2015 Was A Bad Year For The Biased Right-Wing Fraud Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - December 31, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly lost what little journalistic credibility he still had in 2015 as www.oreilly-sucks.com, journalists, colleagues, and media fact-checkers dismantled many of the lies he told about his journalism career, his show, and his books. Here is a look back at O'Reilly's bad year.

1) Numerous Journalists Took Apart O'Reilly's Falklands War Tales.

O'Reilly has repeatedly attempted to bolster his reporting credentials by claiming over the years that he was in a war zone so he knows what war is like, he was talking about his reporting "in the Falklands" during the 1982 Falklands War.

A Mother Jones expose, however, found that O'Reilly fabricated his reporting resume and his former colleagues said he was actually 1,200 miles away in Buenos Aires. O'Reilly also called other reporters who did not enter the war zone chickens, and said he was in the war zone, unlike them, even though he was never in the war zone either.

O'Reilly also claimed to have reported on a 1982 Buenos Aires protest in which "many were killed," but numerous journalists who reported from the scene and a historian disputed his story.

O'Reilly claimed to have helped an injured CBS photographer during the protest, but his colleagues have no recollection of that incident. And the actual journalist he claims to have helped put out a statement saying it never happened, he is still alive and O'Reilly could have had him on his show to discuss it, but he never did.

2) O'Reilly's Incredible Tale About A Kennedy Assassination Figure Imploded.

O'Reilly claimed on Fox News and in his book Killing Kennedy that he was outside the Florida house where Lee Harvey Oswald friend George de Mohrenschildt was staying when he killed himself in 1977.

Though O'Reilly claimed to have heard the fatal gunshot, his tale unraveled when numerous pieces of evidence emerged contradicting his claim. At the time of the shooting O'Reilly was not even in Florida, an audiotape came out with O'Reilly saying he would go to Florida the next day, proving he was not in Florida at the time of the shooting.

Colleagues contradicted his claim and were unable to corroborate his story; and a police report that makes no mention of O'Reilly and provides details that cast doubt on his tale. If you were at a shooting the police would have questioned you and there would be a mention of it in a report.

3) O'Reilly Fabrication: He "Saw Nuns Get Shot In The Back Of The Head" In El Salvador.

While discussing his time covering the civil war in El Salvador in the early 1980s, O'Reilly claimed he "was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head."

In reality, the incident took place months before he arrived in the country. O'Reilly then attempted damage control by claiming that when he said he "saw nuns get shot," he was referring to seeing "horrendous images" of nuns murdered while reporting from El Salvador, not witnessing those murders firsthand.

4) O'Reilly's Northern Ireland Bombing Lie: He's "Seen ... Irish Terrorists Kill And Maim Their Fellow Citizens In Belfast With Bombs."

O'Reilly claimed in his book Keep it Pithy that he's "seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs."

A Fox News spokesperson later "said that O'Reilly was not an eyewitness to any bombings or injuries in Northern Ireland. Instead, he was shown photos of bombings by Protestant police officers."

So he was not there as he claimed, he lied again and got caught, which is almost a daily claim for O'Reilly. There is barely a day that goes by where he does not get caught in a lie.

5) Colleagues Disputed O'Reilly's Tale Of Danger During The Los Angeles Riots.

O'Reilly claimed of his reporting for Inside Edition during the Los Angeles riots: "We were attacked, we were attacked by protesters, where bricks were thrown at us." However, the Guardian reported that six of O'Reilly's colleagues "have disputed his account of surviving a bombardment of bricks and rocks while covering the 1992 riots in Los Angeles."

6) Republicans Accused O'Reilly Of Factual Inaccuracies In Killing Reagan Book.

Numerous Republicans challenged O'Reilly over factual inaccuracies in his book Killing Reagan. The critics included former Reagan aides and Reagan biographers, who called O'Reilly's book "garbage" and "a disservice to history."

One of O'Reilly's biggest critics has been conservative columnist and Fox News contributor George Will, who called O'Reilly "an opportunistic interloper" whose "vast carelessness pollutes history and debases the historian's craft."

Bill O'Reilly is a proven biased right-wing liar, and that is a fact. If you watch his show and you believe one word he says, I say you should check out what he says, if you do, you will find out for yourself that about 95% of what he says is either spin or a lie.

And this is coming from the guy who claims to be an honest Independent journalist with a no spin zone. Which is the biggest lies of all, because he is a biased lying right-wing hack, and he should be sued for even calling himself a journalist.

O'Reilly Even Lies About His Ratings In His Website Biography
By: Steve - December 30, 2015 - 11:30am

Bill O'Reilly is such a lying fraud he can not even tell the truth about his ratings in his very own Biography on his billoreilly.com website. Here is a direct quote from the website:
Bill O'Reilly's The Factor is now in its 20th year. Twenty years is a long time by any yardstick, but particularly when measured in television years.

As we say most proudly, thanks to more than 5-million of you nightly, The Factor remains the most watched program on cable news, as it has throughout this time.

