By: Steve - August 31, 2015 - 11:00am
And what a clown show it was, Palin of course came off as an idiot, and Trump came off as the racist right-wing jerk he is, and it was great, as in great comedy.
First Palin said President Obama Is Lying About The Economy, then Trump claimed that 93 million people in the US are unemployed. This absurd number has been cooked up by conservative media who like to claim that real unemployed is 42%, not 12%. Palin said, "I don't think we are getting the truth out of the White House, so thanks for setting that straight." Trump replied, "No, the White House is not truthful."
According to Palin and Trump Obama is lying and cooking the books. All of those jobs that people are getting, the rising consumer spending, and the obvious economic growth that is all around us is not real. The country is mired in a Great Depression level crisis according to Trump and Palin.
I guess they do not know that jobs are up to record levels and unemployment is down, and that the economy is booming with a 3.7% GDP, or they are just lying, which is the real truth.
Palin said The Most Respected Latino Journalist In The US Is A "Radical Activist." In a deeply bigoted exchange, Palin and Trump attacked the most influential Spanish-speaking journalist in the country. Univision's Jorge Ramos is a respected journalist who hosts the highest rated Spanish language news program in the United States, but Trump and Palin referred to him as a "radical activist."
Palin said that Trump schooled that radical activist, "It was the right thing to do because I don't think he'll be pulling that one again." In the world of Palin and Trump, Latinos who don't want to be discriminated against are radical activists.
Palin also said that Being Asked About Your Favorite Bible Verse Is A Gotcha Question. Just like she said it was a gotcha question when the ABC journalist Katie Couric asked her what newspapers she reads, and she had no answer.
Palin said, "So you get hit with these gotchas like most conservatives do. For instance, they asking what's your favorite Bible verse?"
Yes, asking a candidate who claims that the Bible is his favorite book about his favorite Bible verse is such a gotcha question, not.
The interview was a trainwreck that was more like a Saturday Night Live skit than a real interview. However, what is in the video above is not a joke. This is the real face of the Republican Party.
Republicans deny facts and reality. They hate the President with a passion and will smear and disrespect him at every opportunity. The Republican stance on immigration is being fueled by bigotry and racism, and with the exception of Fox News they claim the media is out to get them.
Palin and Trump are an idiots dream team that highlights all of the reasons why Republicans will lose in 2016. They are the ugly far-right racist side of the Republican Party, and this interview represents everything that voters will reject next year.
Charles Koch Slams The President For Telling The Truth About Him & His Brother
By: Steve - August 31, 2015 - 10:00am
Now this is funny, because it's the exact same thing O'Reilly does every time someone tells the truth about him, attack the accuser and say they are the bad guy. Which is nothing but a cheap diversion trick that nobody falls for, except the brainwashed sheep that believe all the lies they tell.
Here is the deal, the truth hurts. And because they are mostly pathological liars, Republicans and their various conservative and religious cohort basically cannot understand why any human being, much less a politician, would ever speak the truth when they can lie; especially when the truth can be so hurtful.
Monday President Barack Obama spoke the truth about the dirty energy industry during an energy speech and it obviously hurt Charles Koch's feelings, but the White House could not care less and was not afraid to tell Koch he is a liar.
During his Monday speech on renewable energy at the National Clean Energy Summit, President Obama said this: "You start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards or prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding -- that's a problem."
The reality is that Charles Koch slammed the President for daring to tell the truth about the Kochs fossil fuel industry and their conservative think tanks.
Koch said that it was a low blow for the President to speak the truth and also that he was absolutely "flabbergasted" that a politician had the temerity to speak honestly about the Kochs. He said this: "It's beneath the president, the dignity of the president, to be doing that."
By doing that Koch means President Obama told an audience what they are very well aware of; not only are the Kochs waging war on clean and renewable energy, they are part of the problem and fund most of the massive lobbying efforts to eliminate renewable energy standards and obstruct new clean energy businesses from even starting, much less succeeding.
Charles Koch wants Americans to believe the he and his billionaire brother, the fossil fuel industry, Koch-funded belief tanks like Americans for Prosperity and Heritage Action, are rabid supporters of clean and renewable sources of energy and it was beneath the President to dare say otherwise.
Koch portrayed President Obama's remarks as an unwarranted personal attack and claimed he could not believe the President would say so many things about us that were the opposite of the truth. What Koch did not expect was that the President of the United States would have the temerity to tell exactly the truth about the billionaire oil magnates attempts to thwart every possible effort to shift America to clean and renewable energy.
Charles Koch is a typical right-wing liar, and two years ago the brothers state-level legislative arm the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity embarked on a massive campaign and crusade to do exactly what President Obama accused them of; pushing legislation to roll back clean energy standards to kill jobs and keep air and water quality on par with third world developing countries.
The White House did not back down from the truth about the Koch brothers and White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Koch's comments do not match with reality; in street language he called Charles Koch a liar. He said this: "I'm not sure whether to describe those comments as remarkably rich or utterly predictable. It's that when the president is advocating the end of tax subsidies that benefit oil and gas companies, that somebody who has made billions of dollars leading an oil and gas company, might not think very highly of that policy proposal."
What Earnest did not elaborate on, or even mention, are the millions upon millions of dollars the Koch's and their fossil fuel cohorts spend every year on legislative repeal efforts to put an end to renewable energy standards and thwart the availability and usage of clean and renewable energy like wind and solar by Americans.
In fact, during the President's speech in Nevada he came out in support of consumers battling a giant energy supplier's efforts to put an abrupt end to Nevada's nation-leading solar panel industry with valuable assistance from the Koch-funded ALEC.
If Charles Koch did not appreciate the President calling out the Koch brothers by name, he was likely astonished that the White House would dare "hit back" at the Kochs and call them out on their continued lying. Earnest said he was not sure if Koch's comments were "remarkably rich or utterly predictable," but he clarified the White House's position when he said, "Koch's comments do not match reality."
In other words, he called Charles Koch a liar who is so ensconced in mendacity that it is highly likely that the President's truth did hurt poor Charles and David Koch.
Ted Cruz Makes A Fool Of Himself During Interview With Megyn Kelly
By: Steve - August 30, 2015 - 10:30am
During his time in the Senate, Ted Cruz has proven to be an absolute joke. It blows my mind that there are millions of Republicans in this country who actually take this clown seriously. Not only is he one of the most extreme politicians we have in this country, he is the most dishonest, because almost nothing he says is true.
It should not be a surprise that when Cruz went on The Kelly File Tuesday night on Fox News, he made an absolute fool out of himself. It started with Megyn Kelly asking him if he would deport American citizens born to illegal immigrants, like Donald Trump said he would do. "Do American citizen children of two illegal immigrants get deported under a President Cruz?," Kelly asked.
After saying he didn't want to "play her game" -- because apparently asking a serious policy question that has major implications on the lives of millions of Americans (as well as our Constitution) is unreasonable to Cruz -- he finally tried to blame her question on the so-called liberal mainstream media.
Seriously, "I get that's the question you want to ask," Cruz responded. "That's also the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask."
I would think any credible journalist would want to ask a presidential candidate whether or not they would support deporting millions of American citizens. I have no idea how any sane person could see Kelly's question as some sort of "gotcha liberal media" ploy against Republicans.
The GOP is the party that has several of its candidates coming out against birthright citizenship, so all she was doing was asking Cruz to clarify his stance on an issue that's been at the forefront of his party for the last few weeks. So, being that Cruz apparently felt she was playing some sort of game, Kelly flat-out asked him if he thought it was an unfair question, pressing him on the fact that he seemed to be purposely avoiding giving her a simple yes or no answer.
His response was exactly what you would expect from Cruz -- just a list of talking points that had nothing to do with whether or not he, like Trump, would call for the deportation of millions of American citizens who were born to illegal immigrants.
Cruz once again came off looking unprepared and like someone who has no business running for president. While I'm sure his supporters would disagree, I think most rational people would agree that he absolutely embarrassed himself during this interview.
Kelly even laughed at him a couple of times while he was trying to dance around and make excuses for why he wouldn't answer her very simple question.
I think it's time for a new rule, it would say if you are a Republican who can't even handle an interview on Fox News, you should be banned from running for public office.
Hillary Beats Trump With Hispanics By 91 Percent
By: Steve - August 29, 2015 - 10:30am
Think about this Republicans, to be the next President you need to win at least 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. And as of now Donald Trump has a -51 point approval rating with hispanics, which means if the Republicans nominate him he can never win.
A Gallup survey released on August 24th, of 2,183 Hispanic adults conducted during July and August, reveals just how deeply unpopular Donald Trump has become with Latino voters. Given Trump's highly racist campaign, it should come as little surprise that the billionaire is not well liked by Hispanic voters. However, the extent to which Latinos hate Trump is truly staggering.
Only 14 percent of Hispanic adults say they have a favorable opinion of Donald Trump, compared to 65 percent who do not. Trump's net favorable rating is an incredibly dismal (-51) percentage points. To put that in perspective, on the opposite side of the political spectrum, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a 58 percent favorable to 18 percent unfavorable rating with Latinos.
Clinton's positive (+40) rating is an almost incomprehensible 91 percentage points better than Trump's rating with Hispanics.
Since entering the presidential race, Donald Trump has made demonizing Latinos, especially Mexican immigrants, a cornerstone of his campaign. He referred to undocumented Mexicans as rapists during his highly publicized kick off event, and he hasn't backed off his xenophobic rhetoric since.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton has expressed support for a humane, common sense immigration policy. She made that clear by issuing a statement in May, where she said this:
The American people support comprehensive immigration reform not just because it's the right thing to do, and it is, but because it will strengthen families, strengthen our economy, and strengthen our country.The contrast between the two candidates could not be more stark. Fortunately, Hispanic-Americans appear to be paying attention to the clear differences between the two candidates.
As long as Donald Trump stays insulated within the overwhelmingly white GOP primaries and caucuses, he can maintain an illusion of electoral viability. However, in a head to head match up with Hillary Clinton, Trump's miserable showing with Hispanic voters would all but guarantee his defeat in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado.
And a Trump candidacy would open the door for Hillary Clinton to win Arizona and possibly Texas as well. Donald Trump has built a wall between himself and Hispanic voters and if he becomes the Republican nominee, he will make the GOP pay for it.
GOP Might Take Trump Out And Rig Their Primary So He Can Not Win
By: Steve - August 28, 2015 - 10:30am
But if you ask Bill O'Reilly Trump is good for the party, so if that is true why are the Republican big shots thinking of rigging their primary so Trump can not win, O'Reilly has no answer for that.
Almost nothing in politics surprises me anymore. From totally dishonest and ridiculous campaign ads to comments that right out of a Saturday Night Live sketch, sometimes our political process is one big clown car.
But every once in a while something comes along that surprises me -- which is exactly what happened when I saw this story. It looks like the South Carolina Republican Party has put in place a policy that states they will not allow a candidate on their primary ballot unless they sign a pledge not to run as a third-party candidate and promise to support whichever candidate ultimately wins the nomination.
It's a policy that other states are also thinking about putting on place. Clearly this is aimed at Donald Trump and his refusal to rule out the possibility that he will run as a third-party candidate, a move that would absolutely crush any chance Republicans have in the 2016 election. And I could care less that this is aimed at taking down a right-wing jerk like Trump, this is a blatant slap in the face of democracy.
The South Carolina Republican Party has implemented a policy that might leave the current leading Republican candidate for president off their ballot unless he agrees to what is pretty much blackmail. Not only that, isn't democracy supposed to be about what the voters want?
This is basically the South Carolina Republican Party trying to rig the election by either leaving Trump off the ballot or forcing him to sign some pledge that might be in stark contrast to what millions of conservatives want -- which would be for Trump to run as an independent if he doesn't win the party's nomination.
And btw, there is absolutely no chance this will not end in disaster. If Trump does not sign this pledge and he is left off the primary ballot in South Carolina (or any number of other states thinking of doing the very same thing), you're going to see more write-in votes for a candidate than at any time in this nation's history. Not only that, but I can't see Trump supporters taking this lying down.
You want to see total and complete chaos break out? Tell millions of conservatives across this country that the Republican candidate they want as their nominee might not be on their state's ballot. I can promise you that's not going to go well for any state that tries to do that.
Other than that, there is a glaring flaw in this crazy plan to begin with: If South Carolina sticks to this policy, and other states follow their lead -- leaving Trump off the Republican ballot -- that would almost guarantee he would run as a third-party candidate. The exact thing they were trying to prevent in the first place.
I also wonder how this is even legal. How can a leading candidate for a political party be left off a ballot because they refuse to sign a pledge that's not binding to the Constitution of the United States or our election laws? Then, say Trump were to sign something as absurd as this pledge, would that legally prevent him from running as a third party candidate?
I do not think it would. This is nothing but the Republican Party's attempt to get conservatives turning against Trump by pointing out he won't sign the pledge or they know that it's very unlikely he would ever sign it. In other words, they're trying to rig the party's nomination to block him from being their candidate for president.
Either way, it's crazy and if I were a conservative, I would be mad as hell. What South Carolina did, and what other states are thinking of doing as well, is a blatant attack on democracy and what elections are supposed to be about.
And of course, Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it. But if the Democratic party did something like this to a Democratic candidate, e would lose his mind and report it every night for a week.
Reality Check: Jeb Bush Is A Joke & His Numbers Are Terrible
By: Steve - August 28, 2015 - 9:30am
And if the Republicans elect another Bush to run against the Democrat after what George W. Bush did when he was President, they are dumber than I thought. After what George did, no Bush should ever be elected to any office, let alone President.
Back in 2008, if you had told Americans that just eight years later another Bush would be running for president, most people would say you were out of your mind. Now with Jeb Bush's candidacy, there's a chance that this country could potentially elect a third Bush to the White House.
Even though he was long considered a sure bet Republican frontrunner and the most likely nominee, that's looking less and less likely all the time. Bush's first problem is that he's basically just another Mitt Romney. By that I mean, he's someone who was recruited to run for president mainly because of just how terrible all the other candidates are.
He was seen as the "most electable" of all the clowns -- the "sure-bet" Republican who could appeal to moderates and win the independent vote (wishful thinking, but these people don't usually deal in reality as it is). Now his campaign is all but on life support as recent poll numbers have him continuing to fall out of favor with Republican voters.
Real Clear Politics currently has him 11 points behind Trump and only one point ahead of Ben Carson in their average of national polling, while he's currently 6th in Iowa (tied with Marco Rubio) and 3rd in New Hampshire. He's been nosediving in pretty much any and every legitimate poll that's been released since April. Not only that, but if you look at the Fox News poll that RCP references, he comes in fourth behind Trump, Carson and Cruz nationally.
As the presumptive favorite to win the nomination, if you can't even do well in a Fox News poll -- you're screwed. Meanwhile, earlier this week Donald Trump called him "low-energy," saying it's hard for Bush to "get things done." Not to be outdone, Ted Cruz just called Bush "confused" about immigration law.
While we can go back and forth all day about the merits of Jeb Bush's campaign, his biggest problem is -- he's a Bush. Not that I'm saying his last name instantly disqualifies him from being president; I'm more focused on his genetics. The more he talks, the more he reminds the American people of his brother.
It's hard to run for president claiming you're not George W. Bush, when you're essentially setting up a presidential campaign comprised of many of his former advisers and policies that look a whole lot like what he supported.
Let's take a look at a few of the really idiotic things Jeb has said over the last few months: He literally tried to criticize President Obama for being too intelligent (no, that's not a joke). He said Americans don't work hard enough. He said it was "arrogant" to trust the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real.
He publicly stated that he doesn't believe gay Americans can provide loving homes for children. He actually tried using the Apple Watch as a way to attack the Affordable Care Act. He said he would have invaded Iraq just like his brother -- then it took him of being destroyed in the media to finally say he misspoke. And all of those happened in just the last few months -- we're not going back years here.
He's often been called the smarter Bush, but I'm not sure if we can even call him that at this point. As someone who's always seen him as the person I believed would walk away with the nomination, even I'm doubting his ability to become the GOP nominee.
In general, conservatives were never really that enthusiastic about him in the first place. But it seems that even the low expectations many of them had for him aren't being met.
He's not out of it yet obviously (it is still relatively early and he's still top 5 in most Republican polls), but at this rate, all of the political rhetoric, spin and Super PAC money in the world won't be able to fix Jeb Bush's campaign. Which is fine by me.
Speaker Boehner Called Ted Cruz A Jackass At Republican Fundraiser
By: Steve - August 27, 2015 - 11:30am
According to attendees of a Colorado fundraiser, Speaker of the House John Boehner recently called fellow Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz a jackass.
Two separate witnesses tell The Daily Caller's Alex Pappas that Boehner made the comments during a fundraiser for Republican Congressman Scott Tipton.
Boehner said that he liked that Cruz's presidential campaign kept "that jackass" out of Washington, and from telling him how to do his job.
"I don't think it's Speaker-like, and I think it kind of goes against everything that Reagan ever said about disparaging Republicans," one witness said.
The other agreed, saying "I about fell on the floor" when he heard Boehner say it.
Obama Slams The Republican Koch Brothers For Opposing Solar Power
By: Steve - August 27, 2015 - 11:00am
President Obama made a political and an economic case for solar energy Monday, telling an industry summit in Las Vegas that the explosive growth in solar power "has some big fossil fuel interests pretty nervous."
