used it anyway in a misleading and biased way.