There is no letup in the planning and expectations for the show. Bill notes, "Looking ahead, politics is going to dominate, politics is really where we are at. We are going to dominate the election coverage, we are going to be ahead."
And not only is he lying about his ratings, it is not a Bio, it's bragging about your made up ratings. Here is the actual truth about the Factor Ratings, I track them every day, week, and month, and he does not get 5 million viewers a night, let alone more than 5 million.

The O'Reilly Factor averages 2.2 to 3.3 million viewers a day, and most of the time it is closer to 2.9 million. In the last 12 weeks, O'Reilly averaged less than 3 million viewers a night, in only 3 of those weeks did he average slightly over 3 million.

1) 11-16-15 to 11-20-15 - 3.373 million total viewer average
2) 11-30-15 to 12-4-15 - 3.358 million total viewer average
3) 12-7-15 to 12-11-15 - 3.157 million total viewer average

Not one time has he got 5 million viewers in one night, ever. I looked back 4 years to 2011 and I could not find one night where he had 5 million viewers, not one. I found a couple where he had 4 million viewers, but that was rare and only in 2 or 3 shows.

O'Reilly does not get 5 million viewers in one night, it does not happen. His average is 2.2 to 3.3 million, and usually it is under 3 million, most of the time it is a 2.8 or a 2.9.

Now even if you count his 11pm re-run that gets about 1 million viewers, he still only gets about 3.5 to 4 million. But they do not count re-runs in the ratings, ever, for nobody. Because some people who watched the show at 8pm could also watch it again at 11pm. Re-runs are never counted in the ratings.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and if he can not even tell the truth about his ratings, how can you believe anything else he says?

He is #1 in cable news, with an average of 2.8 to 3.3 million viewers a night. But that is not good enough for O'Reilly, he has to lie and say he gets over 5 million viewers a night, which is just not true. I have Factor ratings records on this very website that go back 4 years, and not once has he got 5 million viewers in one night, let alone more than 5 million nightly as he claims, it's a 100% lie!

Trump Flips Out On Twitter After Sanders Calls Out One Of His Lies
By: Steve - December 30, 2015 - 11:00am

Donald Trump flipped out on Twitter after Bernie Sanders told the truth about one of his lies.

During an interview on Face The Nation, Sen. Sanders said this: "Meanwhile, interestingly enough, John, this is a guy who does not want to raise the minimum wage. In fact, he has said that he thinks wages in America are too high. But he does want to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to top three-tenths of one percent."

Trump responded with this on Twitter:


[email protected] blew his campaign when he gave Hillary a pass on her e-mail crime, said that I feel wages in America are too high. Lie!

10:49 AM - 27 Dec 2015

Video even proves that Trump has said that wages are too high twice. The first time was during the Fox Business Republican presidential debate.

During the debate, Trump said this: "But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we can not do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it."

Trump repeated the same point about wages the very next morning on Morning Joe.

Trump said this: "We have to become competitive with the world. Our taxes are too high. Our wages are too high."

Sen. Sanders responded to Trump by saying that the billionaire is getting nervous.

Sanders said this: "Donald Trump says that I'm a liar because I said he believes wages in America are too high. Really?...It appears that Mr. Trump is getting nervous that working families are catching on that his policies represent the interests of the billionaire class against almost everyone else.

He refuses to support raising the minimum wage. He believes wages are too high, and he wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the very richest families in America. That's not an agenda that 'makes America great.' It's just another Republican billionaire wanting to make the very rich richer at the expense of working families."

Sanders nailed it, but I would suggest that nervous was a bit of an understatement. Trump is terrified that voters will catch on to his fraud. Donald Trump is a con man who is trying to fast talk his way to the White House.

Bernie Sanders has done something that no Republican presidential candidate has been able to do. Sanders has thrown Trump off of his game. Both Sen. Sanders and former Sec. of State Clinton understand that Donald Trump is a bully, and the way to handle a bully is to stand up to them. Bush, Cruz, and Rubio get weak in the knees every time they confront Trump.

The Democrats are the only candidates who have been willing to knock Trump down. Trump doesn't want a fight with Bernie Sanders because this is the real world, not reality television. Sanders is a political warrior who will not only take on Trump. He will expose him as the fraud he is.

Bill O'Reilly Spreads More Lies About Muslims Nazis & Terrorism
By: Steve - December 30, 2015 - 10:00am

According to Bill O'Reilly, German citizens "let" Hitler come to power by not being sufficiently politically engaged, that they "looked the other way."

He makes this argument in support of his claim that Muslims today are also "looking the other way" and not openly and aggressively opposing terrorism. Of course, they are doing exactly that, but were O'Reilly to acknowledge current facts he would have nothing to talk about, just like if he acknowledged the actual historical facts he would have nothing to write about.