"Now, it's one thing if you're consistent in being free market. It's another thing when you're free market until it's solar that's working and people want to buy and suddenly you're not for it any more," he said.
"When you start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards, or to prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding, that's s problem," Obama said, singling out industrialists Charles and David Koch for the first time in a climate speech.
Koch-backed groups have fought clean energy mandates in several states, comparing the policies to the health insurance mandates under Obamacare.
'"That's not the American way. That's not progress. That's not innovation. That's rent seeking. That's standing in the way of progress," Obama said.
Obama said opponents are stifling customer choice. And he noted that even some Tea Party leaders were supporting pro-solar policies.
The president has made climate change the signature issue of his second-term agenda, and is highlighting the flooding, storns, drought, wildfires, polar ice melting and other effects of increasing global temperatures.
In Las Vegas Monday, he struck an optimistic tone, echoing his campaign slogan of "Yes, we can."
Obama said the growth in solar -- which is 20 times bigger than it was in 2008, is "like evolving from the telegraph to the smartphone in less than a decade." "I'm here to give you hope, but not complacency," he said.
Companies like Wal-Mart and Google were turning to solar and renewable energy "not because they're tree-huggers," he said, but because they're cost cutters."
Republican Senator Says Idiot Trump Could Destroy The Republican Party
By: Steve - August 27, 2015 - 10:00am
Now think about this, Bill O'Reilly said Trump is good for the Republican party.
For quite a few years now I have been predicting the end of the Republican party. My feeling has been that, over time, the voice of the radical right (tea party loons) would continue to grow louder and louder, ultimately putting the Republican party in a dangerous position where it would either have to fully embrace the crazies or risk ripping the party apart.
Despite what we all might think about the GOP, party leaders are well aware that eventually Republicans are going to have to tone down some of their far-right rhetoric (particularly gay rights and immigrants) if they want to remain relevant nationally -- especially during presidential elections.
And there is the problem: How do you pander to ultra-conservatives who harbor bigotry, racism and out-of-touch ignorance on many social issues while still appealing to a society that's becoming increasingly more progressive with each generation? The truth is, they can't.
If Republicans try to walk the line of the more moderate aspects of the party of the 80's and 90's, while still allowing the tea party to heavily influence large parts of the GOP, eventually what you're going to see is the party ripped in two.
And it looks like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham agrees with me, saying during a CNN interview that if the "complete idiot" Trump wins the GOP nomination, it would be "the end of the Republican party."
He also set his sights on Trump's ignorance concerning military matters and foreign policy. "He's shallow," Graham exclaimed. "He's ill-prepared to be commander in chief. He's a complete idiot when it comes to Mideast policy."
While I'm sure many people will dismiss Graham's comments as just a fellow GOP candidate who's desperate for attention, I think his comments are actually more telling of a much larger problem brewing within the Republican party. As Trump's star continues to rise, I think it's obvious the RNC (and most Republicans) cannot stand the fact that he's the party's overwhelming favorite right now to win the nomination.
But the problem is, they don't know what the hell to do about it. If they try to take him out, they'll only increase the likelihood that he runs as a third-party candidate. But at the same time, if they embrace him, they're well aware that he stands almost no shot at winning in the general election.
They are literally, in a no-win situation. Their only real hope is that Trump's extreme rhetoric eventually brings himself down. Otherwise, there's not a whole lot they can do about his continued rock star status among conservative voters. If Trump does ultimately win the nomination, I believe Graham is right when he says that it would most likely be the end of the Republican party.
More Donald Trump Lies Exposed For The People To See
By: Steve - August 26, 2015 - 11:00am
"They love me," Donald Trump said of Hispanic-American immigrants during an interview with NBC News last month. "And I'll tell you something: If I get the nomination, I'll win the Latino vote."
But after viewing the latest Gallup poll of 2,183 Hispanic adults conducted over the weeks since he first made those statements, Trump's prediction looks more laughable than ever.
Gallup said Trump's net favorability rating with Hispanics compared to the rest of GOP field is dead last.
A full 65% of Hispanic voters surveyed said they view Trump unfavorably, with only 14% saying they have a positive view of him. After calling Mexicans "rapists" and vowing to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, it's a wonder those numbers are not worse for him.
Most of the GOP candidates have net negative ratings with Hispanics, but none of them come close to Trump at -51%. At -7%, Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are tied for the second-worst performance, but they are also less familiar to the population in question.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush has the best rating of any Republican at +11%, with 34% of Hispanic voters viewing him favorably and 23% viewing him unfavorably. Of course, the survey mostly took place before Bush embraced the term "anchor babies."
The Democratic candidates did much better in the Gallup poll, with Hillary Clinton leading the pack at a +40 net favorability rating (58% favorable to 18% unfavorable).
In 2012, Latino voters, who made up 10% of the electorate, chose Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 71-27%. Next year, the group is expected to grow to 11% of the total voting population.
And btw folks, if you do not win at least 40% of the hispanic vote you will never be the President, and no Republican in the race is even close to 40%.
The Real Truth About Republican Trickle Down Economics
By: Steve - August 26, 2015 - 10:00am
O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are constantly promoting trickle down economics, even though it is a scam and does not work, and here is a great example of it.
The Republican party's economic ideology is based on tax cuts, commonly referred to as "trickle-down economics." It is generally the belief that the more the rich have, the better off the rest of us will be via more jobs, higher wages and a stimulated economy.
Except, that's not at all what's happened. Over the last 30+ years the rich have gotten richer while the rest of us have fallen further and further behind. Then again, that's what we should have expected. To believe tax cuts would create jobs is ludicrous. Businesses create jobs when demand dictates that they're needed. No business is going to create jobs it doesn't need just because their taxes were cut.
In fact, most businesses continue to prove that their main goal when it comes to wages is to pay their employees as little as possible. I think if you ask most people they will tell you their pay increases, benefits and overall perks at their jobs have gotten worse, not better, over the last three decades.
No other state in the country proves what a scam trickle-down economics is better than Kansas. Back in 2012, Republican Governor Sam Brownback promised that his "new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy." Since then, the Kansas economy has been an absolute mess.
The state has been saddled with a massive deficit, creating a situation so dire that just a few months ago even some Republicans in Kansas were admitting that taxes needed to be raised. You know things are getting bad when Republicans are talking about raising taxes. Well, things just keep getting worse as jobs numbers in the state continue to disappoint.
According to The Kansas City Star: This has been a bad week for Gov. Sam Brownback and others who believe his massive income tax cuts are going to dramatically boost employment in the state. A new report Friday showed that Kansas had lost a whopping 4,300 jobs in July from a month earlier.
The unemployment rate climbed for the fourth straight month, up to 4.6 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. And look at this: The State now has 1,700 fewer jobs than it did at the start of 2015. One more fact from the latest report shows that Kansas has added only 5,600 total jobs in the last year -- from July 2014 to July 2015.
The new information shows that the tax cuts have drained the Kansas treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars in the past two years, and are not working to attract employers and jobs. I would like to take this time to remind everyone that while Kansas struggles, we've seen historic economic growth and job creation in the last 12-18 months nationally. In fact, 2014 was the best year for job creation since the 90's.
So, Kansas passes these massive tax cuts, then proceeds to see their deficits skyrocket and job creation weaken. If that scenario sounds familiar, it should -- that's exactly what George W. Bush did when he was the President.
Republicans will even admit that income inequality is an issue, but their solution is more of the same policies that caused it in the first place. The bottom line is this, these tax cuts do nothing but make the rich even wealthier at the expense of everyone else.
It's a fact that even with all of these examples showing where tax cuts have been an absolute economic disaster every single time they're implemented, Bill O'Reilly and millions of conservatives still continue to cling to these failed economic policies.
Five Issues Republicans Use To Fool The People
By: Steve - August 25, 2015 - 11:00am
You have probably often wondered why so many conservatives seem to vote against their own self interests. After all, there are millions of poor and middle class Americans who vote for a party that literally advocates for policies that help no one but the rich and the corporations, at the expense of everyone else.
I can't count how many times I've met a conservative who relies on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or some other government program to survive who still continues to support a party that desperately tries to cut or flat-out eliminate many of these programs.
Not only that, but it's comically hypocritical for someone who's living off a program such as Social Security to claim that they don't need the government to do anything for them. But while it's undeniable that this phenomenon is maddening, it's really not all that complicated to figure out.
Republicans are masters at distracting their voters with "shiny objects" so that many of them will never really think about all the damage their own party is doing to not only this country, but to their own personal lives. So, I thought I'd list 5 of the issues Republicans often use to distract their voters into voting against their own interests.
1. Religion: This one is a no-brainer. Throughout human history religion has been the go-to method for manipulating large groups of people the easiest. Basically, if you want the most effective way to control people and get them to act completely irrationally, religion is your best bet - which is exactly what the GOP does.
2. Abortion: While this one is sort of tied in with religion, it's really more about controlling women. Because I can promise you this much, if men were the ones getting pregnant - there wouldn't be any "debate" over the legalities of abortion. It would be legal and most Republicans would happily embrace it.
Not only that, the "debate" over abortion was decided over 40 years ago by the Supreme Court. Republicans just use this abortion propaganda to get people worked up over an issue that was decided almost a half century ago.
Abortion should not even be talked about in politics, because it is legal and it is none of their business to tell a woman if she can have a child or not.
3. Anti-poor propaganda: It's amazing how Republicans are quick to vilify the poor who rely on government programs to survive, often playing up rhetoric that typically goes something like this, "Your hard-earned tax dollars going to some moocher who doesn't want to work" - yet they never seem to mention that some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in this country receive a massive amount of benefits from the government via loopholes in our tax code or federal subsidies.
And that 97% of the poor who get those benefits are people who really need it, like veterans, seniors, children, and the disabled.
When you get right down to it, these are essentially just various forms of corporate welfare. But, yes, by all means let's continue to focus on the small percentage of Americans who abuse programs like SNAP or Medicaid - just please don't ask how these highly profitable companies got away with essentially paying no income taxes every year.
4. Guns: In this country we can't even begin to have a reasonable debate about gun violence because Republicans are too busy selling the idea that, at any moment, Americans are going to need our 300 million guns we currently have in our society so that we can rise up and defend ourselves against burglars, Islamic radicals, the U.S. military or pretty much anything else they can use to wrongly scare people.
Meanwhile, they push the ridiculous idea that guns make us safer - even though we lead the modern world in gun violence and have the most guns of any comparable nation. So, if guns truly made us safer, we should rank last in gun violence in the world - not first.
5. This is an O'Reilly Favorite. Traditional American values are under attack: This is basically code for "straight, white Christian males are slowly losing their dominance over the rest of society." The truth is, this county doesn't have any traditional values. We've always been a nation of progress and growth - even if it happens at a much slower pace than what many of us would like.
Traditional values went out in the 60's with Leave It To Beaver and Ward Cleaver, it's just that fools like O'Reilly and others on the right refuse to admit it.
From ending slavery, to women's suffering, to desegregation to legalizing same-sex marriage - we're always evolving from our old traditions of the past. Remember that slavery was once legal and a traditional value, but we evolved from that. While there are a few other issues I could have listed here, I will go ahead and stop at those five.
Loons Have Taken Over The GOP As Trump Carson & Cruz Poll In The Top Three
By: Steve - August 25, 2015 - 10:00am
A Fox News poll released on August 16th, showed Donald Trump continuing to enjoy a dominant lead in the Republican race for the 2016 presidential nomination. Trump polled at 25 percent in the 17 candidate field, well ahead of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson who was in second place with 12 percent support. Ted Cruz was in third place at 10 percent, with no other candidate in double digits.
Trump’s commanding lead is no longer surprising, given that he has been comfortably ahead in several recent national surveys, released from multiple different polling firms. What makes the Fox News poll so frightening for GOP strategists, however, is that Trump's nearest competitors are not establishment favorites like Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio. Instead, if Trump falters, Ben Carson or Ted Cruz appear to be next in line to ascend to the top of the GOP pack.
Pundits have long argued that Donald Trump will eventually fade as voters take a more sober look at the Republican options and cease their reckless flirtations with candidates on the fringe. However, that "conventional wisdom" is predicated on the notion that Republican voters both want to win in 2016, and that they recognize that choosing a more moderate candidate is their path to victory.
Yes, you heard that right. Even most Republicans are worried about their party, because the top 3 far-right loons are polling in the top 3, and the more electable and moderate candidates are near the bottom. This is great for a Republican primary, but none of them can win a general election, because they are all too extreme far-right.
The Fox News survey suggests that GOP voters are disinterested in choosing one of the Republican establishment candidates with extensive experience governing. In fact, given their preference for political outsiders like Trump and Carson, Republican voters may even see elected experience as a liability. "If you're part of the government, you're part of the problem," they reason.
The notable exception to that adage is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose main accomplishment as senator has been as an obstructionist who keeps the U.S. Senate from getting things done.
Republican party leaders have spent the better part of the last two decades stirring up their base with anti-government rhetoric. That strategy has helped them win victories over Democrats in rigged Congressional districts that are gerrymandered, but not without consequences for establishment GOP politicians, who are now facing the wrath of the anti-government voters they helped cultivate.
With GOP voters looking at Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz as their potential saviors, its pretty clear that the angry mobs are not just upset with Barack Obama.
They have grabbed their pitchforks and torches to go after the Republican establishment as well. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker may not have noticed yet, but Republican voters aren't looking for somebody with executive experience as governor.
Instead, they are looking for a candidate with little or no experience, because they have been conditioned to virtually reject the idea of governing at all.
Former Reagan & Bush Senior Policy Advisor Says Trump Exposes Crazy In The GOP
By: Steve - August 23, 2015 - 11:00am
No matter what you think of an already tiring 2016 presidential race, it is a form of entertainment; particularly on the Republican side of things. Of all the contenders on the Republican side, no candidate is more entertaining than Donald Trump and obviously he is something much more than entertainment for his substantial base of support; and it is substantial according to polls.
Many conservatives are enamored with Trump for expressing the hateful hopes and dreams of typical teabaggers, corporatists, and racists, one conservative loves Trump for the same reasons establish Republicans want him out of the presidential race.
One well-known conservative who served as a senior economic policy advisor in the George H.W. Bush administration has a very interesting assessment of Donald Trump's performance and participation in the Republican primary; it is an invaluable service to the conservative movement.
Bruce Bartlett said this: "I love Donald Trump because he exposes everything about the Republican Party that I have frankly come to hate. It is just filled with people who are crazy, and stupid, and have absolutely no idea of what they are taking about. And the candidates, no matter how intelligent they may be, just constantly pander to this lowest common denominator in American politics, crazy, stupid, racist and religious to the dangerous extreme."
Just a few weeks ago, Bartlett also wrote an op-ed in which he said what many political commentators have said for months: "The Trump phenomenon perfectly represents the culmination of populist anti-intellectualism that became dominant in the Republican Party with the rise of the Tea Party. I think many Republican leaders have had misgivings about the Tea Party since the beginning, but the short-term benefits were too great to resist. A Trump rout is Republican moderates best chance to take back the GOP."
Bartlett also said this: "I think the problem is obvious and Trump is pointing this out. Among other things, one of the things that we are seeing very clearly this time more than any other year is that issues don't matter. Policies don't matter. The only thing that matters is attitude. And Trump has exactly the right 'chip on your shoulder' attitude that many, many people find extraordinarily attractive that is completely divorced from whatever he is saying about the issues, which is precious little."
Now, although Trump is revealing the insanity, stupidity, and extremism rampant in the Republican base according to Bartlett, a moderate Republican, another noted conservative and advocate for the Koch Party movement despairs that Trump still exists in the presidential race; because of the national exposure he is providing the significant extremist wing among conservatives.
A typical Koch conservative columnist, George Will, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining why he (and the Kochs) want Donald Trump thrown out of the Republican presidential primary. Besides exposing how conservatives feel about democracy, even in their own primary process, Will reveals that he understands the Party's base loves Trump because his extremist positions represent the Republican Party and greatly jeopardizes their White House ambitions.
Will wrote this: "A political party has a right to secure its borders. Indeed, a party has a duty to exclude interlopers, including cynical opportunists deranged by egotism. This is why closed primaries are defensible: Let party members make the choices that define the party and dispense its most precious possession, a presidential nomination.
The Republican National Committee should immediately stipulate that subsequent Republican debates will be open to any and all -- but only -- candidates who pledge to support the party's nominee." Remember, this is the Republican movement and not only is there no room for, or tolerance of, dissenting opinions, all policy decisions and talking points are the purview of the Koch brothers and the religious right. Obviously, Donald Trump is not clearing any of his extremist statements with the Kochs or the church; likely because he is aware his extremism comports with a majority of the Republican base.
For the past six years the John Birch Society (Koch brothers) have controlled every aspect of the conservative movement; it is exactly why Donald Trump is so popular with the extremist Republican base. Incidentally, the businessman George Will said accused Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower of being a "conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy" was none other than John Bircher Fred Koch; Charles and David Koch's father.
As a one-time noted conservative senior policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Republican Bruce Bartlett has been a thorn in the side of Koch Republicans since 2009 when he began harshly criticizing new President Barack Obama.
Since the Koch brothers created the Tea Party, establishment Republicans embraced the "crazy" that is causing despair among so-called moderate conservatives who recall a less-absurd movement. Now that Donald Trump is bringing the level of absurdity among the base onto the national stage, and other Republicans are struggling to out-crazy the Donald and vie for the base's support, one conservative is taking pleasure and delight because entertaining or not, he celebrates that Donald Trump is exposing the crazy and stupid that is the Republican Party and defines the conservative movement.
It is refreshing to finally see an establishment Republican admit what most Americans and several scientific studies have known for six years; the Republican party is full of "crazy and stupid people with no idea what they are talking about."
Ted Cruz Is A Hypocritical Flip-Flopper On Birthright Citizenship
By: Steve - August 23, 2015 - 10:00am
This just goes to show that these Republicans running for office will say anything to win the primary, even lie about their position on it in the past, as they claim they have never changed their position, when they have.
From the Huffington Post:
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Wednesday that he "absolutely" supports ending automatic citizenship for children born on American soil, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally," Cruz said in an interview on Michael Medved's radio show.
"That has been my position from the very first day of my running for the Senate."
But the Texas conservative actually felt differently about the matter while running for the Senate. In a 2010 interview with "The Duke Machado Show," Cruz called efforts to change birthright citizenship misguided because they stood on shoddy legal footing.
"I've looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good," he said. "As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the U.S. Constitution. And I don't like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different."
But he sure likes it now, just because Trump supports it. Even though it will never happen, and he knows it. He is willing to sell out to try and win the Republican primary.
Cruz even argued that the attention should be on securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
"I think it is a mistake for conservatives to be focusing on trying to fight what the Constitution says on birthright citizenship. I think we are far better off focusing on securing the border, because birthright citizenship wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have people coming in illegally," he added.
The issue resurfaced in the 2016 Republican presidential race on Sunday when Donald Trump, who is currently leading the pack, came out in support of ending birthright citizenship. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) did so a day later, and then Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) followed them.
Trump took it a step further on Tuesday, saying that children born to undocumented immigrants on U.S. soil aren't American citizens at all.
Cruz's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his 2010 remarks.
And of course, the so-called Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it. Because he is a biased Republican who does not want to make any Republicans look bad.
For Anyone Interested In Facts: Trump Is Lying To You 80% Of The Time
By: Steve - August 22, 2015 - 11:00am
Here is something you will never hear from the so-called facts only Bill O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. When fact-checked by Politifact.com Donald Trump has been proven to be lying about 80% of the time. Making him the biggest liar in the Republican party, even worse than Ted Cruz, which is hard to do.
The only real hope Republicans have is that Trump will eventually self-implode, which is still highly likely to happen. I believe it's only a matter of time before he finally says something that pisses off enough Republicans to where he'll start falling in the polls.
Then again, these are Republican voters we're talking about. Many of these people typically only care about what sounds good - it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Donald Trump is a perfect example of this. According to the respected and non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact, practically nothing of substance that he says is actually true.
Of the 38 comments Politifact has investigated (the vast majority coming after he announced his bid for the White House), zero have been rated as True with only two (5 percent) being rated as Mostly True.
Yes, you heard that right, zero have been rated as 100% true.
On the flip side, an astonishing 30 of his 38 comments (79 percent) have been rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
To put it another way, Trump makes serial liar Ted Cruz look like Abe Lincoln by comparison; 9 of the 51 Cruz comments Politifact has fact-checked have been found to be either True or Mostly True, with 35 found to be Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
And despite this horrific record of dishonesty, Trump has managed to become the overwhelming candidate in the very crowded GOP field. Once again, when it comes to pandering to conservatives, all you really need to do is tell them what they want to hear; it doesn't matter at all if it's actually true.
Not only that, but he almost never provides any details about how he would do anything. I can't count how many times I've seen someone from the press push him to provide specific details on how he would do some of the things he's promised to do if elected and his answer typically goes something like this: Listen, I'll do what no other candidate can do and it will be fabulous.
These other losers can't get done what I've promised to do within the first few weeks after I take office. I'll do wonderful things for this country. While I'm obviously paraphrasing, that's generally how he answers most requests to give specifics about his policies and how he plans to implement them.
It's actually comical to watch him get asked specific questions, then dance his way around them while trying not to actually answer them. No matter what ultimately ends up happening as it relates to Donald Trump and his quest for the White House, it is a testament to the absurdity of the Republican party that someone like Trump could actually become their presidential frontrunner and hold a commanding lead for as long as he already has.
And the total butt-kissing Bill O'Reilly is helping Trump by putting him on his show and defending him. O'Reilly even said Trump was good for the Republican party, when he is killing them and making them all look like far-right racist fools. O'Reilly loves it and thinks Trump is great, because he is also a far-right loon, just as Trump is, and they are good friends.
More Proof Mike Huckabee Is A Far-Right Religious Loon
By: Steve - August 22, 2015 - 10:00am
I have said many times that the Republican party (especially the evangelical far-right) operates more like a cult than a political movement. These are people who really don't care about facts or reality, just what they want to be real. You can show them overwhelming evidence that disproves one of their beliefs, and it does not matter because they just don't care. Not only that, but most of these people lack any ability to even be the slightest bit reasonable or rational about anything.
Remember that these are the same people who vote for a political party whose economic ideology is built on the premise that we need to make the wealthiest Americans even richer and somehow the rest of us will benefit. Which is just insane.
So when it comes to abortion they are even more insane, if not flat-out disturbing and dangerous. Take for instance someone like GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee who literally said that he does not believe a 10-year-old who was sexually assaulted should have the option to have an abortion.
"Creating one problem that is horrible, let nobody be misled, a 10-year-old girl being raped is horrible -- but does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child? And that's really the issue." Huckabee said.
And to that I would say this: Are you f-ing kidding me? The issue is a child -- a 10-year-old child -- who was forced to give birth after being brutally victimized by a child rapist, that is the only issue that matters here. Not your political or religious beliefs, it is not about you or your positions on abortion, it's about making a child have a kid from a rapist, you jackass. This kid is not even a teenager, and to make her have a child by a rapist would be pure insanity.
And this jackass was not done, he also said this: "When an abortion happens, there are two victims," he continued. "One is the child, the other is that birth mother, who often will go through extraordinary guilt years later when she begins to think through what happened, with the baby, with her."
Which is wrong. A recent study found that 95 percent of women who have had an abortion don't regret them. It is astonishing that here we are, in 2015, and it's still acceptable to millions of Americans for someone like Huckabee to go on live television and defend laws that would force a 10-year-old victim of a horrific crime to have a baby.
This guy should not only never be the President, he should never hold any elected office, ever!
When it comes to the "abortion debate," that is about as extreme as it gets. While there are plenty of people who oppose abortion, even many of those people support exemptions for situations such as this. There are still millions of people who don't. You know, those who tend to think that the result of the sexual assault on this poor 10-year-old girl was just a beautiful gift from God. Just like a religious cult leader brainwashing his followers.
To honestly believe that a 10-year-old child who was victimized should be forced to go through a painful pregnancy and be victimized yet again, possibly having her life threatened in the process, classifies Huckabee as the lowest form of scum on earth.
Mike Huckabee has turned into nothing more than a sick and twisted con man trying to scam religious fools out of their money, using a cult-like mindset where religious ideology matters more than basic human decency.
Biased O'Reilly Ignores Poll Showing Christie Losing To Hillary In His Home State
By: Steve - August 21, 2015 - 11:00am
When the Democrat Al Gore ran for President and he was losing to the Republican George W. Bush in his home State, it was a big deal for O'Reilly and all of Fox News. Every day about 50 times a day O'Reilly and Fox reported how Gore does not deserve to be the President if he can not even win his home State.
In fact, O'Reilly reported it more than anyone. I personally remember O'Reilly saying it a hundred times over a 6 month time frame. But now that Hillary is crushing Christie in his home State O'Reilly and Fox are not saying a word, nothing, except silence.
A new Rutgers-Eagleton poll demonstrated both the strength of Hillary Clinton and demise of Chris Christie as Clinton leads Christie by 23 points in his home state of New Jersey.
According to the poll:
Clinton continues to command high favorability ratings here. Her 59 percent favorable to 31 percent unfavorable rating puts her well ahead of any other figures the poll tested, including President Obama (53 percent favorable to 38 percent unfavorable).Republicans desperately need a candidate who can flip some blue states into their column in 2016. That candidate isn't Chris Christie. Gov. Christie's plunging approval ratings and scandal-plagued administration would be enough to for most potential candidates to realize that a run for the White House isn't in the cards.
The reality is that Hillary Clinton would beat most of the potential Republican field in their home states. Candidates like Rick Perry and Rand Paul would win their home states with ease because they are very Republican, but the Republican governors in blue states like Christie and Scott Walker would struggle to win their home states as well as find it difficult to turn other blue states red.
The only potential Republican, who could flip a blue state or two is Jeb Bush, and there are questions about how effective he will be as a candidate. Hillary Clinton has a great chance of keeping almost all of the states that President Obama carried while adding a few more. As this poll illustrates, Chris Christie is living a lie if he still thinks that he can be elected president.
Insane Trump Tells O'Reilly The 14th Amendment Will Not Hold Up In Court
By: Steve - August 21, 2015 - 10:00am
This is so wrong and so ridiculous it is just laughable. The insane Donald Trump now says the 14th amendment will not hold up in court, which not only is wrong, it's laughable to think that, let alone say it on national television.
It never ceases to amaze me how often Republicans prove just how little they actually understand about our Constitution. Then again, conservatives really don't care much for our Constitution in the first place. Sure, they often claim to be the party for "Constitutional values" when that's complete nonsense. I'm not sure how someone can claim to support our Constitution, while frequently crying about the rights that very same Constitution gives certain Americans who Republicans don't feel should have them.
A recent talking point being pushed by many Republican presidential candidates is a call to completely gut the 14th Amendment and redefine what constitutes an American citizen. Though I can't help but laugh at how haphazardly several of these candidates talk about changing a Constitutional Amendment considering it's an extremely difficult process to undertake, and virtually impossible.
And btw folks, here is something you may not know. The last time a change to the constitution was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification was September 25, 1789. The amendment became part of the United States Constitution on May 7, 1992, following a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days.
So, Trump and the Republicans are either idiots who have no business working in our government because they have no idea how our Constitution operates or they're willfully treating conservative voters like idiots by implying that changing a Constitutional Amendment is a simple process.
Take the comments made by Donald Trump during an interview with Bill O'Reilly Tuesday night where the current GOP frontrunner said that the 14th Amendment won't hold up in court. O'Reilly pointed out that mass deportations of immigrants who are now considered American citizens can't happen due to the Fourteenth Amendment.
"Many lawyers are saying that's not the way it is in terms of this," Trump said. "They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court."
So some lawyers (who are most likely on his payroll) tell him something, that does not mean they are right, they are probably just telling Trump what he wants to hear, because they are clearly wrong.
Trump is actually saying that anyone who was born in the United States to an illegal immigrant should have their American citizenship stripped from them and be immediately deported.
So let's take a look at the very first part of the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.Seems pretty straightforward to me. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States period. If Republicans don't like the 14th amendment, then we have this thing called the Constitution which gives our government the ability to amend it to make changes deemed necessary by our government if there's enough support in our government to do it.
And now a cold hard fact: There is absolutely no way in hell there will ever be enough votes in Congress who support ripping apart our Fourteenth Amendment to ever change the fact that every human being born in the United States is an American citizen.
So, as usual, Trump is an idiot. And I found it absolutely hilarious that Trump would actually try to claim that a Constitutional Amendment will not hold up in court. Because our courts only interpret the Constitution - they cannot change it. Only Congress can change it, so the court has nothing to do with it.
The 14th Amendment clearly defines that anyone born in this country, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, becomes an American citizen. No rational person can read our 14th Amendment and say otherwise.
Ann Coulter Calls O'Reilly Stupid Over Trump Immigration Plan
By: Steve - August 20, 2015 - 11:40am
Yesterday, she announced that she "hates" Carly Fiorina. Today, she called Bill O'Reilly "stupid."
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has held nothing back over the past couple of days in her unwavering defense of Donald Trump and, specifically, his plan to mass-deport illegal immigrants if elected president.
Trump defended his immigration plan during an appearance on O'Reilly's Fox News show Tuesday night, saying that he would be allowed to deport so-called "anchor babies" because they aren't really U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment.
But at the end of the interview, O'Reilly fired back at Trump.
"If you're born here you're an American. Period. Period," the Fox News host said.
Coulter, who was apparently traveling at the time the interview aired, later took to Twitter and blasted O'Reilly over his comment.
Coulter: "Just got off a plane and my email feed is exploding with denunciations of Bill O'Reilly for interview w/ @realDonaldTrump on 'THE FACTOR,'" she tweeted.
Coulter sent another tweet one minute later: "Sorry for delay. O'Reilly: "YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMT? IF YOU'RE BORN HERE YOU'RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!" #GoodGodHesStupid."
Now get this, O'Reilly said he would respond to anyone who goes after him, so let's see if he responds to Coulter. I doubt he will, because Coulter is loved by the far-right, and O'Reilly does not want to get slammed with hate mail for going after her.
Bill O'Reilly Is Still Lying About His Ratings
By: Steve - August 20, 2015 - 11:30am
And not only is he still lying about his ratings, he used the tip of the day segment to promote the lie.
O'Reilly said this Wednesday night during the Tip of the day segment:
O'REILLY: Monday night's Factor was viewed by well over 4-million people, and everyone working on the show is extremely grateful to you, the viewers.
And that my friends is lies, lies, and more lies.
Here are the facts. The O'Reilly Factor had 3 million 98 thousand total viewers for the Monday show. That is not over 4 million, and it is barely over 3 million. He had 3.098 million total viewers, and 541,000 viewers in the 25 to 54 demo.
Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and if he will lie about his ratings how can you believe anything else he says about anything.
O'Reilly Ignores Republican Plan That Would Kill 9,800 Americans
By: Steve - August 20, 2015 - 11:00am
Tuesday night O'Reilly went on an insane rant claiming that voters are putting their lives in danger by electing liberals, which is insane. And at the very same time the Republican Scott Walker has a plan that (if he is elected President) would actually lead to 9,800 Americans dying, but of course O'Reilly ignored it.
Scott Walker has unveiled his plan to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a system that would kill an estimated 9,800 Americans a year who could no longer afford their health insurance.
Scott Walker's plan to replace the ACA would roll back all of the patient protections in the law, and end subsidies for more than 13 million Americans.
Walker replaces the subsidies with tax credits. According to Walker, "My plan would provide refundable tax credits to individuals who do not have employer-based coverage to make health insurance more affordable and more portable. This would strengthen health insurance markets by enabling individuals to use their tax credits to buy insurance outside the workplace."
The Walker tax credit would range from $900-$3,000 a year. The problem with any plan that replaces Obamacare with tax credits is that it requires people to buy the health insurance before they get the tax credit. The reason the ACA has been so effective is that subsidies lower the purchase price of the policy. Health insurance becomes more affordable, and more people can buy coverage.
Before Obamacare, health insurance costs had increased 131% in ten years.
Walker's tax credits would not provide enough for an individual to purchase affordable health insurance. Under Walker, workers and individuals would have to make more money to afford their health insurance, and the tax credit would not cover the cost of the policy.
The result of the Walker plan would be an increase in the number of people who did not have health insurance because they could not afford it.
According to the American Public Health Association, a non-partisan agency, 9,800 Americans will die each year from lack of health insurance if the subsidies are taken away.
So Walker's plan would kill nearly 10,000 Americans a year because they could no longer afford health insurance. And the majority of those deaths would come from the poor, low wage workers, and minorities.
Republicans wrap their Obamacare repeal plans around the rhetoric of freedom, but the only freedom that Republican ACA replacement plans give the American people is the freedom to die because they would not be able to afford to see a doctor.
Mark Cuban Slams GOP Explaining Why The Party Is Doomed
By: Steve - August 20, 2015 - 10:00am
While I don't agree with everything Cuban says, he is still a very intelligent man whose success is undeniable. He does tend to rub some people the wrong way, but most leaders with strong personalities do that from time to time.
Cuban recently wrote a scathing summary of the Republican party and why it's doomed. "I would prefer to be a Republican. I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans," Cuban wrote.
And on that, I disagree. I am pretty sure most Americans want a smarter government, not smaller, and not just Republicans. The typical political conflict between Democrats and Republicans isn't whether or not we want an efficient and effective government, but what role the government is ultimately supposed to serve.
And if Republicans really wanted a smaller government, they would be on board with Democrats who are trying to get money out of politics. However, most Republicans strongly oppose overturning the Citizens United ruling which basically equates boatloads of money to "free speech."
So Cuban really ripped into the GOP, saying this:
Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues. The Republicans have a much bigger problem that will crush them in every Presidential election until this changes. The Republican Party requires that all their Presidential candidates Conform to Consensus. If you don't agree with every platform of the party not only are you called a RINO, a "Republican in Name Only."I did find it interesting how he went on to say that he does not want to be a Democrat, yet his entire statement describes a Republican party he wished existed - that would ultimately act a lot like Democrats if it did.
Cuban is trying to tell the Republican party they could expand and be very powerful, if they were smart about it, but of course they will never do that. Because the far-right runs the party, and they are extreme, and they will never change.