In fact, O'Reilly told USA Today, "I'm a snappy guy. I do things in a flamboyant way. I want to get your attention." It's basically all about ratings for O'Reilly, and the truth be damned. He lies to his right-wing viewers and tells them what they want to hear, for ratings. He actually says his big ratings equal truth, and that high ratings mean he is telling the truth, which is so ridiculous it's laughable.

He doesn't want to get facts right. Your attention is enough. History, he said on another occasion, -- that is books by actual historians about actual historical facts -- is boring.

Conservative agendas like his are much more easily pushed if all facts are ignored. Instead of writing fake history, O'Reilly would do better to read some real history. To let his opinions develop out of what actually happened, rather than forcing what actually happened to fit his opinions.

It's a lie that Germans looked the other way. Germans were very politically engaged in what was going on in their country. Historian Richard J. Evans observed in 2003's The Coming of the Third Reich that "of all the myths of German history that have been mobilized to account for the coming of the Third Reich in 193, none is less convincing than that of the unpolitical German."

He makes the critical point (which escapes O'Reilly) that "Contemporaries could not see things as clearly as we can, with the gift of hindsight: they could not know in 1930 what was to come in 1933," for example, and for every year after. It all seems so inevitable for us, because we can look back and see it happen. 20/20 hindsight is great -- if you're looking to convince yourself that what you already believe is true.

"Whatever Germany suffered from in the 1920s, it was not," Evans tells us, "a lack of political commitment and belief, rather, if anything, the opposite."

Unfortunately for O'Reilly, it doesn't work that way. Evans tells us that "One of the greatest problems in writing history is to imagine oneself back in the world of the past, with all the doubts and uncertainties people faced in dealing with a future that for the historian has also become the past."

O'Reilly, like David Barton, would rather misrepresent the past, reading the present backwards.

Ian Kershaw, a British historian who has specialized in Nazi Germany, has pointed out, in Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich (1983) that "for an outsider, a non-German who never experienced Nazism, it is perhaps too easy to criticise, to expect standards of behavior which was almost impossible to attain in the circumstances."

While some Germans may have felt better being thought not sufficiently engaged, and it may make O'Reilly feel better claiming Muslims are not sufficiently engaged, wishing does not make anything true. The facts are still the facts even if you ignore them. And O'Reilly makes his living ignoring facts, just ask George Will.

Slate's Laura Miller said this of his novels:
Until now, the press attention to the Killing books has focused on their lack of historical rigor and their inaccuracy, which is considerable. You can collect errors as you wander through these pages as easily as a child picks up seashells on a beach.

This flaw seems to bother the books vast readership not a whit. The whole point of the Killing books is that they aren't like works of real history--that is, dry, slow-moving, and lacking in moral certainty. Books by historians are "boring," O’Reilly told a radio interviewer, so he figured "if you can write exciting books you would sell a lot of copies and have movies made of them."

This proved to be true: Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, and Killing Jesus have been made into TV movies by the National Geographic Channel, and adaptations of Killing Reagan and Killing Patton are set to air next year.
You can see his agenda is something other than a retelling of actual events, let alone a concise and cogent analysis of those events.

None of this will stop Bill O'Reilly (or David Barton) from inventing facts more congenial to the conservative agenda, but the often unwary public must be more cautious in its acceptance of much publicized claims.

It's bad enough we see O'Reilly's books listed under history (when they should be under fiction) by booksellers (including Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble) but to have what is, in fact, historical fiction, accepted as such is simply beyond the pale.

O'Reilly also says that Muslim leaders and clerics never speak out against terrorism, which is a 100% lie and he knows it, in fact 70,000 clerics just issued a fatwa condemning terrorism. And guess what, O'Reilly did not report a word about it, he ignored it.

Every year in northern India, Muslims gather in Ajmer for the Urs festival to remember the death of Moinuddin Chishti, a Sufi Islamic cleric and scholar. This year, around 70,000 clerics who attended issued a fatwa condemning terrorism, but you'll never hear about this from O'Reilly or the conservative media, or politicians who are trying to whip up hatred toward Muslims.

The GOP can not cope with actual events, past or present. In this sense, Bill O'Reilly is a symptom of a larger problem, but he is also a willing participant in falsifying facts to bolster the conservative agenda for America.

It may be an effort that seems to pale in comparison to ignoring our climate problems, but then again, as the saying goes, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Bernie Sanders Got Cuomo To Admit The Media Is Biased For Trump
By: Steve - December 29, 2015 - 11:00am

During an interview on CNN, Democratic presidential candidate got Chris Cuomo to admit that the media is biased towards Republicans and Donald Trump.

The most telling exchange of the interview came when Sanders confronted CNN and the media about the amount of coverage they give to Trump. Transcript:
SANDERS: Well, Chris, you are going to have to ask the media precisely why. Trump is a smart guy. He is a media guy. He did a TV show. I'll give you one example. A recent study showed that on ABC evening news Trump got 81 minutes of time. Bernie Sanders got 20 seconds. Now you tell me why. And I think it has to do with the fact that Trump is very smart.