More Proof The Republican Party Is Stupid
By: Steve - August 19, 2015 - 11:30am
It's Official: Donald Trump Is A Lying Idiot Who Will Say Anything To Win
By: Steve - August 19, 2015 - 11:00am
His so-called immigration plan would never pass, ever. And even if it did, it would hurt our economy and cost billions to deport everyone. And on top of that, it would be impossible to deport 8 to 11 million illegals, and that is if you could even find them all, which would be pretty much impossible.
We do not have the people or the money to deport 11 million illegals, and it would take a new constitutional amendment to end the birth citizen law, and that is never going to happen, all the Democrats and even a lot of Republicans would vote against it.
Trump's immigration plan would also devastate entire sectors of the U.S. economy.
The Trump plan essentially calls Mexican immigrants money sucking criminals and demands that Mexicans pay for the construction of a wall along the Southern border, "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them);
increase fees on all border crossing cards - of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."
Trump also wants to end birthright citizenship, and his plan is loaded with bogus claims that immigration lowers wages.
The Hill reported in 2014, "According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, "Without the undocumented population, Texas workforce would decrease by 6.3 percent" and Texas gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants."
In 2012, The US Department of Agriculture found that reducing the supply of immigrant labor in farming would decrease US GDP by 1%. In 2009, the National Milk Federation warned that milk prices would increase by 61% if the immigrant labor force were eliminated.
Contrary to the bogus claims of Trump's "policy paper," undocumented immigrants add more to the economy than they take out. According to the American Immigration Council, "The unauthorized, like everyone else in the United States, pay sales taxes.
They also pay property taxes -- even if they rent. At least half of unauthorized immigrants pay income taxes. Add this all up and it amounts to billions in revenue to state and local governments.
The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has estimated the state and local taxes paid in 2010 by households that are headed by unauthorized immigrants."
These households may include members who are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Collectively, these households paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes. That included $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in sales taxes.
Trump's plan, which conservatives are hailing as just what they have always wanted, would raise prices on consumers, lower the supply of labor in key sectors of the economy, and potentially plunge the country into another recession.
What the Republican praise for Trump reveals most is that many conservatives are willing to destroy the economy, because Donald Trump's immigration policy would be an absolute disaster for the United States if it were ever enacted.
O'Reilly Goes Insane With Crazy Talk About Electing Liberals
By: Steve - August 19, 2015 - 10:30am
He claims people are putting their lives in danger by electing liberals, when that is nothing but pure 100% right-wing lies and propaganda. And the facts show the country always does better when a Democrat is in the White House, notice O'Reilly never mentions that, because he is too busy putting out right-wing lies.
Here is what O'Reilly said:
And now the facts, almost every sector of the economy, from wall street to main street, to the GDP, jobs, unemployment, everything, does better when Democrats are in power, and that is a fact. Look up the economic GDP and job growth and the stock market numbers for when Democrats are in power compared to the Republicans.
The country does better almost every time a Democrat is in the White House.
Trump Caught Lying That His Crowds Bigger Than Anyone
By: Steve - August 19, 2015 - 10:00am
After his helicopter had landed at the Iowa State Fair, Trump claimed that he is breaking the crowd records for presidential candidates.
Trump said this, "Actually, the venues have gotten larger and larger because we've really gotten some tremendous crowds. We're doing record breaking crowds, and I'm so honored when I saw the recent polls with Iowa leading by a lot, but we have actually. We started with the smaller venues, and we've gotten bigger and bigger. The crowds have been enormous actually."
It isn't a coincidence that Trump would invent record-breaking crowds a day after Bernie Sanders announced that had to move his Iowa event to a bigger venue due to increasing crowd expectations.
The truth is that Trump is not breaking any records, and he is not even close. His biggest crowd was about 4,000 in Las Vegas.
Sanders set the current record last weekend when 28,000 came out to see him in Portland, OR.
And the so-called liberal media is not even bothering to fact check Trump. He is making it all up as he goes along, and no one is challenging him. During his press conference at the Iowa State Fair, it would have been nice if one of the reporters would have stepped up to the plate and said, "Mr. Trump, what you are saying is just not true."
I guess it is too much to ask our facts optional media to hold candidates to any reality-based standards.
No matter how hard Trump tries, he will never be Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump is a rich guy wannabe, while Sanders is the real deal leader of an authentic grassroots movement.
Jeb Bush Iraq Comments Show He Is Dishonest & Delusional
By: Steve - August 18, 2015 - 11:00am
It never ceases to amaze me how Bill O'Reilly and many other Republicans are now trying to claim that Iraq was safe, secure and stable prior to President Obama being elected. As I've said numerous times before, anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knew that once we left, the country was almost certainly going to spiral into chaos. Many experts even predicted it, before the war even started.
That didn't stop George W. Bush from signing the 2008 SOFA agreement that set the timetable for the removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.
That same agreement is rarely mentioned among Republicans who are desperate to blame President Obama for "abandoning Iraq." Well, I think it goes without saying that GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush is one of those Republicans trying to blame this president for the mistakes made by his brother.
Take for instance comments he made during a national security forum hosted by Politico where Jeb once again showcased his complete delusion about how incompetent his brother was at handling the Iraq War. "I'll tell you though, that taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal," Bush stated.
Which is just not true. Let's face it, there's a reason why the Middle East is essentially devoid of any real semblance of democracy. While it's indisputable that Hussein was a horrible person, he was a secular dictator and a staunch enemy of Iran. And if you ask me, I'll take a Hussein-controlled Iraq over an Iraq controlled by random religious radicals - which is what you're starting to see happen now.
"In 2009, Iraq was fragile but secure," he continued. Yes, because Americans troops were still there by the thousands. Again, I would like to point out that in 2008 George W. Bush signed the SOFA agreement outlining the date which all American troops were set to leave Iraq.
Not only that, but at that point the Iraqi people wanted us gone and the American people were overwhelmingly against keeping troops on the ground in Iraq. He then went on to say that he thinks his brother would admit that it was a mistake to disband the Iraqi army, but noted that his brother had the "courage" to push for the "surge" that was aimed at fixing the mess caused by his very own incompetence.
Yes, Jeb Bush actually called his brother courageous for sending even more Americans to die to clean up the mess his administration created following its complete mishandling of the entire unjustified Iraq War in the first place.
Here's a rule to go by: You can't be called "courageous" for sending more people to die in a war that:
We shouldn't have been fighting to begin with. Only needed the "surge" because of the catastrophic mistakes made by the administration in carrying out that war in the first place.
Jeb also went on to call the surge "one of the great success stories in modern military history." He's literally trying to paint this picture that somehow his brother's policies in Iraq were a success because the country was slightly less chaotic in 2009 than it was in 2005. Though if you listen to his comments, he seems to suggest that American troops should have stayed in Iraq indefinitely.
Because, to be honest, that's really the only way the country would have ever maintained any semblance of structure. However, I would like to point out that he never really specifically says what he thinks we should have done. Sure, he'll criticize the removal of our troops (again, due to the agreement signed by his brother) but I've never really heard him say the words "we should have kept Americans troops in Iraq." Even when it's clear that's what he's alluding to.
The more I hear Jeb Bush talk, the more it becomes obvious that he's just like his brother, clueless and misinformed. He even says George is one of his most trusted advisors, which is scary, because George was one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, if not the worst.
It Looks Like Fox News Forced Megyn Kelly To Take 10 Day Vacation
By: Steve - August 18, 2015 - 10:00am
Anyone who's been following the news the last couple of weeks is probably well aware of the Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly fiasco that started at the first GOP debate when she dared to ask the GOP presidential candidate questions pertaining to factual information about his past.
To be fair, I am pretty sure Fox News was targeting Trump while hoping that it might hurt his growing momentum - but what transpired in the days following the debate was basically a circus sideshow. Trump made several nasty and sexist remarks about Kelly - yet still managed to see his poll numbers continue to rise.
Meanwhile, Kelly admitted to getting death threats from some of Trump's supporters.
Which O'Reilly and Fox News did not report on, not a word.
So in a fairly surprising announcement, Kelly abruptly announced that she would be going on a 10-day vacation from Fox News. "It's been an interesting week and a long six months without a vacation for yours truly," Kelly said.
Her announcement definitely caused some to wonder if this fairly sudden vacation - in the midst of a fairly heated back and forth between Trump, Kelly and Fox News - was more or less forced upon her with the network hoping that her absence will make the story go away.
Mediaite reported on iit and they received a response from a spokesman for Fox News:
The conspiracy theories about Megyn Kelly's vacation rank up there with UFO's, the moon landing and Elvis being alive. Megyn is on a pre-planned, annual summer vacation with her family, which is much deserved.Now let's get real, Kelly's statement when she announced her vacation didn't sound like someone who had planned taking 10 days off ahead of time. It sounded like something Fox News told her to say and they most likely told her it would be best for her to take some time off. This can not be proven, but it is most likely the real story.
Even beyond that, it's a very defensive response regarding a situation that many people think is highly suspicious. The whole response just reeks of typical Fox News over-the-top rhetoric trying to deflect from the fact that Kelly's vacation does seem quite timely for a network personality who's been at the center of a fairly heated political controversy concerning the current Republican frontrunner for president.
And I would like to point out another big fact: Bill O'Reilly is also currently on vacation. You never see a major news network allow two of its most popular primetime personalities to take vacations at the same time.
So even beyond the response from Fox News, it just seems highly unlikely that the network would allow both of their top anchors, Kelly and O'Reilly to be off the air at the same time with so much going on right now.
Considering all the circumstances, combined with the fairly hostile nature of the response given concerning her vacation, it's a good possibility that Megyn Kelly's abrupt vacation is directly related to the recent controversy surrounding her and Donald Trump.
Bush National Security Adviser Backs Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal
By: Steve - August 17, 2015 - 11:00am
Jeb Bush's father's former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, is telling Al-Monitor that "To turn our back on [the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA] would be an abdication of America's unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay among our allies and friends."
Jeb, infamously, could not decide whether the invasion of Iraq was a feature or a bug of his brother's administration. He finally hemmed and hawed his way into acknowledging that, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. That didn't stop him from saying Dubya, the man who brought the world to the brink of ruin in 2008, is his most trusted adviser.
Maybe, while he's taking a break from ordering torture and launching nukes at Iran, Jeb can stare vacantly into space while enemies launch terrorist attacks on our country. Or he and Dubya can stare together. You know, a family thing.
Carl Levin and John Warner, two former senators, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, published an op-ed at Politico yesterday, arguing for the deal. These two senators have a lot of experience in foreign affairs and their voices deserve to be listened to.
They wrote this:
We both were elected to the Senate in 1978 and privileged to have served together on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 30 years, during which we each held committee leadership positions of chairman or ranking minority member.However, they have a reason for our collection of chickenhawks that might understand that the military has value even when it is not being actively used:
"But we also see a compelling reason to support the agreement that has gotten little attention: Rejecting it would weaken the deterrent value of America's military option."
They point out that "it's highly unlikely that our traditional European allies, let alone China and Russia, would support the use of the military option since we had undermined the diplomatic path."
We would be effectively isolating ourselves from the allies we would need in the event we felt military intervention necessary. The senators are talking here about "access rights, logistics, intelligence, and other critical support."
Imagine that. We're stronger with allies than without. Even Dubya knew that, for all his devotion to cowboy diplomacy and his asserted right to attack anybody who at any future date had a chance of becoming a threat to the U.S.
It is difficult to admit, but there is ample reasons to believe our current crop of Republican leaders are even more myopic than George W. Bush. Bush understood - belatedly - that calling his Iran War a holy crusade was maybe a little over the top. But Republicans today, a decade later, positively relish the role of holy avengers, smiting uppity Islam in the name of their god.
Apparently, Fox News has convinced Americans that "Iran's development of nuclear weapons poses a critical threat to the U.S."
And what isn't a critical threat for Republicans? They can't accumulate enemies fast enough: Russia, Iran, ISIL, Ebola (ISIL + Ebola), Mexicans (Mexicans + Drugs), Democrats, Women, Liberals, Progessives, Blacks, Gays and Lesbians, Transgenders, Atheists. How do these creepy old white people live in the world they have created for themselves?
And how can we escape its consequences? You know, those of us who are sane? The P5+1 agreement, the JCPOA, is a good deal. The only option Republicans have to offer is a war nobody wants, a war that would only serve to isolate America (as did the Bush administration) from the world. No problem for chickenhawks. Nobody is going to be shooting at them, after all.
Democrats, with one or two exceptions, back the president, and that's as should be. He, after all, is our president, not Benjamin Netanyahu. It is a bug of Republican governance that they do not know who is an American and who is not unless they are crossing the Southern border. Then they are pretty quick to oppose anything foreigners want.
Republicans must realize they work for the American people, not for Benjamin Netanyahu, and that, as John Kerry put it, we don't live in a world inhabited by Unicorns. Obama, forced to be the adult in the room yet again, recognizes this.
Brent Snowcroft and others who support the Iran deal recognize this.
It is a shame congressional Republicans and sixteen presidential candidates prefer a fantasy world of their own making to our shared reality. The need to understand that peace isn't just something that happens if you fail to declare war. You have to work for it. You have to give it a chance.
As Snowcroft points out, there is always the military deterrent as a last resort. It doesn't have to be the first resort to work, and as we saw in Iraq, it doesn't always work anyway.
How Fox News Is Destroying The Republican Party
By: Steve - August 17, 2015 - 10:00am
Here is a copy of an article by Manny Schewitz that details how Fox News has moved the Republican party so far to the right they are destroying them.
It was the night of November 6th, 2012 and I had turned down invitations from a few Republicans to attend their victory party at a swanky club in Lafayette, Louisiana. After hundreds of hours devoted to making sure President Obama was re-elected, I knew how this story was going to end, and the last thing I wanted to do was be the sole happy person in a sea of people desperately doing the math that would make them feel better as Republicans.
So I sat home and watched Fox News with a few beers so I could enjoy this blissful moment of schadenfreude alone. As the events unfolded and the disbelief on their faces grew comical, I realized something -- Fox News is literally destroying the Republican party.
Until the advent of Fox News, the GOP was center-right. Now, it's Tea Party hard right and it's going ever further towards the brink, despite what the establishment has done in their attempts to stop it. Fox News and their hardcore viewers forced Mitt Romney so far to the right in the primaries that he could never adjust back to the center in time to win the election.
I believe that all along, they knew Mitt was in serious trouble and could not admit to it because it would hurt ratings and the imminent victory narrative they were feeding viewers. They could not concede that Romney’s campaign was in serious danger and get voters to the polls because it would contradict the story of Republican inevitability they had been telling for over a year.
The core GOP establishment overall isn't necessarily all rabidly racist, xenophobic or intent on shrinking government to where it can be drowned in a bathtub. Just like Fox, they're interested in money and power. That's their only real common ground and ironically, common kryptonite. The combination of for profit media and politics has always been a toxic marriage.
Going forward, if the GOP continues to rely on Fox and other right-wing outlets to be their media mouthpieces, they are doomed to political irrelevance sooner than later. Fox cannot continue to make ratings by talking about bipartisanship and finding reasonable solutions to the problems we face as a nation. It cannot promote anything that contributes to the long term viability of the GOP because it is so concentrated on ratings and advertising money now.
It is not in the interests of Roger Ailes to attract minority viewers or a serious chunk of the younger generations, which are the only hope for the future of the GOP, because it would alienate the Tea Party faithful that make up the majority of their audience. The GOP absolutely cannot survive as a party by relying on Fox News viewers because that demographic is dying off.
At the same time, they find themselves in a short-term Catch-22 situation by not continuing to pander to the faithful early evening viewers who believe Obama is the Anti-Christ Muslim Fascist Communist sent by Satan himself, because if that voting bloc does not show up, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
They sold their party's soul to the Dixiecrats and the religious right and it'll be a long, hard road out of hell to make the trip back to relevance.
After the election, the Tea Party felt they had been lied to (and rightly so) and decided to boycott Fox. For a little while, it seemed that Fox was trying to swing back to the center. Their ratings began to plunge, so what happened next?
Suddenly we were swarmed with scandals, and now we have the hiring of Allen West and the return of Sarah Palin as contributors. Because they're "fair and balanced," dont'cha know.
I watch Fox News for two reasons. Number one is for new material to write about, and number two is watching the slow demise of the empire of Roger Ailes as he takes down the Grand Old Party with him. Now, hand me another shot of whiskey with a schadenfreude chaser. I'm going to enjoy this.
Trump: Jeb Is Lying About Iraq To Protect His Brother
By: Steve - August 16, 2015 - 11:00am
Jeb Bush got a lot of attention recently when he backtracked on his previous thoughts on the Iraq War by saying that all things considered, it was a good deal because it led to Saddam Hussein's defeat. The comments were noted as a flip-flog considering that he had previous walk backs on the question of whether he would have invaded Iraq with his current knowledge.
And Donald Trump sure noticed it, and of course he offered his commentary on the subject while speaking at a New Hampshire press conference. Trump noted that it took Bush five full days to respond to questions about the Iraq War, attacking him for depending on consultants to tell him what to say.
"It took him five days before he could give an answer, after the pollsters told him what to say, he said it was bad," Trump said. "Now he is trying to backtrack, probably because his brother said, wait a minute, you are killing me. You said it's bad, that's my legacy."
Trump continued to say that the Middle Eastern conflict has been a recurring disaster for the Bush family, and that with current developments unfolding, Jeb Bush would continue that trend.
"The Iraq War was a disaster for the Bushes. The last thing we need is another Bush," Trump said. "Saddam Hussein, instead of him, you have ISIS, you have Iran taking over. You tell me, was it worth what we paid for?"
And the two big things Trump never mentioned is that we did not find any WMD's in Iraq, after Bush and Cheney said they had them, or that Bush signed the status of forces agreement, not Obama. That was the main reason they gave for invading Iraq, and suddenly the Bush family never mentions that, or O'Reilly or anyone on the right for that matter.
They ignore the fact we did not find any WMD's, or that Bush signed the troop agreement before Obama took office, and they are trying to re-write history to protect the tarnished legacy of George W. Bush. And of course O'Reilly helps them by never reporting the facts, he is a Republican and a Bush supporter, so he is working to help re-write that history by not reporting the truth.
Dozens Of Retired Generals & Admirals Back The Obama Iran Deal
By: Steve - August 16, 2015 - 10:00am
Remember when O'Reilly, Fox, and the Republicans said we must listen to the Generals, well they are speaking now, and of course O'Reilly, Fox, and the Republicans have totally ignored them, because they do not like what they are saying.
Three dozen retired generals and admirals Tuesday released an open letter supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, "would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance."
The release came as Secretary of State John F. Kerry said U.S. allies were "going to look at us and laugh" if the United States were to abandon the deal and then ask them to back a more aggressive posture against Iran.
Not only would U.S. global credibility be undermined, Kerry said, the dollar's position as the world's reserve currency would be threatened.
Notice that O'Reilly and Fox say nothing about that, Kerry has spoken to the other allies and they have said they will not support a more aggressive posture against Iran. So this is the best deal we can get, and yet, O'Reilly, the Republicans and Fox still oppose it because Obama made the deal.
If a Republican made this deal O'Reilly and the right would support it in a heartbeat, they only oppose it because of Obama.
Corrupt Scott Walker Gives $250 Million To NBA Owner For Arena
By: Steve - August 15, 2015 - 10:00am
And of course neither Bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox is reporting it, while they praise Walker as a great and honest State leader.
Wisconsin Governor and Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker will sign a bill Wednesday finalizing his controversial plan to spend $250 million in state, county and city funds -- plus tens of millions more in interest and future tax breaks -- on a new basketball arena for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team.
Walker has characterized the plan to replace the existing 27-year-old NBA arena as beneficial to taxpayers, arguing that the state would lose even more money if they declined to do so. But voices from across the political spectrum are blasting the plan, saying that pouring money into private sports stadiums is a terrible investment, and arguing the team's Wall Street billionaire owners should shoulder the burden, since they will be reaping the profits.
Think about this, they are billionaires who could easily afford to pay for the arena, and yet they think, why should we, when we can give a corrupt Republican Governor a $200,000 donation and have him make the taxpayers pay for it. This is political corruption, and yet, O'Reilly and Fox say nothing.
"Government shouldn't be in the business of financing private sports stadiums," said the Koch brothers-backed group Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin. "The current deal is based on fuzzy math, complicated accounting and millions of taxpayer dollars. Whether it comes from the state, the county, the city or other authority, these are taxpayer dollars."
The Libertarian/Republican CATO Institute added: "Any presidential candidate who believes that taxpayer-subsidized stadiums are 'a good deal' shouldn't be anywhere near the federal Treasury."
The fact that the current Bucks arena is still $20 million in debt only bolsters their arguments.
Originally, Walker attempted to insert the $250 million arena deal into the massive two-year state budget that happened to cut $250 million from the University of Wisconsin, among other controversial provisions. But after outcry from both sides of the aisle, it was introduced as a separate bill, which passed after an intense barrage of lobbying.
Now, the public financing is raising questions about conflicts of interest.
On the very day that Walker began pushing for taxpayers to foot much of the bill for the new arena, one of the team's owners donated $150,000 to his super PAC. The investor, Jon Hammes, has donated directly to Walker's past campaigns, as well, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and this year, Walker hired him as his national finance co-chairman. Another Bucks owner, Ted Kellner, gave $50,000 to Walker's Super PAC.
Though the state bill will become law this week, the economically depressed city of Milwaukee has yet to vote on its own portion of the financing. Workers in the city, who were unable to secure provisions in the state bill guaranteeing living wages and local hiring policies at the new arena, will now turn the pressure on both the City Council and the Bucks owners.
"There's a real chance to make a breakthrough," Peter Rickman with Milwaukee's Good Jobs Alliance told ThinkProgress. "No one trusted the state government to take on this critical issue, since we've seen an unbroken string of five years of attacks on working class and poor people, unions, and wages. But there are still a wealth of decisions to be made the local level regarding investment in parking and infrastructure, land permits, and the surrounding commercial properties.
And when public money is going to be invested in things like these large-scale projects, we need to ask, 'Is it going to make the good jobs crisis worse, or is it going to make it better? Is it going to only create poverty-wage service sector jobs?
Rickman's coalition is not only calling for an agreement that gives workers at the new stadium a living wage and the right to unionize, they're pushing for a promise that the jobs will go to the people who live in the impoverished neighborhoods surrounding Milwaukee's downtown.
"This used to be one of the best places in the country for African Americans families, because of the good union jobs in factors and foundries," he explained. "Those jobs weren't always good; workers fought to make them good. But when those jobs disappeared they were largely replaced with low-wage service sector jobs. Our fight right now is to continue the history of turning bad jobs into good jobs."
Corporate Lobbyists Are Giving Jeb Bush Millions In Donations
By: Steve - August 14, 2015 - 11:00am
If you want a corporation for a president just vote for Jeb Bush. He is owned by the big corporations, because they are pretty much funding his presidential campaign, and if you do not think they are going to want a big payback if he wins, you are a clueless fool.
WASHINGTON -- A number of donors giving eye-popping sums to a super PAC supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's presidential campaign are also major players in Washington's corporate lobbying scene. These groups and individuals are pushing the executive branch on a variety of issues -- including federal contract approval, loosened regulations and decreased scrutiny of their activities.
At least 43 donors who have given $100,000 or more to Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC are connected to companies employing lobbyists in Washington.
Another five are members of industry lobbying organizations with a presence in the capital. Dozens more donors from big companies that are lobbying the White House have also pooled large sums to contribute to the Bush super PAC.
These donors account for at least $15 million of Right to Rise's $103 million haul. The super PAC has raised an additional $811,000 from lobbyists and lobbying firms.
Since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door for unlimited donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, the universe of groups accepting these contributions has increasingly crossed over with the universe of Washington influence-peddling.
The ruling produced this effect, despite Justice Anthony Kennedy's assertion in that decision that independent spending would not "give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
"These are precisely the kind of contributions that the Supreme Court has long held can corrupt government decisions," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance reform advocacy group Democracy 21. "What we face here with the Bush super PAC and other PACs is donors with important economic interests in government decisions buying in early to establish their ability to obtain government policies they desire if the candidate they support wins."
Bush's super PAC fundraising stands out, according to Wertheimer, as the candidate personally raised these funds before announcing his presidential bid. During this period, Bush claimed he was not a candidate as a strategy to evade campaign finance laws.
"It's always most dangerous when candidates are directly soliciting huge contributions because that creates a direct potential corrupting nexus between the candidate and the donor," Wertheimer said.
The Bush campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Because they do not want to talk about it, they know it makes Bush look bad so they refuse to discuss it.
Top Army General Says Jeb Bush Is Lying About Iraq
By: Steve - August 14, 2015 - 10:00am
U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said on Wednesday that Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was wrong to blame the Obama administration for the current instability in Iraq.
Ahead of his official retirement on Friday, Odierno, the former highest-ranking officer in Iraq and one of the architects of the 2007 troop surge there, sought to set the record straight.
"I remind everybody that us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. That was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty," Odierno said during his final press conference at the Pentagon.
In a speech on Tuesday at the Reagan Library in California, Bush criticized President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for what he claimed was a premature decision to bring 90,000 troops home.
Bush has been quick to blame the current situation in Iraq on the Obama administration as a way to deflect questions about the foreign policy record of his brother, former President George W. Bush. But according to both Odierno and a recent McClatchy article, the withdrawal timetable was in fact set long before Obama took office.
It was called SOFA, which stands for status of forces agreement. In November 2008, both the U.S. and Iraq agreed that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." It was done by Bush, and signed by Bush, long before Obama was even elected President.
So it is Bush who is trying to re-write history and cover for what his own brother did. And btw, who cares, it is too late to do anything about it now. Bush is just saying this garbage to try and get publicity and take the stage away from Trump. It's a dumb idea that some paid advisor came up with, and it will not help him, in fact, it hurts him because everyone knows he is lying.
In his speech on Tuesday, Bush also faulted Obama for not pressing the Iraqi government hard enough to extend the presence of U.S. troops in the country. But as McClatchy noted, "the Obama administration was forced to fulfill the departure timetable when the Iraqi government refused to exempt American troops from Iraqi law."
Obama had no choice, he had to go by the agreement Bush signed, and Iraq refused to re-do the deal, so Obama could not do a thing about it. Bush claims Obama could have tried to get a new deal, even though he did, but Iraq refused to agree to it. Just do a google search of SOFA and you will see the details at wikipedia.
Reality Check: Your Money Goes To Corporate Welfare Not Social Programs
By: Steve - August 13, 2015 - 11:00am
Here is something Bill O'Reilly and the Republican propaganda machine never report, most of your taxpayer money goes to corporate welfare, not food stamps or medicare.
O'Reilly and his Republican friends love to argue that programs like SNAP - the federal food stamps program - and other social safety net programs put an unfair burden on American taxpayers, but if they just took a minute to crunch the numbers, they'd realize that's flat out wrong. And they know it, they just do not tell you because they have decided to put out the Republican talking points lies about it.
The average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program.
But O'Reilly and the Republicans think that's still too high a price to pay to help the neediest and most vulnerable Americans.
And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.
Simply put, the American taxpayer isn't paying much for social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicare. But we are paying a lot for the billions of dollars the U.S. government gives to corporate America each year.
Get this, the average American family pays a staggering $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.
And that's just the average family. A family making more than $50,000 a year - say $70,000 a year - pays even more to pad the wallets of corporate America.
So where does some of that $6,000 that you and I are paying every year actually go?
For starters, $870 of it goes to direct subsidies and grants for corporations. This includes money for subsidies to Big Oil companies that are polluting our skies and fueling climate change and global warming.
An additional $870 goes to corporate tax subsidies.
The Tax Foundation has found that the "special tax provisions" of corporations cost taxpayers over $100 billion per year, or roughly $870 per family. But in reality, that number is much higher.
Citizens for Tax Justice found that the U.S. Treasury lost $181 billion in corporate tax subsidies, which means the average American family could be out as much as $1,600 per year.
Finally, of the $6,000 in corporate subsidies that the average American family pays each year, $1,231 of it goes to making up for revenue losses from corporate tax havens.
This money goes to recouping losses from giant transnational corporations like Apple and GE that hide their money overseas to boost profits and avoid paying taxes to help the American economy.
And think abut this, all the Congressman and Senators we elect know about this, and yet they still allow it to happen, as O'Reilly and the Republicans claim all your tax money goes to freeloaders on food stamps. When the truth is most of your taxpayer money is going to big corporations.
The bottom-line here is that American families are paying $6,000 or more per year to subsidize giant transnational corporations that are already making billions and billions of dollars in profit each year. In the past decade alone, corporations have doubled their profits.
Republicans on Capitol Hill keep suggesting that we can't afford to help the poor in this country, and they're wrong. What we really can't afford is doling out $100 billion each year to corporations that don't need it, while they are setting record profits.
That's where the real outrage and the real news coverage should be, but it's not, because the media is corporate woned and they ignore it. It's time to bring an end to corporate welfare, and to use those dollars to help those Americans who need it the most. And start telling the truth, that it is corporate welfare that cost the most, not social programs that actually help people.
Senator Ted Cruz Is A Far-Right Religious Right-Wing Nut
By: Steve - August 13, 2015 - 10:00am
Here is another great reason why Ted Cruz should never be the president, or a Senator. He is a far-right loon. Cruz is easily the worst person in all of Congress. And I have reached the point where I can not stand to listen to him for more than a minute or two before I change the channel.
While speaking to the American Family Association (a well known and documented anti-gay hate group), Cruz said that the only way this country can be saved is for evangelicals to rise up and vote for politicians who will pass legislation based on Biblical principles. Which would be a violation of the constitution.
"Nothing is more important in the next 18 months than that the body of Christ rise up and that Christians stand up, that pastors stand up and lead," Cruz said. "In this last election, 54 million evangelical Christians stayed home. If we can simply bring Christians to the polls - is it any wonder we have the government we have - we have the leaders we have if believers stay home and leave electing our leaders to unbelievers. We get exactly what we deserve and nothing is more important that having people of faith stand up and just vote our values, vote biblical values and that's how we turn the country around."
So he wants millions of evangelical Christians to go and vote for politicians who would basically turn this country into a theocracy. And let me emphasize how "classy" it is for a presidential candidate to happily speak to an organization which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It's also interesting how Mr. "Pro-Israel" Ted Cruz would speak to an organization whose members have been linked to anti-Jew rhetoric, such as that by Sandy Rios who once said in reference to her belief that the ACLU is out to remove God and destroy America: "I know that there are powerful Jewish forces behind the ACLU."
Then again, the Republican defense of Israel is really more about pandering to evangelical conservative Christians who view it as the "Holy Land" more so than actual concern or support for the Jewish people. It's always made me laugh how "pro-Israel" Republicans claim to be, while most American Jews vote for Democrats.
While this propaganda is nothing new from Cruz, it's another example of just how little many Republicans actually understand about our Constitution - a document that literally doesn't have a single reference to Christianity written anywhere in it.
One would think that if our Founding Fathers meant for this nation to be built and controlled by "biblical values" they would have at least included a couple of references to the Bible in our Constitution.
There’s not a single one. And Ted Cruz has no shot at winning his own party's nomination, let alone becoming president. We will never have to worry about this loon leading this nation.
Rick Perry Quits Paying His Staff Because His Campaign Is Broke
By: Steve - August 12, 2015 - 11:00am
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry is no longer paying his staff, according to an anonymous source close to the campaign. According to the source, Perry's campaign manager, Jeff Miller, told staffers on Friday that they would no longer receive pay for their work, because the presidential candidate was running low on funds.
Most Perry staffers are now working without pay, determined to keep the struggling candidate in the race. While the campaign's funds have dried up, a pro-Perry super PAC is still flush with cash and can compensate for some of the campaign's shortcomings. The super PAC however cannot coordinate efforts with the Perry campaign.
Rick Perry's South Carolina campaign chair person, Katon Dawson, confirmed that he and the rest of Perry's Palmetto State staff were working for free now. Dawson said this:
Money is extremely tight. We all moved to volunteer status.
Perry's campaign is hoping for a major breakthrough in September, but its hard to imagine that such a breakthrough is coming. Perry got schooled by Carly Fiorina at the "children's table" debate of lower tier candidates on Thursday, and he is averaging less than two percent support in GOP primary polls. His presidential aspirations are evaporating as fast as his money is.
Working for the former Texas Governor and soon to be two time loser must be a thankless job. Not only must his staffers work tirelessly to sell a flawed candidate who has no chance of winning, but now they must do so without getting paid for it. The Perry campaign doesn't just fail to pay a living wage, they pay no wage at all.
Its pretty hard to promote a convincing case for Perry's executive skills and his economic ideas, when he can't even find a way to pay his staff minimum wage. Rick Perry is not a viable presidential candidate, and working for Rick Perry isn't a real job.
Fox Viewers Support Racist & Sexist Donald Trump Over Megyn Kelly
By: Steve - August 12, 2015 - 10:00am
The real reason Fox News gave in decided to play nice with Donald Trump is that they were flooded with angry emails from their viewers after Megyn Kelly went after the top Republican candidate.
Donald Trump returned to Fox and Friends Tuesday morning, where he was given his usual diet of Charmin fresh softballs to ramble on about. What was interesting about his appearance was that it even happened. Trump's return to Fox marked a complete capitulation by the network after they tried to run him off of the stage during the first Republican debate.
After Fox News had tried to ruin Trump's candidacy during the debate, they were stunned by a viewer rebellion where Fox News watchers took the side of Trump over the network's prized big star Megyn Kelly.
New York Magazine detailed the unexpected Fox News viewers rebellion:
According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes's diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network. Immediately following Thursday's debate, Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails. The chatter on Twitter was equally in Trump's favor. "In the beginning, virtually 100 percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly," one Fox source, who was briefed on the situation, told me. "Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump's side."
Things got worse for Ailes over the weekend. In a phone conversation, Trump told Sean Hannity that "he was never doing Fox again," according to one person with knowledge of the call. The anti-Kelly emails, and threat of a boycott by Trump, seem to have pushed Ailes to defuse the war. One Fox personality told me that Fox producers gave instructions to tell in-house talent not to bring up Trump's controversial comments that Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever" during the debate. According to one count, Fox only aired Trump's comment once since Friday, while CNN mentioned it at least 50 times.
In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trump-less Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public-affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. "This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought," one Fox personality said. "Roger wants this to blow over," another source added. "He's upset that conservatives are mad at Fox." Online, Ailes also took flak. Both the Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines.
If Fox News ever lost the backing of conservatives, the network would be toast. Fox News doesn't many moderate or liberal viewers. Their audience is overwhelmingly conservative Republicans. As a matter of survival, Ailes could not have his viewers favorite candidate boycotting his network.