He knows that media is not interest in the serious issues facing this country. They love bombastic remarks. They love silly remarks. If he says that somebody is sweating well my God, that is a major story, and all that silly business and the personal attacks that kind of works. So I think this is more an indictment of the media, actually, than it is of Trump.

CUOMO: Yeah, I don't see it. Look. Do we cover him more? Yes. Why? He's number one in the polls. He's highly relevant. He drives the discussion.

SANDERS: But, but, but. Chris, Chris. Explain to me how he becomes number one. He boasts of the fact. This is what he says. Hey, I don't have to pay for commercials. The media is going to put me on all of the time. Explain to me, and I know CNN may be different here, and you have been very generous with me, but you explain how a major network on the evening news has 80 minutes of Trump and 20 seconds of Bernie Sanders, Does that make sense to anybody? In many ways, I think it's fair to say...

CUOMO: There's no question that Trump drives ratings and that is always an influence in everything that we do. If you weren't as handsome and charismatic that you are Senator, maybe you wouldn't get the time that you get, but you can't just wipe off all of this popularity that he has with a growing base of the GOP.

They're putting him first in the polls, not because of the media. They say they hate the media. They just love Trump.
Sanders got someone in the mainstream media to admit the networks base their coverage on several biases. Trump gets coverage because he drives ratings. Issues don't matter. Whether or not he can win an election doesn't matter. Trump is entertainment, so he gets coverage.

The big bias that Cuomo revealed was the media's pandering to Republicans. Cuomo tried to justify all of the coverage of Trump because he is number one in the Republican polls.

His point ignored the reality that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the United States. According to Gallup, 46% of the country identifies itself as Democratic, and 41% identify themselves as Republicans. Democrats have won five of the last six popular votes. If being number one in the polls really does matter, Hillary Clinton should be getting Trump level coverage, because she has higher national polling than the billionaire.

Bernie Sanders should be second in coverage to Clinton because his support is higher than every Republican candidate.

Sanders was correct. The Trump coverage isn't about Trump at all. The tilt in coverage is based on several pro-Republican biases that exist in the media. Bill O'Reilly and the corporate media want you to believe that America is a conservative nation. Even though it isn't. The United States has been trending in a liberal direction since the Great Recession.

Cuomo's defense of the overkill of Trump coverage was an admission that the corporate press is only interested in ratings, and they think that most of the political viewership is Republican.

In other words, more Republicans watch the news on TV than Democrats do, so they cover Trump more than anyone to get ratings from those Republicans who watch the news on TV more than anyone. It's all about ratings, because the higher ratings they get the higher prices they get for the commercials they sell.

Senator Sanders provided a great service to Democrats and the left by confronting the corporate media and getting at least one person to admit that the pro-Republican bias is real.

And btw folks, ask yourself how many times to so-called super journalist Bill O'Reilly reports on this bias, answer? NEVER. Because he is one of them and a Trump friend, not to mention defender and supporter.

Sanders has provided proof that the media is not interested in facts or the issues, and that Democrats and the left need to stop believing that they will ever get fair treatment from the corporate owned media.

Trump Spokeswoman Calls Hillary Clinton Supporters Little Girls
By: Steve - December 29, 2015 - 10:00am

Another ridiculous comment has come out from the Donald Trump campaign against Hillary Clinton and her supporters. This one is from a woman spokesman, Katrina Pierson, and it is insulting, but par for the course.

From Politico:
"What you have on Hillary Clinton's side are a bunch of people, including women -- liberal women -- who want to run around talking about the war on women," Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said Wednesday night on CNN.

"They want to burn their bras and complain about equal pay and being treated as men, and the second they get criticized for anything they start acting like 9-year-old little girls."
Clinton's campaign this week has gone after Trump, who called Clinton's bathroom break during Saturday's Democratic debate "disgusting" and told a crowd of supporters at a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Monday she got "schlonged" by Barack Obama during the 2008 primary.

These latest insults from Trump's campaign are just more proof of how idiotic our political process has become. We're at the point where one party is talking about solutions for America's problems with real ideas about jobs and the economy, and the other one is led by a far-right billionaire nut who has based his campaign on insulting everyone, including members of his own party and even women anchors at Fox News.

The 2016 election may be the most important one of our lifetimes, and we cannot allow the GOP to undo decades of progress. The stakes have never been higher, and we're witnessing two highly qualified Democratic candidates running against a GOP field that has no answer for the problems our country faces.

We need to rally against the hatred and misogynistic rhetoric of the GOP. We have an opportunity to turn back the tide of right-wing conservatism that has handicapped President Obama through much of his administration, and elect officials that can help the next President move this country forward.

That effort isn't going to come by sharing and signing petitions, or simply positing on social media. This requires each and every one of us getting out to vote. If we sit at home and refuse to vote because our favorite candidate isn't on the ballot, that's the only way Republicans can win.

Remember this, if every registered Democrat in America voted in the Presidential elections, no Republican would ever win, we have them outnumbered, all we have to do is get out and vote.

George Will: A Conservative Party Jeopardized By Trump
By: Steve - December 28, 2015 - 11:00am

Here is a copy of an op-ed by the Conservative George Will, he says Trump is a fool and if he wins the Republican primary it might just end the party.

WASHINGTON -- If you look beyond Donald Trump's comprehensive unpleasantness -- is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? -- you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others' approval to ratify his self-admiration.

His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy's insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

Putin slyly stirred America's politics by saying Trump is "very talented," adding that he welcomed Trump's promise of "closer, deeper relations," whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be "so nicely complimented" by a "highly respected" man: "When people call you brilliant, it's always good."

When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said Putin "kills journalists and political opponents and invades countries," Trump replied that "at least he's a leader." Besides, Trump breezily asserted, "I think our country does plenty of killing also." Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: "It has not been proven that he's killed reporters."

Well. Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative's police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been "proven," perhaps even to Trump's exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.)

Until now, Trump's ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence -- Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what's the big deal, or the difference? -- Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority.

Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to 12 years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary.

But first things first. Conservatives' highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this the GOP's third epochal intra-party struggle in 104 years.

In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey's Gov. Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding.

Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR's closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR's secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York's Gov. Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor.

Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican Party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party's continuity as the custodian of conservatism.

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible -- a conservative party as a constant presence in American politics.

It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Trump Tax Plan Benefits Wealthy & Adds Trillions In Debt
By: Steve - December 27, 2015 - 11:00am

Donald Trump is a proven liar, fact-checkers have shown that only 7% of what he says is true, and the same can be said for his ridiculous tax plan.

Trump's tax plan would benefit the wealthiest Americans the most while saddling the economy with trillions of dollars in new debt, according to an analysis released on Tuesday by the Tax Policy Center.

Now ask yourself this, are you going to believe the guy who lies 93% of the time, or a group called the Tax Policy Center?

Trump, the Republican presidential candidate who is leading most polls, released his plan in September after vowing to crack down on loopholes that benefit rich hedge fund and private equity managers, while eliminating provisions that encourage companies to park their cash in overseas tax havens.

The proposal would cut the top tax rate to 25 percent from 39.6 percent, and bring down the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent. It would also end federal income taxes on individuals making less than $25,000 and married couples who file their taxes jointly earning less than $50,000.

What his plan does is throw some scraps to the middle class to get their support for it, while hoping you ignore the fact that the wealthy (like him) get most of the cuts in the plan, and that you ignore how much debt it will add.

Despite the populist tone of his campaign, Trump's plan open's new loopholes that would allow the well-off to shave their tax bills and could debilitate the economy as lawmakers look for requisite spending cuts.

According to analysts at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the cuts would mean nearly $25 trillion in lost government revenue over the next 20 years, and swell the ratio of debt to gross domestic product from about 74 percent to 180 percent.

"The revenue losses from this plan are really enormous," Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, said on a conference call before releasing the report. "Basically it would negate all the economic benefits if we were running deficits anywhere near as large as we're projecting here."

Trump has said that he would use his deal-making prowess to reduce costs and pay for his tax cuts and programs. And while Trump said that billionaires like himself would be hit the hardest under his plan, the Tax Policy Center disagrees 100%. As usual, Trump is lying again.

They calculate that the highest income taxpayers get the biggest cuts in dollar terms and as a share of their income. The richest 0.1 percent would receive an average tax cut of $1.3 million in 2017, or 19 percent of their after-tax income, while the average cut for everyone would be about $5,100, or 7 percent of their pay.

"Donald Trump has not released his tax returns, but people in his income group would get huge tax cuts," Mr. Burman said.

The biggest loophole in the Trump tax plan, according to Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, is the pass through provision that would allow contract workers to have their income taxed at the lower 15 percent rate. When Kansas made such an allowance recently, thousands of workers shifted their work status to cut their tax bills, leading to a revenue shortfall.

To complicate matters even more, Trump has said he will protect programs such as Medicare and Social Security and he has promised that everyone would have health care under his administration. With few places to make cuts, the study found, government borrowing and interest rates would likely increase, slowing the economy.

The Tax Policy Center said that Trump's campaign did not respond to its follow-up questions about the proposal and its experts expressed pessimism about the impact it would have on the economy.

"Even if you eliminated all nondefense discretionary spending, you would not be able to balance the budget in 2025," Mr. Burman said.

In other words, Trump is lying. And his tax plan does the same thing Republicans have been doing when they have political power, give the wealthy and the corporations big tax cuts, while throwing scraps to the poor and the middle class to sucker them into supporting it. Which will just make the income gap in America even worse, making the poor even more poor, and the wealthy even more wealthy.

O'Reilly & The Republicans In The Minority On Abortion
By: Steve - December 26, 2015 - 11:00am

O'Reilly often claims that the majority of Americans oppose abortion, so they agree with him, who is a pro-life goon. And once again he is proven wrong.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Associated Press-GfK poll finds that support for legal abortion in the U.S. has edged up to its highest level in the past two years, with an increase in support among Democrats and Republicans.