The leadership at Fox obviously does not understand their audience. Viewers support the bigotry, misogyny, and sexism of Trump. Racism and bigotry are two of the main reasons why Trump is so popular with Republican voters.
Fox News has lost control of the zombie army they created. Donald Trump uses the same strategies as Fox News, but in many ways, he does them better. Fox News made Trump into a political figure by giving him a platform, but the billionaire has evolved and stolen the hearts of their audience.
The network's debate strategy backfired. Trump has gained in popularity. One of their biggest stars was criticized, and conservatives rebelled. Big bad Fox News was brought to its knees as Donald Trump demonstrated that Fox is far from unbeatable.
Planned Parenthood Abortion Facts O'Reilly & Fox Are Not Telling You
By: Steve - August 11, 2015 - 11:00am
If you listen to O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republicans you would think a major part of Planned Parenthood is abortions, and that your taxpayer money pays for it, and you would be very very wrong. Because only 3 percent, yes I said 3 percent of what they do is abortions, and by law no taxpayer money can be used for abortions.
And btw, the source for all this information is the unbiased and totally non-partisan factcheck.org, so O'Reilly and his crew can not claim these are biased stats, they are unbiased and proven to be true based on paperwork filed with the Federal Government.
Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?
A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.
We received several questions on this topic during the debate, after O'Reilly and other Republicans claimed that "most of what Planned Parenthood does" is provide abortions.
That statement is a flat out lie. Only 3 percent of its total services were abortions. The other 97 percent of services were for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women's health services. So the Republicans want to totally defund Planned Parenthood for 3 percent, and destroy the other 97 percent of womens health services they do.
The dishonest claim was mocked by comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and a few Republicans even later walked back the statement, telling CNN that "the remark was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions."
That statement, too, prompted ribbing by Stewart and Colbert. But the comedic clips apparently did not make it to the inboxes of many of our readers, who sent us questions about whether or not Planned Parenthood does little more than provide abortions, and whether or not taxpayer money goes to pay for them.
The facts show that abortions made up 3 percent of its total services.
Planned Parenthood's annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." That’s about one-third of its total revenues.
However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood's government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest -- about $293 million -- is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.
But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions. According to the Department of Health and Human Service's website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that.
Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.
And now you have the actual facts, not the lies and right-wing propaganda O'Reilly, Fox, and the Republicans are spewing out.
Rush Limbaugh Slams Fox For Trying To Destroy Trump
By: Steve - August 11, 2015 - 10:00am
Even Rush Limbaugh knows that Fox tried to destroy Trump in the debate, here is what he said: "The Candidates Did Not Make One Move Toward Taking Donald Trump Out, The Broadcast Network Did"
Here is an audio of it:
Conservatives Call For Fox To Ban Megyn Kelly From Debates
By: Steve - August 10, 2015 - 11:00am
More than 10,000 people have signed a petition calling for Fox News Megyn Kelly to be banned from future Republican presidential debates.
The Change.org petition says this:
Megyn Kelly finds the state of our union amusing and "fun", whereas the viewers (our fellow citizens) deserve a much more serious moderator.The problem with this petition is that it assumes that Fox News is fair and balanced. It isn't. That isn't Megyn Kelly's fault because her questions about Trump's sexism were completely valid. The issue is that none of the other candidates were asked about their controversial comments.
No one bothered to ask Mike Huckabee about his sexism. Nobody asked Jeb Bush how he could have hired a racist and sexist chief technology officer for his campaign, or the fact that Scott Walker got rid of Wisconsin's equal pay law.
Trump was asked about his bankruptcies, but no one questioned Marco Rubio on the dozens of financial skeletons in his closet.
Megyn Kelly isn't the only issue. The issue is the blatant hypocrisy of a party that is at war with an entire gender trying to ostracize Donald Trump for saying out loud what the rest of the party is doing and thinking.
Fox News is not "fair and balanced" and we all know it, only an unbalanced partisan would believe that they are. Megyn Kelly asked the right question, but she needed to ask it to all the Republican candidates instead of picking on just one.
The Republican Party is in chaos because one candidate is exposing and exploiting all of the divisions within their party. The RNC tried to rig the game to avoid a repeat of the 2012 primary debacle, but instead of a smooth process they have given birth to a bigger and more destructive sequel.
Study Shows Republicans Will Have A Hard Time Winning The White House
By: Steve - August 10, 2015 - 10:00am
The GOP is in serious trouble with Latino voters. They have managed to make themselves unpalatable to nearly everyone except white conservative voters, but the anti-immigration rhetoric coming from candidates who are scrambling to the far right is a problem that will likely haunt the GOP for years to come.
As conservative politicians continue to pander to the shrinking demographic that laments the impending loss of white majority America, they further alienate Latino voters for their short-term gain, and the long-term loss for the Republican Party.
Now, a study by Latino Decisions shows that in order for the GOP to win the White House in 2016, they will need at least 47% of Latino voters to vote for the Republican candidate -- and it is only going to get harder with every election cycle in the future. The study specifically points out how candidates like Donald Trump are driving away Latinos, at the expense of the GOP in the long-term.
More generally, their model accentuates the tension between the Republican Party's long-term viability and the short-term goals of the party's presidential aspirants. Sensing that the party's Latino deficit is too large or that any moderation on immigration may undermine their ability to win the nomination, a number of candidates have already tacked to the right on immigration.
Others have been unwilling to criticize the most strident anti-immigrant voices emanating from the field. Indeed, only long-shot candidate Senator Lindsey Graham seems to grasp the damage that the party's latest fount of an anti-immigrant sentiment, Donald Trump, is inflicting on the party's prospects in 2016 and beyond.
Meanwhile, just one Republican, Ben Carson, spoke at last month's Annual Meeting of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), and at her association's meeting, Janet Murguía, the head of the National Council of La Raza, went so far as to call out the Republican Party for its failure to repudiate Trump's comments.
Nearly four years later, the Republican Party appears to look a lot like the party described in the Republican National Committee's "Growth and Opportunity Project" report. You know, the report that found that "Hispanic voters tell us our Party's position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door."
Meanwhile, a 40 percent threshold becomes a 47 percent threshold and every month over 50,000 Latinos celebrate their 18th birthdays. The future doesn't look good for the Republican Party when it comes to Latino voters, and they have only themselves to blame.
While Democrats are welcoming voters across the demographic board, Republican candidates are doubling down on extreme rhetoric in order to win primaries and bring out the base.
That approach presents a political Catch-22 situation for candidates in many states since they need the angry white vote to win the primaries, but by appealing to these voters, they have created hours and hours of video which can then be used against the party in the general election.
In 2012, Mitt Romney only got 23% of the Latino vote as his campaign lost in an electoral college blowout to President Obama. He may have had more of a chance if he hadn't run so far to the right in the primaries and made comments about getting undocumented immigrants to "self deport," a statement that RNC chairman Reince Priebus called "horrific."
This time around, Donald Trump is making it extremely difficult for the GOP to get to 23%, let alone 47%. Thursday night, Republican presidential hopefuls will appear on the Fox News debate in Cleveland, all hoping to capture the attention of primary voters.
In order to do so, they will likely throw out the usual talking points which include demonizing immigrants. This may win them support in red state primaries, but it will hurt them with Latino voters, and doom the Republican Party once again in 2016.
Bill O'Reilly Admits To Advising GOP Presidential Candidate John Kasich
By: Steve - August 9, 2015 - 11:00am
Mr. I am not a Republican admitted to advising the Republican John Kasich, even though he claims to be an Independent with no dog in the fight. But if you are advising Republicans who are running for president then you have a dog in the fight. And how many Democrats running for president has O'Reilly ever advised, none.
O'Reilly on Kasich: "I Know Him Really Well, And I Told Him, I Said Look, With 17 Competitors You're Going To Have To Break Out"
Fox News Tried To Destroy Donald Trump And They Failed
By: Steve - August 9, 2015 - 10:00am
Fox News was clearly out to destroy Donald Trump at the Republican debate, but they failed. Here is what Fox News tried to do to Trump, and why it all went wrong.
Fox News made their intentions clear when the first question of the debate was a show of hands about pledging not to run as an Independent. Fox was trying to isolate Trump and ruin him with Republican voters.
Later came the Trump/Megyn Kelly exchange that demonstrated Republican voters love them some sexism.
Transcript of Kelly and Trump:
KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.
You've called women you don't like "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."
Your Twitter account...
TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.
KELLY: No, it wasn't.
TRUMP: Thank you.
KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O'Donnell.
TRUMP: Yes, I'm sure it was.
KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?
TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.
I've been challenged by so many people, and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don't win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.
And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it's fun, it's kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn't do that.
The Republican audience laughed at Trump's sexism, and he got loads of applause for attacking "political correctness."
Chris Wallace tried to undermine Trump's record in business by bringing up his bankruptcies.
The Wallace/Trump exchange ended in more laughter and applause for Trump. It was clear that Fox News was targeting Trump, and the orders came from Fox management. Roger Ailes is desperate for a 2016 Republican win, and the establishment views Trump as destroying their party.
In the most classless way possible, Trump unloaded on Megyn Kelly after the debate on Twitter:
2:24 am - 7 Aug 2015 - Donald J. Trump - @realDonaldTrump
"@timjcam: @megynkelly @FrankLuntz @realDonaldTrump Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly will consider other programs!"
Trump also unloaded on perpetually losing Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz for his panel that gave the billionaire a bad review:
2:24 am - 7 Aug 2015 - Donald J. Trump - @realDonaldTrump
.@FrankLuntz is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!
Immediate polling after the debate revealed that Trump was the clear winner.
Fox News had a plan to derail Trump, but they failed because Donald Trump understands who their audience is better than they do. A large percentage of the Fox News audience agrees with the bigotry, sexism, and racism that Trump advocates.
Republicans are drawn to his everyone is stupid but us rhetoric because that is what Fox News has told them for years. Trump is in part a Fox News creation, and he has turned the network's own audience against them.
Ailes and Murdoch made a big mistake by going after Trump, and they just might have made the campaign that they were trying to destroy even stronger.
O'Reilly & The WSJ Get The Two Clinton Charities Mixed Up
By: Steve - August 8, 2015 - 11:30am
Mr. I only deal in the facts got it all wrong again, just to make the Clintons look bad for partisan political reasons. Which kills his propaganda that he is an unbiased Independent with a no spin zone. Because he is no better than the dishonest Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, etc. It was the old right-wing trick, one lies and the rest swear to it. No checking of the facts, just report the lies as if they were true.
Here are the actual facts:
A Wall Street Journal editorial mixed up the public charity known as the Clinton Foundation with the private, personal Clinton Family Foundation in a misleading attack on Hillary Clinton's charitable giving -- and their misinformation made its way straight to Fox News primetime.
Clinton recently released her tax returns as part of her presidential campaign, and the returns reveal that she and her husband Bill donated nearly $15 million to charity from 2007-2014. The vast majority of that money went to their private philanthropic Clinton Family Foundation.
As Nonprofit Quarterly explained, the Clinton Family Foundation acts "as a clearinghouse for the family's personal philanthropy."
According to the Family Foundation's 2014 tax filing, Hillary and Bill Clinton are the only donors, and the Family Foundation distributes their money to various charities and nonprofits, including New York Public Radio, the American Nurses Foundation, the American Heart Association -- and the separate William J. Clinton Foundation.
The William J. Clinton Foundation is the highly-respected international charity that has garnered significant media attention since Clinton announced her run for president. It is the foundation that helps AIDS/HIV sufferers around the world get better medicine, and battles global health crises, economic inequality, childhood obesity, and climate change.
But in its August 4th editorial, the Journal mixed up the two charities in their attack on Clinton's giving.
The Journal suggested that it was inappropriate for the Clinton family to give the vast majority of their charitable contributions to their own foundation, because, they claimed, the foundation "isn't exactly the Little Sisters of the Poor," and instead "While the foundation does contribute to charitable causes, it also doubles as a vehicle to promote the first family's political ambitions and public profile."
Although they correctly named the "Family Foundation," the Journal went on to claim that the foundation spends "an outsized portion of its money, for instance, picking up the travel and other expenses for the whole family":
The foundation has also functioned between campaigns and stints in public office as a jobs program and financier for various Clinton operatives. Sidney Blumenthal, who was banned by the White House from a job at the State Department, was paid by the foundation while he was dispensing bad advice on Libya to Mrs. Clinton.That would be bad, if it were true, but it's not true. The problem is that the Family Foundation -- which received the nearly $15 million -- has not done most of those things. The global Clinton Foundation is the one that paid for some travel expenses and for the salaries of some Clinton advisers, but it received only a portion of the family's total charitable giving (a little over $1.8 million out of roughly $3.7 million in contributions in 2014).
As Michael Wyland explained at NonProfit Quarterly, "it's understandable that the two foundations could be confused. However, a national publication expressing its official opinion about a presidential candidate's charitable activities should be expected to perform some due diligence."
In other words, he is saying that real journalists would have checked the facts and found out there are two charities and not mixed them up, which O'Reilly and the WSJ failed to do, they just reported the lies and hope nobody noticed. And O'Reilly reported it without checking to see if the WSJ had it right or not, because he does not care if they had it right, he just wants to use anything he can to smear the Clintons for partisan political reasons.
Which btw, is something an actual non-partisan journalist would not do, proving beyond a doubt that O'Reilly is nothing more than a right-wing hack, no matter how many times he denies it.
Fox's Bill O'Reilly also failed to perform that due diligence. Picking up on the Journal story, O'Reilly blasted Clinton's charitable giving during his August 5th show:
The Wall Street Journal reporting today in an editorial that although the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between the years 2007 and 2014, all but 200,000 of that was given to the Clinton Foundation. Which pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, in addition to helping various causes like combating world hunger. The Clintons wrote off $15 million in charitable deductions on their taxes.Wrong, O'Reilly does not know what he is talking about, because what he said is lies. Donating to their own internationally-renowned public charity seems like a logical thing the Clintons would do -- the fact is much of the Clintons contributions also went to a variety of other charities, through their private Family Foundation.
And btw, almost everyone who has a foundation uses it to deal with their money in a tax free situation, so even if they did what O'Reilly and the WSJ said they did, which they did not, they would still only be doing what everyone else who has foundations does. And yet, O'Reilly and the right never says a word about any conservatives who have foundations.
Fox Fails To Disclose Its Pro-Walker Debate Analyst Is A Walker Adviser
By: Steve - August 8, 2015 - 10:30am
Fox News failed to disclose that its debate analyst Marc Thiessen has worked for debate participant Scott Walker. During his Fox appearances, Thiessen praised Walker as one of the "obvious winners" and singled him out as having a "great" debate moment.
During an August 6 appearance shortly after the debate, Thiessen said "Bush and Walker I think did very well." Thiessen also said Christie fared well. He criticized Trump as having a "really, really tough night."
Host Megyn Kelly, who moderated the debate, identified Thiessen as "the former chief presidential speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor."
Thiessen also heavily praised Walker during an August 7 appearance on America's Newsroom, claiming that "the obvious winners are Bush and Walker because they were in the lead so they didn't need to hit home runs, and they both put in strong performances, especially Walker, I think, had a great moment when he took on -- jumped in and took on Hillary Clinton, which, I think, there was not enough of that in the debate last night."
Fox News host Bill Hemmer identified Thiessen as a Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor. Like Kelly, he did not identify Thiessen's conflict of interest.
The Washington Post, where Thiessen works as a columnist, reported on March 6 that "Walker is also seeking counsel from several hawks from George W. Bush's administration -- including Abrams, Bush's deputy national security adviser, and Marc A. Thiessen, a Post columnist and former Bush speechwriter known for his staunch defense of waterboarding and other interrogation tactics barred by President Obama."
"Walker selected Thiessen to co-write his 2013 book, 'Unintimidated,' and the two men became confidants during hours of Skype conversations each weekend."
Politico reported in February that Walker "said he sat down for three-and-a-half hours of foreign policy meetings" including with Thiessen.
New York Daily News Washington Bureau reporter Cameron Joseph criticized Fox News on Twitter, writing: "Curious how Marc Thiessen can be on Fox right now analyzing the debate. He co-wrote Scott Walker's book, and they don't even disclose such a big conflict of interest."
The First Fox/GOP Debate Was A Circus & A Joke
By: Steve - August 7, 2015 - 11:30am
When Donald Trump is in the number one position, because he's the current (and overwhelming) GOP frontrunner, that pretty much says all that needs to be said about what a joke the Republican party has become. And the debate did not disappoint, though I will say it was slightly more tame than I thought it would be. Still, there were several exchanges (the Chris Christie/Rand Paul one) where things got fairly heated.
Basically it was what you would expect -- a lot of the same empty talking points we've all heard said repeatedly by Republicans throughout the years: Obama is bad. The Iran deal is horrible. Hillary Clinton is going to destroy the nation. Tax cuts and deregulation will build the economy. Repeal Obamacare. Tough talk about ISIS -- with no solutions offered. Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded.
As far as Trump goes -- he did not disappoint. While I would never vote for him, it's undeniable that he's slightly entertaining. And while he was booed several times, especially when he said he wouldn't rule out running as an independent, he still knows how to play to a crowd. Either way, I am curious how his numbers will do after this debate as he really didn't have that it moment I expected from him.