Nearly six in 10 Americans -- 58 percent -- now think abortion should be legal in most or all cases, up from 51 percent who said so at the beginning of the year. The survey was conducted after three people were killed last month in a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.

Among Democrats, 76 percent of poll respondents now think abortion should be legal all or most of the time, up slightly from 69 percent in January.

Independents are more evenly split, with 54 percent saying abortion should be legal all or most of the time.

Support edged up to 40 percent among Republicans in this month's poll, from 35 percent in January, the survey found that the GOP remains deeply divided on the issue: Seven in 10 conservative Republicans said they want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases.

And one last thing, you will never see this poll reported by O'Reilly, or his far-right fill-in host Eric Bolling, who is hosting the Factor when O'Reilly is not there. They ignored it, even though they love reporting on polls. They cherry pick the polls they report, they only report on polls that agree with their beliefs and opinions on the issues.

Reagan's Daughter Says Her Dad Would Be Appalled By GOP Candidates
By: Steve - December 26, 2015 - 10:00am

Patti Davis, daughter of former President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan, blasted the current GOP's field of 2016 presidential candidates, and claimed her father would be "appalled."

In an interview on SiriusXM Progress, Davis said her father, who was shot in an attempted assassination by John Hinckley Jr. in 1981, would not be able to imagine today's gun violence. Davis also noted that in stark contrast to current GOP presidential candidates and most Republican leaders, her mother, Nancy Reagan, was very happy about the Supreme Court's historic decision on marriage equality.

Responding to a question about Sen. Ted Cruz often positively invoking her father's name on the campaign trail and during debates, Davis said this:

"It may be this week he's doing it more than the others. But they all kind of do it. They are so not like him. My father would be appalled at what's going on. I don't think he would be a Republican. And if another Ronald Reagan came along right now, I don’t think the Republican Party would accept him."

Her mother, Nancy Reagan, responded favorably to the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling and also appears to have a dim view of the current presidential candidates.

"She was very happy about that decision," Davis said of Nancy Reagan. "I don't talk to her too much about politics currently. She's 94 and I think she has the right to live out the rest of life with a little bit of peace, which cannot be found in the current political scene. But you know, I don't think she's too happy about anybody on the current roster right now. I mean, there's nobody presidential. Not in that group anyway."

Asked if Jeb Bush, whose family was tied to the Reagan family for 8 years in the '80s while Jeb's father served as Reagan's vice president, was presidential, Davis responded, "Well, I don't think he's presidential, do you?"

Davis also imagined her father's views about the GOP resistance to gun legislation today and the current climate of gun violence, given Reagan's support of laws restricting guns.

"He came out for the Brady bill in, I think, it was 1991," she said of the bill that mandated federal background checks and eventually became law in 1993, named for Jim Brady, Reagan's former press secretary who was paralyzed after being shot during the assassination attempt on Reagan.

Reagan also supported the ban on assault weapons, passed in 1994, and which Congress and President George W. Bush allowed to expire in 2004. "I don't think he'd ever be able to conceive what's going on now," Davis observed, "the amount of gun violence or weaponry."

The Difference Between Liberals And Conservatives On Religious Freedom
By: Steve - December 25, 2015 - 11:00am

The main difference is that conservatives say they believe in freedom, liberals actually do believe in it, not just say they do.

When conservatives grab on to a piece of propaganda, they sure dedicate themselves to it. For years they have been trying to violate our First Amendment by interjecting religion into our laws. And on a few levels they have been successful. But generally they have been defeated, because our First Amendment is pretty clear that laws cannot be based on religion.

The newest scam Republicans have tried to employ is the argument they call religious freedom. Essentially it's their way to try to discriminate against people, or deny others their rights, based on the argument that not allowing them to discriminate against certain individuals based on their religious beliefs is somehow a violation of their religious freedom.

In other words, if we do not let them discriminate against someone because of their far-right extreme religious beliefs, they we are violating their religious freedoms, which is laughable and just insane.

I find it amazing how these people have convinced themselves that attempting to restrict the freedoms of others is somehow defending liberty and freedom.

To show the difference, here are 5 examples that show how liberals and conservatives view religious freedom.

1) Abortion

Liberals: Mostly support the right for a woman to decide for herself whether or not she will have an abortion. Even many Christian liberals are pro-choice. I have rarely met anyone who is pro-abortion. And there is a difference between supporting someone's right to have control over their own body and liking the decision they make.

I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. Being pro-choice means that every single American woman has the right to decide for herself what she should do with her own body. If you want to have an abortion, go ahead. If you don't, then you don't have to. But the point is, liberals support the right for every woman to have the freedom to choose for themselves. If a woman objected to abortions based on her religion she wouldn't have to have one. But that would be her choice, someone else should never be making that choice for her.

It's called actual freedom.

Conservatives: Under their system of beliefs, abortion would be completely banned. No woman would have the right to have control over her own body. The moment she became pregnant she would lose all control she has over what happens to her body over the following 9 months. Under their belief system, every single American woman would be forced to adhere to the religious beliefs of a certain percentage of the population whether they shared those views or not.

A woman who didn't believe in any kind of god whatsoever would be forced to abide by laws restricting the control she has over her body based on a God in which she didn't believe. Where under the liberal pro-choice banner every woman has the right to choose for herself, if conservatives had their way every woman in the United States would lose the freedom to choose for themselves.

2) Same-sex Marriage

Liberals: Most liberals support same-sex marriage. Under liberal beliefs every American (gay or straight) would have the freedom to marry whoever they want, as long as it was another consenting adult. Americans would have the freedom to choose for themselves who to marry. It's pretty simple: If you don't support gay marriage, that's great, nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same-sex. But at the end of the day, nobody's right to marry another consenting adult is restricted -- and no church's right to perform those marriages is restricted either.

Conservatives: Most conservatives believe same-sex marriage is against what the Bible defines marriage as. If conservatives had their way, millions of gay Americans would lose their right to marry whoever they love based on the religious views of other people. Under this situation (as we still see in many states right now) rights of Americans are restricted based on the views of others.

So even if a Christian church wants to marry a gay couple, if the state doesn't allow gay marriage, that church's religious freedom is restricted because a few other churches don't believe that they should have that right. Under conservative beliefs on marriage, millions of gay Americans would be denied their rights to marry the person they loved.

3) Birth Control

Liberals: This is linked with the abortion issue. Most liberals are not pro-abortion. And the best way to lower abortion rates is to increase the accessibility and availability of birth control. Even if some liberals might oppose some methods of birth control, they don't mandate that other people must be restricted from using them.

Liberals support the right for all Americans to choose for themselves. And being that for many women birth control is an actual health issue, not just a way to help prevent unplanned pregnancies, it's vital that health care plans offer access to these contraceptives. For liberals it's about people having the choice to choose for themselves. If people want to use them, great, they have the freedom to do so. If some people object to contraceptives, that's fine, they don't have to use them.

Conservatives: Most conservatives oppose birth control. They believe it's against their religion. If it were up to them they would do as much as they could to limit and restrict access to all forms of contraceptives. Even in the Hobby Lobby case, one business owner argued that their business should have the right to deny thousands of women the choice of birth control methods based on their religious beliefs. By winning that case in the biased to the right Supreme Court, one person's religious beliefs are now being forced on thousands of women who might not share them.

4) Prayer in School

Liberals: This one is really simple, keep religion out of public schools. If some students want to personally pray while they're in class, they are more than free to do so silently to themselves. Religion has no place in public education, that is paid for with taxpayer money. No one is saying people can not pray to themselves in class, we're just saying public schools should not promote or organize religious prayers or events. That way nobody is forced to observe the religious practices of religions in which they do not believe.

Conservatives: Most conservatives believe that public schools should include religion. Many of them also believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. They also often support organized prayer in school (but only Christian of course). If conservatives had their way millions of American students in public schools would be forced to observe religious practices that they do not follow. The right to freedom from religion for those students (and parents) who don't want themselves or their children subjected to religions that they don't follow or believe in would be violated.

5. Freedom of Religion in General

Liberals: For liberals, it is real simple. If you want to believe in a particular religion, you are free to do ir, just do it privately. People can go to church 7 days a week if they want to and read the Bible every single day. People can believe in whatever religion they want. If people chose to not believe in any kind of religion at all, that's okay too.

Every American should be free to live their personal lives as religiously, or as detached from religion, as they want. If someone believes that all homosexuals are going against God, that's their right to personally feel that way. Just don't try to tell others they have to share that particular view.

In the liberal world, every single American gets to choose for themselves. In the liberal world every single religion is viewed equally and not one single American would be forced to follow laws based on a religion in which they do not believe.

Conservatives: Most of them believe that this country was founded, and should be based on, Christianity, including Bill O'Reilly, who is a pro-life conservative. They want laws to be written from scripture. To them our First Amendment only applies to Christian Americans and not Americans who follow other religions or don't follow any religion at all.

And they think something is wrong with you if you are not as religious as they are, to them you are a devil lover if you do not believe in God, and it must be their religion and their God. If you are Muslim or another religion, they look down on you and think your religion is fake and or bad.

Many conservatives believe that denying them their right to impose their religion on others violates their rights, yet they don't seem to believe that others who don't share their same religious views should be given any kind of religious rights. Under their ideology, one religion would rule over 330 million people, Christian.

Notice the difference? When it comes to religious freedoms and conservatives, it's all about them forcing their views on others. When it comes to liberals, it's all about keeping religion private and out of government so that not one single American is forced to adhere to laws based on a religion they don't follow.

In fact, if it were up to liberals we would not even discuss religion or abortion in public, or involve it in politics, it should not be an issue and it should not be a part of politics. It should all be private and up to each person to do whatever they want, in private, or between them and their family, and their doctor.