As for Jeb Bush, the more he spoke, the more he came off looking like his brother, dumb and out of touch with the average American. For the presumed GOP favorite for the nomination, he sure as hell did not stand out with any big positives or key moments.
And Scott Walker? For someone who's supposedly one of the favorites, he's really going to have to step up his game. I can not name one point where he really stuck out. I still just don't get how he's seen as a favorite. However, one of the lines of the night for me came from Ted Cruz when he said, "I will always tell the truth."
Really? Are you kidding me. Facts show that he i one of the most dishonest politicians in this country, and almost everything he says is wrong or a flat out lie. He is so ridiculous that he seems unable to be honest about much of anything.
Then there was the far-right loon Rand Paul, who seemed desperate to appear relevant by trying to appear to be aggressive and outspoken -- but mostly came off looking like a weakling who was overcompensating for a campaign in free fall. Even in his exchange with Christie he just came off looking like a radical trying to shout over someone who clearly got the better of him.
Then there was Ben Carson who really didn't say or do anything of any importance. When it comes to Christie, outside of putting Paul in his place during their exchange, he really didn't have any key moments that would leave a lasting impression.
Then there was Mike Huckabee. While he said a few really idiotic things, my favorite part came when he complained about our military's dwindling stock of B-52 bombers -- a plane that hasn't been made by Boeing since 1962. Somehow he tried to claim that's President Obama's fault.
To be honest, the two who came off looking slightly good were Marco Rubio and John Kasich. While I don't agree with them on much of anything, they at least came off looking competent, and somewhat prepared. Rubio looked much more like a frontrunner than any of the other candidates, including Trump.
As for Kasich, he brought the most surprising moments of the night. He's clearly a Republican, but he seemed to the most genuine of any of the candidates on stage. He also provided the most shocking moment of the night when he spoke positively about gay rights, how he attended a gay friend's wedding and how we should just accept people for who they are -- and the audience responded overwhelmingly positively.
It was easily the most pro-gay response I've seen from a Republican politician and a conservative audience. Granted, he's the governor of Ohio and the debate was being held in Ohio so he had a home field advantage, but it's a sharp contrast to just a few years back when a Republican presidential debate featured an audience which booed a gay United States soldier.
If this first debate was any indication of what the next 12-15 months is going to be like, all I can say is -- good luck. We have a government education grant program called Race to the Top, well the GOP presidential primary seems to be a Race to the Bottom. The fight for the Republican nomination really does seem to be a battle to see who can pander to ignorance and bigotry the best.
Outside of Kasich, every other candidate was filled with more of the same anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-helping the poor propaganda that we've all become accustomed to hearing from the GOP. Because that's what we saw Thursday night. Ten candidates, standing on a stage pandering to some of the worst parts of our society.
And now my final thoughts: It is an embarrassment that after all this time, and with years to prepare, these are the so-callec best candidates the Republican party can offer. I would not vote for any of them, ever. Not one of them talked about jobs, health care, raising the minimum wage, equal pay for women, fixing the roads and bridges, etc. It was all nonsense and none of them deserve to be the president.
Obama Calls Out Republicans For Being Like Hardliners In Iran
By: Steve - August 7, 2015 - 11:00am
President Obama called out Republicans on Wednesday for what they really are by comparing them to the Iranian hardliners who chant death to America.
And of course O'Reilly and his right-wing friends flipped out, even though Obama is 100% right about them.
Obama said this:
In the end, that should be a lesson that we've learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions. Subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis. Resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war. Worry less about being labeled weak; worry more about getting it right.The President spoke the truth. There is very little difference between the hardliners in Iran who want a war with the United States, and the hardline Republicans in Congress who want a war with Iran. There is no reason to oppose this deal outside of a preference for military action.
The pipedreams of a "better deal" that Republicans are continuously dreaming up all have one thing in common. Republicans never explain how they can realistically achieve their "better deal."
As Obama correctly pointed out, Republicans aren't interested in diplomacy. The hawks in the GOP have had their eyes on war with Iran since before the U.S. invaded Iraq, and contrary to the GOP talking points, the Iran deal isn't a choice between competing offers.
The choice is between a path to peace and a path to war. Republicans and their allies are careful to never explicitly state that they are planning for more war, but when they use phrases like the military option must be left on the table, it is clear to everyone what they are talking about.
President Obama isn't holding back because the stakes are war and peace. Extremists in both countries want to kill this deal, and it was nice to hear the President calling out the Republicans for who they really are. Warmongering partisan fools.
Appellate Panel Says Texas ID Law Broke U.S. Voting Rights Act
By: Steve - August 7, 2015 - 10:00am
A federal appeals panel ruled Wednesday that a strict voter identification law in Texas discriminated against black and Hispanic voters and violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- a decision that election experts called an important step toward defining the future reach of the landmark law.
The state of federal voting protections has been uncertain since 2013, when the Supreme Court blocked the act's most potent enforcement tool, a requirement that numerous states, including Texas, with histories of discrimination receive federal clearance before changing election rules.
The Texas ID case -- along with another in Texas challenging its redistricting plans and a case in North Carolina over broader changes in election rules -- has been closely watched in legal circles to see how courts will interpret the remaining provisions of the landmark federal law.
Wednesday's decision, hailed by civil rights groups, affirmed an important part of a lower-court ruling. But the appeals panel also said the lower court must re-examine its conclusion last year that Texas adopted the law with a discriminatory purpose. That conclusion could have led to a restoration of federal oversight over Texas voting laws.
Texas is expected to appeal the ruling that its law must be altered, either to the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans or to the United States Supreme Court.
And remember this, O'Reilly and his Republican friends supported these Republican passed voter ID laws, proving once again they do not care about voting rights, they just want to block the poor and the minorities from voting for Democrats.
Proof That Bill O'Reilly Is A Hypocrite Over His Pro-Life Claims
By: Steve - August 6, 2015 - 11:00am
In reality, he only cares about white American lives, and to hell with everyone else in the world. O'Reilly even once called for the USA to bomb roads, bridges, trains, everything, in Libya, and cut off the food to the people. Which would not only kill thousands of people, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions of war, which would be a war crime.
Conor Lynch at salon.com wrote a great article about O'Reilly and how he does not really care about human life, just white Americans life. Here is a copy of that article:
Do liberals care about human life? This was the topic of a recent commentary by America's most self-righteous TV host, Bill O'Reilly. The controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, along with the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, were of course the grounds on which O'Reilly suggested that the American left no longer cares about human life (as they did when, O'Reilly says, he was growing up).
For those unfamiliar, earlier this month a number of videos were released by the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress, showing Planned Parenthood executives being secretly recorded, and seemingly discussing how much it would cost to provide the organs of fetuses for medical research. Two more similar videos were released this week.
The videos were selectively edited, making it seem as though the executives were profiting from selling dead fetuses -- which is illegal. This is untrue. Planned Parenthood has said that they were simply giving prices on procedure costs -- and the unedited videos back this up. The edited gotcha videos have been thoroughly debunked, and what these executives were discussing is completely legal.
As for Bill O'Reilly: After declaring that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, the Fox News host goes on to discuss the murder of Kate Steinle by an undocumented immigrant to further his claim that liberals don't care about human life. Because of course.
The funny thing is, conservative hypocrisy is never more apparent than when talking about human life. Take the war in Iraq, for example, which O'Reilly and Republicans (and some Democrats -- who cannot be called left wing) fully supported and aggressively promoted. The war has caused a total of 219,000 deaths, according to Iraq Body Count, an estimated 141,802 to 160,706 of those civilian.
For people like O'Reilly, who was one of the biggest Iraq War proponents, the war drums didn't stop beating even after the weapons-of-mass-destruction claims fell through; the cause then became about democracy and liberation -- another obvious cover used to justify mass killings. O'Reilly's colleague Sean Hannity similarly worked as a propagandist for the Bush administration, saying in 2003, "We're going to go in and we're going to liberate this country in a few weeks and it's going to be over very quickly."
Fast-forward 12 years, as the state of Iraq borders on anarchy, and the right-wing war machine is at it again, this time targeting Iran. O'Reilly and his colleagues have gone to work trying to smear the recent nuclear deal without proposing any viable alternative -- which would mean eventual military action.
War is the ultimate destroyer of human life, and yet those on the right (except some libertarians) cannot seem get enough of it. This alone is enough to discount O'Reilly's smug claim that "human life is no longer a priority for many on the left," as if the right is life's defender.
Still, one could argue that, while O'Reilly and his conservative friends don't really care about human life, they do care about American life. They are not opposed to dropping bombs on small villages, even when they could possibly be full of innocent woman and children, or deporting the parents of small children -- but if you're American, then your life matters (especially if you are an undeveloped embryo).
That is, unless you happen to be a minority American.
Take the systemic racism within the criminal justice system and the killings of young black men that we see all too often today. Anyone who legitimately cares about human life should be appalled by these occurrences. And yet, those on the right wing in America, who O'Reilly seems to believe care very much about human life, tend to have the same reaction every time a police officer kills a black man: He must have done something to deserve it.
It couldn't be because he was black; he must have committed some grievance that justified the officer taking his life. Selling untaxed cigarettes, having an attitude, talking back -- this is what sociologists call the "just-world bias," where everything happens for a reason.
To some extent, everyone has an unconscious just-world defense barrier, as a way of rendering a clearly unjust world more bearable. Those on the right of the political spectrum, however, are blinded by a just-world myopia, especially when it concerns minorities in America.
O'Reilly, for example, flat out denies the existence of institutional racism in America, even when the statistics quite clearly prove otherwise. O'Reilly blames the black community, and once recommended, without a tinge of sarcasm in his voice, that black people should wear "don't get pregnant at 14" t-shirts. When a police officer kills a black man, it is automatically assumed that either it was a just kill or it was an isolated incident -- that there is, at heart, no serious issue here.
Now, let's look what happens when a white person is killed -- in this case the tragic shooting of Kate Steinle in San Francisco last month by an undocumented immigrant. No one in their right mind can deny that this was an unjust and heartbreaking murder -- but it actually was an isolated incident. The evidence shows that immigrants (25 percent of whom are undocumented) actually commit far fewer crimes than American citizens.
That has not stopped the right, especially Bill O'Reilly, from stoking xenophobic fears every night as if there were a criminal epidemic created by undocumented immigrants. O'Reilly has proposed a new law called "Kate's law," advocating that all deported immigrants who attempt to reenter the country receive a mandatory five-year prison sentence (which would be wonderful for the prison industrial complex).
Not only is this draconian, but a top official from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said last week:
"We're stretched on our resources already and we're focused on convicted criminals; to expand it to just illegal entries or reentries would be a very big problem for us. It's just too low level an offense."
What do all of these things say about the GOP's concern for human life? It says that they are mostly concerned about the lives of white Americans.
The lives of white Americans are, of course, important, but so are the lives of black Americans, Hispanic immigrants, Middle Eastern children, and every other human life on this planet.
Anyone who advocates preventative war or capital punishment, and denies something as obvious as institutional racism in America has about as much credibility talking about the importance of human life as Ron Paul has talking about monetary policy.
As for the issue of abortion, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't want to limit the rate of abortion, which happens to be at its lowest since the Roe v. Wade ruling.
This is one reason why those on the left advocate contraception! The majority of liberals simply believe that women have the right to choose, and understand that criminalizing abortion does about as much good as the war on drugs has done.
In 1955, it was estimated by experts that 200,000 to 1,200,000 illegal abortions were performed in America each year. Criminalizing abortion is an act of cruel futility, which, as should be clear by now, is something the GOP thrives on.
Jon Stewart Slams Fox News For Their Hypocrisy
By: Steve - August 6, 2015 - 10:00am
It was really funny, Fox made the claim that Jon Stewart is a total Obama butt kisser who never says anything bad about Obama, they claim he only says good things about Obama.
Then Jon Stewart played about 15 video clips of him saying bad things about Obama, and btw, they were not clips from the Stewart show, they were clips of people on Fox reporting that Jon Stewart said something bad about Obama.
So Stewart used the very same people at Fox who were saying he never says anything bad about Obama to show they are massive hypocrites. They even reported every time he said something negative about Obama, and yet they still go on the air and claim he never says anything bad about Obama, which is just laughable.
Yes, the majority of the time Stewart supports Obama, that is a fact. But to claim he never slams Obama, is a flat out lie, and they know it. And yet, they did an entire segment slamming Stewart for being a total Obama butt kisser, when they know they were lying.
And the hypocrisy is that the people at Fox were total Bush butt kissers when he was in office, supporting and defending everything he did, and yet they slam Stewart for what they claim is total support of Obama, when he does not support everything Obama did, and has spoken out against Obama at least 10 times I can think of, so he does go against Obama often.
O'Reilly Makes Another Nazi Comparison After Saying He Never Does It
By: Steve - August 5, 2015 - 11:00am
Not only did O'Reilly recently make another Nazi comparison after saying he never does it, he even broke his own rules about it. A couple years ago he said he was tired of all the Nazi comparisons in politics and said he would never do them and called for everyone else to stop using them.
He said he would not allow them on his show and said no Nazi comparisons should ever be used by anyone ever again. Then on Monday night August 3rd O'Reilly Compared Pro-Choice Democrats To Nazis.
And here is a story from 2011 showing that O'Reilly used Nazi comparisons, then slammed Jon Stewart for doing it, when he had done the same thing himself. Then after getting caught, O'Reilly justified it because it was about Nancy Reagan.
Jan. 27, 2011 - www.businessinsider.com:
First, Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee made a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives and compared the Republican effort to repeal the health care law to Nazism.
Then Richard Socarides of Media Matters went on Megyn Kelly's show and pointed out to her that similar language had been used on the very network she works for, a charge she vehemently denied.
THEN Jon Stewart showed a montage on his show of not only Fox News correspondents using the same terminology, but someone using it on Kelly's own show.
One of the clips that Stewart used was of Bill O'Reilly comparing liberal bloggers to Nazis so now O'Reilly has come to his own defense, attempting put the clip that Jon Stewart used of him in context, because then we'd all see that it is actually okay to compare someone to a Nazi as long as they did something bad first, I guess.
So what is the context that O'Reilly came up with? When he made the Nazi comparison he was responding to some comments left on the Huffington Post about Nancy Reagan back in 2008 that said "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub."
And btw, it was not a post made by a writer for the liberal blog, it was an anonymous comment left by an unknown person.But O'Reilly slammed the blog as Nazis, when nobody who works for the blog said it.
O'REILLY: "Now, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that my comparison to the vile Nazi propaganda machine is dead on. You can make the call on that. Jon Stewart did not mention Nancy Reagan or the context of my remarks. He just used a short clip of a much longer statement. No setup whatsoever."
Which is just laughable, no matter what the context or the setup, Nazi comparisons in politics are wrong, O'Reilly himself even said so. Except when he does it, then it's ok, even after saying the Nazi comparisons should stop.
There are a few problems with what O'Reilly is saying. First, the context he gives for the clip doesn't excuse it at all. And second, Stewart was trying to show that Fox was being hypocritical by slamming someone for using the same exact language they had used themselves and then denying it.
O'Reilly was outraged by Cohen's comments, saying Cohen "was absolutely over-the-top" for making the comparison. But then came Stewart's montage, showing that O'Reilly has repeatedly done the same thing as Cohen.
So how did O'Reilly react when presented with this obvious contradiction? Did he acknowledge that he might have been over the top as well? No, of course not. He justified his comparison. Because he is a jerk and a massive hypocrite.
And one more thing, when the liberal blog saw the comment about Nancy Reagan by an anonymous person on the comment section, they deleted it. Something O'Reilly never once mentioned. O'Reilly even defended comparing the Huffington Post to the Nazi Party on the basis that Stewart failed to provide the full context. And that context was: an insulting comment about Nancy Reagan.
Make that a deleted insulting comment. If you click on the Huffington Post piece on Nancy Reagan, you'll see that the nasty comment about Reagan was removed, and has been immortalized solely in the right-wing blogosphere, including in an indignant column on BillOReilly.com.
So, if your name is Steve Cohen, it's not okay to compare a Republican lie to Nazi propaganda. But if your name is Bill O'Reilly, it is ok to compare an entire news organization to Nazis because some anonymous jerk left comments that were deleted.
O'Reilly failed to report the facts, he implied someone who worked for the blog made the comment and slammed them for it. He never mentioned the comment was made by an anonymous person in the comments section, and he never reported that the comment was removed by the moderator as soon as they saw it.
So he basically left out all the facts, and if he had not reported in on his show and his website nobody would have known about it or seen it. Because it was deleted almost instantly, so that means O'Reilly had someone on his staff monitoring their website just to get them in a gotcha moment. And they had to use an anonymous poster to do it, when is bottom of the barrell journalism, and about as low as it gets.
Then O'Reilly slams other people for Nazi comparisons after doing that, and using Nazi comparisons himself. And it's not like that was the only time: O'Reilly has used the analogy to attack progressives over and over again.
Back in December of 2005, Bill O'Reilly called people who protested an Ann Coulter appearance zealots and Nazis.
O'Reilly: The far left in this country, the zealots, these are zealots-are Nazis...and this is exactly what the Nazis did.
He did it again back in 2007 when he attacked the Daily Kos during his attack on Jet Blue:
OReilly: "It's like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party."
He also did it while he talked to Ms. Hamm, who actually disagreed with him over the same comment.
O'Reilly: What's the difference between the KKK and Arianna Huffington? What's the difference?
Ham: I think there is a difference.
O'Reilly: I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis. It's her, It's her, It's her...I didn't say she's a Nazi.
In the end, though, O'Reilly's biggest sin isn't that he's a hypocrite or that he's repeatedly made an offensive analogy: it's that he's thoroughly and consistently wrong, and then lies about it. And that he says no nore political Nazi comparisons should be made, then he makes them himself, over and over again.
While slamming other people for doing it, as he justifies it when he does it. He has also denied he ever made any Nazi comparions about anyone, as he tries to re-write history. Because we have proof he has, in video and transcripts.
Obama Calls Out Republican Lies About Social Secuity Medicare & Medicaid
By: Steve - August 5, 2015 - 10:00am
President Obama is pushing back against the Republican lies about Medicare while celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama said this:
This week, there was a big birthday you might have missed. Medicare and Medicaid turned 50 years old. And that's something worth celebrating.While the President did not mention anyone by name, it was clear who he was talking about. Jeb Bush has made phasing out the program that help the poor, seniors, and the disabled a key piece of his campaign.
Republicans routinely lie about it in an attempt to provide justification for their ideological goal of destroying Medicare/Medicaid.
Republicans are still claiming that Obamacare is destroying Medicare when the reality is that the ACA has added to Medicare funding. As we move into campaign season, the Republican lies about the stability and future of Medicare will return to the campaign trail.
The truth is that the Republican goal has been, is, and will continue to be to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
In fact, Obama nailed it. Republicans are wrong about the ACA, Medicare, and Social Security. The President is standing tall and not letting the right's ideological political lies go unchallenged.
Far-Right Huckabee Said He Would Use The Troops To Stop Abortions
By: Steve - August 4, 2015 - 11:00am
So here is another reason why you should never vote for the far-right Mike Huckabee. Because he said if he were elected president he would abuse his power and have the military stop legal abortions. Instead of doing it the right way and trying to get congress to change the lwas and make abortion illegal, he would send the troops in to stop it.
And that would be abuse of his power, which is the very same thing he complains about Obama doing.
GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said he is open to the idea of using federal troops and the FBI to stop women from having abortions.
"I will not pretend there is nothing we can do to stop this," Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and an outspoken social conservative, said Thursday at a campaign stop in Jefferson, Iowa.
Huckabee addressed abortion again at his next stop in Rockwell City, Iowa, where a reporter asked him whether stopping abortion would mean using federal troops or the FBI.
"We'll see if I get to be president," Huckabee said, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.
"All American citizens should be protected," he added.
The Huckabee campaign did not immediately return a request for more comment on what deploying troops or using the FBI to stop women from having abortions would look like.
Huckabee has long spoken out against abortion, and last year, he suggested that the issue was worse than the Holocaust.
"If you felt something incredibly powerful at Auschwitz and Birkenau over the 11 million killed worldwide and the 1.5 million killed on those grounds, cannot we feel something extraordinary about 55 million murdered in our own country in the wombs of their mothers?" he asked.
Expect the big difference is abortion is legal and those women choose to have an abortion, which is none of his business. And it is about as extreme as it gets and a total partisan political/religious play, because of his far-right pro-life religious beliefs he would call the troops in to stop abortions, even though they are legal and the supreme court has ruled on it in Roe v Wade.
And his far-right buddy Bill O'Reilly never says a word about it, because he is also pro-life and he supports Huckabee. O'Reilly ignores it, but if a liberal said he would use the troops to abuse his power for his partisan religious beliefs O'Reilly would be outraged and call for him to be kicked out of the race for president.
Donald Trump Is A Massive Hypocrite About Foreign Immigrants
By: Steve - August 4, 2015 - 10:00am
As expected, Donald Trump is a two-faced talk out of both sides of his mouth immigration hater. While touting his hardline on immigration on the campaign trail for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump's companies have been recruiting thousands of foreign workers.
Donald Trump is staking his run for president in part on a vow to protect American jobs. But this month, one of his companies, the elite Mar-a-Lago Club resort in Florida, applied to import 70 foreign workers to serve as cooks, wait staff and cleaners.
And why does he do that, so he can pay them next to nothing and make more money.
A Reuters analysis of U.S. government data reveals that this is business as usual in the Trump empire.
Trump owns companies that have sought to import at least 1,100 foreign workers on temporary visas since 2000, according to U.S. Department of Labor data reviewed by Reuters. Most of the applications were approved, the data show.
Nine companies majority-owned by Trump have sought to bring in foreign waitresses, cooks, vineyard workers and other laborers on temporary work-visa programs administered by the Labor Department.
The candidate's foreign talent hunt included applications for an assistant golf-course superintendent, an assistant hotel manager and a banquet manager. Two of his companies, Trump Model Management and Trump Management Group LLC, have sought visas for nearly 250 foreign fashion models, the records show.
Trump's presidential campaign and a lawyer for the businessman declined to comment. The Mar-a-Lago Club could not be reached for comment.
The analysis of Trump's history of actively importing foreign workers comes as he has emerged as an early front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination in the November 2016 presidential election. Trump has positioned himself as a champion of American workers whose livelihoods are threatened by illegal foreign laborers and the offshoring of U.S. jobs.
"I will be the greatest jobs president that God every created," he said in announcing his candidacy on June 16. "I will bring back our jobs from China, Mexico and other places. I will bring back jobs and our money."
As he has his clothing line made in China and he is importing foreign workers for cheap labor, what a jerk, a liar, and a total hypocrite.
Trump generated both notoriety and buzz by singling out Mexican immigrants in the United States. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said in the speech. "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
In a speech on July 11, Trump distinguished between those working legally and illegally in the United States, saying thousands of "legal" Mexicans - "incredible people" - have worked for him over the years.
The Labor Department records don't specify the nationality of the foreign workers sought by companies. But Trump could be bringing many Mexican workers into the United States.
The temporary work visa program through which Trump's companies have sought the greatest numbers of workers, H-2B, brings in mostly workers from Mexico. Mexicans made up more than 80 percent of the 104,993 admissions to the United States on H-2B visas in 2013. The Trump companies have sought at least 850 H-2B visa workers.
The H-2B program, which receives little government oversight, is used by companies in sectors ranging from hospitality to forestry to hire foreign workers for temporary jobs.
U.S. government watchdogs have criticized the H-2B and H-2A programs over the years for failing to protect foreign and American workers alike.
In 2003, the Labor Department Inspector General said: "Abuses of these programs result in economic harm to American workers and businesses, exploitation of foreign workers, and security risks associated with aliens who are admitted to this country by fraudulent means."
This year, the Government Accountability Office published a report saying that workers in the country on H-2A and H-2B visas have experienced abuse, including being charged illegal recruiting fees, substandard housing and low pay.
The Mar-a-Lago, a luxury resort in Palm Beach, Florida, has sought the most foreign workers of the nine Trump businesses: 787 workers since 2006, according to the data.
This month, the resort filed paperwork seeking to bring in 70 foreign workers later this year on H-2B visas to serve as maids, cooks and wait staff, according to paperwork known as "job orders" published on the Labor Department's web site.
In addition to the resort and the modeling agencies, the Trump-owned companies identified in the Reuters analysis were Jupiter Golf Club, Lamington Farm Club LLC, Trump Miami Resorts Management LLC, Trump National Golf Club LLC, Trump Payroll Chicago LLC and Trump Vineyard Estates LLC.
And of course Bill O'Reilly (a close friend of Trump) never says a word about any of this, in fact, he defends Trump and says the media is not fairly reporting on him. While he kisses Trump's backside and ignores all the bad things Trump is saying and doing. So in reality, it is Bill O'Reilly who is doing the bad reporting on Trump, and the rest of the media is just doing their job.
Jon Stewart Shows How Republicans Love The Far-Right Donald Trump
By: Steve - August 3, 2015 - 10:00am
I am now convinced that Donald Trump is the perfect Republican candidate.
I love watching Trump say all these ignorant, bigoted and disgusting things, only to continue his rise in the polls with the Republican voters. And as far as people like O'Reilly saying the party is not filled with far-right racists, etc. it is very difficult to claim your party isn't pandering to some of the worst aspects of our society when someone can call Mexican immigrants rapists and mock a war veteran, then increase his poll numbers in the Republican primary.
Jon Stewart talked about it Thursday when he hammered the Republicans for being exposed by Trump's continued ridiculousness. He started off by playing several clips of RNC chairman Reince Priebus declaring that the Republican party had to change the belief held by many that the GOP is out of touch, narrow-minded, racist, sexist and basically only panders to rich, old white guys.
That they found out from a study they paid for, and yet they have ignored it in favor of pandering even more to their extreme far-right base. Basically, they paid for a study, it showed they are seen as the old rich racist white guy party that is not friendly to blacks, latinos, or women. Then they ignored their own study, and went even farther to the right, which is the opposite of what their own study said they should do.
Enter Donald Trump, the overwhelming GOP front-runner for president. Yes, after the chairman of the Republican party repeatedly declared over the last couple of years that Republicans had to change the image of the party that alienates Latinos, minorities and women -- mostly just catering to old, rich white guys -- an old rich white guy who's a sexist and recently called most Mexican immigrants rapists is the party's leading presidential candidate.
You can't make this stuff up. "Yes, the living embodiment of everything Republicans were trying to exorcise from their party, just escalated down on their parade," Stewart said. Stewart then shifted his focus on how some of the GOP's biggest donors are becoming increasingly worried about Trump's growing popularity among Republican voters.
"This Trump guy is a rich, crazy, egotistical monster," Stewart said. "People like him are supposed to buy the candidates, not be them. In our system of government, one branch has the money, and the other branch does what the branch with the money tells them to do."
Stewart then went on to basically say what I said a couple of weeks ago. That is, it's not an image problem the Republican party is suffering -- it's their voters.
O'Reilly and his republican friends can try to spin this however they want, but the fact remains that it's conservative voters who are finding what Trump is saying as a representation of what they believe. So, it's not that the Republican party has just been saddled with a perception issue as it pertains to being a party of intolerance to minorities and women, it's that those are the actual values and beliefs many of their voters have.
In other words, the GOP's own voters are confirming what liberals have been saying for years, that the Republican party is supported by people who are anti-immigrant, anti-women, racists, and the party itself mostly caters to rich, old white guys.
This isn't the so-called "liberal media spinning the news," as O'Reilly and the conservatives often like to claim. These are actual poll numbers saying that, out of the 17 candidates, the one who called Mexican immigrants rapists, insulted a war veteran and called a woman who was breast-feeding disgusting is the candidate who best represents the values of the majority of conservatives.
And O'Reilly never says a word about this, because he knows it is true and he ignores it because it makes him and the Republican party look bad. He never talks about it, and he never will, which is even more proof he is a biased right-wing hack who supports his good friend Donald Trump 100 percent.
BlackLivesMatter Co-Founder Slams O'Reilly For Propaganda About Them
By: Steve - August 2, 2015 - 11:00am
One of the co-founders of the #BlackLivesMatter network spoke to Marc Lamont Hill Wednesday about Bill O'Reilly's accusation that the group is a George Soros-funded collection of "fringe nuts who run around the country saying crazy things."
"I watched it and was mortified," Patrisse Cullors said. "What's unfortunate about Bill O'Reilly is that it's pundits like him that fuel anti-black racism. It's pundits like him that allow for folks like Dylann Roof to get more ammunition."
"I think we need to hold him accountable," she added, because "on the one hand we can laugh about it, but on the other hand folks are really watching that and taking that as real news."
And she is right, but of course on his Thursday night show O'Reilly responded with she is a loon, without ever disproving anything she said about him, all he did was call her a loon, with no actual answer to dispute her claims.
Cullors also disputed O'Reilly's claim that her group is a bunch of fringe nuts only supported by "the radical left," saying #BlackLivesMatter "has 26 chapters across the country ranging from young folks to older folks. People who have been in the movement for decades, and some people who just joined.
As to whether the group is merely another front for the conservative O'Reilly's favorite cartoon villain, George Soros, Cullors said that "we aren't a front group for another organization. This is a grassroots effort."
She explicitly denied receiving any money from Soros. And O'Reilly has no proof she has, but he reported that she has anyway, even though he claims to only deal in the facts.
"The network isn't receiving any contributions from Soros," she said. "Possibly the larger movement is -- there's lots of folks in #BlackLivesMatter! The problem is that everybody conflates the network with the movement."
"There's a broader movement and there's a larger system, and then there's the network," she concluded. "We have not received money from Soros. We have received our money from Jay-Z and Beyonce."
So once again O'Reilly plays fast and loose with the facts, while claiming to only deal in facts. Then after he is called out for his anti-black propaganda, the best he can do is try to smear them as a far-left group funded by Soros, and call her a loon. While never once actually talking about the claims she made about him.
Donald Trump Loves Him Some Stupid Sarah Palin
By: Steve - August 2, 2015 - 10:00am
Proof The NRA & Republicans Lie That More Guns Keep Us Safer
By: Steve - August 1, 2015 - 10:00am
First let me say this, I am a 2nd amendment guy and I used to actually be a member of the NRA many years ago, so I support gun rights and the 2nd amendment 100 percent. In fact, I am a little of a gun nut myself, I love guns and love to shoot them. I have owned guns all my life, including now, I currently own a .380 ACP semi-auto handgun, but it is for target shooting and home defense only. I do not carry it on me or in my truck.
Now let's talk about some facts, studies show that more guns do not make us safer. After the Lafayette, Louisiana movie theater shooting, gun fanatics have been very quick to claim that this shooting happened because the Grand 16 theater is a "gun-free zone." Which is ridiculous, because shootings happen in gun zones all the time, even on a military base.
By their logic, if a "good guy with a gun" was allowed to carry their weapon into that evening's showing of the movie Trainwreck, this tragedy would have been avoided. This is a tired old talking point that they use over and over again to state that we need to allow everyone to have guns everywhere while they also accuse anyone who proposes sensible regulations and training requirements of trying to ban guns altogether.
If everyone had guns it would be chaos, especially in a dark movie theater. What they should do is have an armed and trained professional security person in each theater, not a bunch of armed and possibly drunk or stoned untrained citizens with guns.
Claiming that "gun-free zones" do not prevent lunatics from shooting up a school or business while deflecting from the loose gun laws in places like Louisiana is a favorite tactic of gun fanatics. In their minds, all of these incidents could have been avoided if guns were allowed, because more weapons seem to magically solve every problem in the world.
As I have said before, I am a gun owner, but I do not operate under the assumption that I am a trained professional or that carrying a weapon automatically qualifies me to do anything other than protect myself as a last resort.
The problem is that too many people think that they are professionals, even though they have little (if any) training in the use of a weapon, let alone the legal consequences that follow a shooting -- even when it is in self-defense. In other words, we have a lot of untrained people who have been led to believe by gun lobby experts that more guns make us safer, and that simply owning a gun makes them some kind of expert.
Let's look at the fact that young drivers have the highest rate of accidents and fatalities due to a lack of experience operating a vehicle, even though they have undergone classroom instruction and behind the wheel training in order to receive their license to drive. Now can you imagine what would happen with an untrained individual attempting to engage a deranged shooter in a dark, crowded theater?
How about 15 untrained people with guns trying to determine who the good guy with a gun is and who is the person they're trying to take out, all while chaos reigns in that confined and dark theater?
I hate to break it to all the wannabe John Wayne's out there, but even highly-trained police still manage to end up killing innocent bystanders from time to time, so imagine the potential bloodbath that could occur with multiple wannabe Wyatt Earps in a dark movie theater.
A study from Mount St. Mary's University prepared for the National Gun Victims Action Council shows again that the NRA's propaganda about more guns making us safer is false.
From the Washington Post: The study found that proper training and education are key to successfully using a firearm in self-defense: "carrying a gun in public does not provide self-defense unless the carrier is properly trained and maintains their skill level," the authors wrote in a statement.
They recruited 77 volunteers with varying levels of firearm experience and training, and had each of them participate in simulations of three different scenarios using the firearms training simulator at the Prince George's County Police Department in Maryland. The first scenario involved a carjacking, the second an armed robbery in a convenience store, and the third a case of suspected larceny.
They found that, unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn't take cover. They didn't attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy -- they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough -- they didn't shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.
The video from the study shows that untrained people do not live up to the slogan "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" that the NRA likes to promote in order to market guns.
In fact, every issue of American Rifleman has a collection of stories in the front pages of their magazine as well as on their website called The Armed Citizen. These isolated anecdotes are used to hype up how private citizens with guns save lives and stop crime, but as this study shows, those people are the exception to the rule instead of the norm.
Now here is the part that shows how morally bankrupt the NRA is. The NRA does have a series of training classes which are offered across the country by NRA-certified instructors. Some of these classes are required in many states in order to be able to carry a concealed handgun and/or open carry.
So looking at these videos, why wouldn't the NRA promote these courses and push for gun owners to be more proficient with their weapons so that they are better able to respond in life or death situations?
I think the answer is that if people needed to take courses in order to own and carry handguns, they would be less likely to purchase a handgun, thereby depriving the gun manufacturers that advertise with the NRA of sales revenue.
In other words, the NRA can say they care about gun safety, but it's clear they care far more about making money, and they will keep on promoting their false and dangerous message to keep the cash flowing in.
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com