Republicans make it an issue to make people mad to get them out to vote. If we stopped talking about abortion and religion, half the Republicans would not even vote, so the Republican leaders keep it in the news to get their far-right voters to the polls, they use the two issues to get votes.

So, while conservatives go on and on about so-called religious freedom what they really mean is their right to have one religion ruling over 330 million Americans.

When it comes to liberals, it's about real freedom. It's about letting every American decide for themselves what religion (if any) they want to follow.

Because true religious freedom is about letting each person decide for themselves whether or not they will follow a particular religion. It's not about telling millions of Americans that they must go by the rules set by a certain religion whether they believe in it or not.

Even Greg Gutfeld Is Tired Of People At Fox Defending Trump
By: Steve - December 24, 2015 - 11:00am

Gutfeld: "We're Not Even Allowed To Use The Word That He Said, But Somehow We're Going To Have Him On Our Network All The Time"

Partial transcript:

GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): I just wanted to hear you defend this. Because I've heard people defend him about making fun of a disability, making fun of John McCain, making fun of women, a woman's face, I wanted to hear somebody defend this as well. Because it never ends. No one will ever stop defending the crass stuff he says. By the way, I haven't used that word since I was seven years old. I don't understand this.

And I also, I don't understand the comment about the bathroom. And I'm sick of hearing people defend this stuff. By the way, we're not even allowed to use the word that he said, but somehow we're going to have him on our network all the time. Meanwhile, we treat our employees far differently than that.

ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): And your thoughts on this Juan, weigh in on this one? Remember, look, Greg doesn't like the fact that it happened, the way it went down, but it --

GUTFELD: No, no, no, no.

BOLLING: Well, no, no.

GUTFELD: I don't have a problem with what he says. I don't have a problem with what he says. I have a problem with people here defending it. That's my problem.

GUTFELD: Well, I think what happens is when are you surrounded by toadies that cheer you on, you're like a comedian, and you like the laughter. So I don't -- he's very impulsive. Instead of thinking about what he says, he's impulsive and it makes you wonder, do you want an impulsive leader, or do you want a leader that thinks? I want somebody who can beat Hillary. I don't think an impulsive leader is going to beat Hillary.

Ronald Reagan Speech Writer Slams GOP For Over The Top Rhetoric
By: Steve - December 24, 2015 - 10:00am

Peggy Noonan is a Republican and a former speech writer for Ronald Reagan, and she is not happy with the Republican party right now.

From the December 20th Face The Nation:

Partial Transcript:

PEGGY NOONAN: I wanna mention something that I think the Republicans are making a mistake on. The cumulative effect of what they say at their debates -- I love it that they're fighting and hitting each other over the head and occasionally addressing serious issues in a serious way.

But the cumulative effect of the sort of harshness and even unlovingness of their rhetoric on immigration is gonna, in the end, hurt them. I also think the sort of severity and drama of their language on ISIS makes them look radical, do you know what I mean? As opposed to people --

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Panicky? Like Panicky?

NOONAN: Not panicky, Jeffrey, but extreme. Do you know what I mean?

DAN BALZ: There's a belligerence to the talk.

NOONAN: Yes there is. That's actually the word.

BALZ: It goes beyond muscularity to belligerence.

NOONAN: Yes, and you don't have to be belligerent --

GOLDBERG: Or carpet bombing. I mean, you know, when you start talking about carpet bombing whole cities in response to a number of --

NOONAN: Yes, and turning deserts into glass and stuff like that. You can be very strong, very definitive, very seriousness but not use this harsh, severe, over-the-top rhetoric. It's misunderstanding their own base, I think.

Fox Dishonestly Slams Obama For IRS Rule The Republican Congress Passed
By: Steve - December 23, 2015 - 10:00am

This is how dishonest Fox News is, they slam Obama for an IRS rule the Republican Congress passed, and never disclose that fact.

IRS Given Power To Revoke Passports Of Delinquent Tax Payers By GOP-Controlled Congress.

A Fox News segment on Your World with Neil Cavuto attacked a new rule giving the IRS power to revoke the passports of Americans with delinquent tax bills as government overreach by the Obama administration, ignoring the fact that the rule came from a bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.

During the December 22nd edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, Cavuto spoke with Republican strategist Lisa Boothe about the IRS rule which allows the agency to revoke passports from those who owe $50,000 or more in overdue federal income taxes.

Cavuto said he had "serious issues" with the rule and criticized the IRS for "ignoring ... terror issues" while "going with far greater zeal after Americans who may be in the rears on their taxes for perfectly legitimate reasons."

Boothe agreed, blaming the Obama administration for the rule, and calling the IRS, "way too big, way too corrupt, and wields entirely too much power."

Partial Transcript:
CAVUTO: You owe, you're out. The IRS is revoking passports for those delinquent on their taxes to the tone of $50,000 or more. But what if you're fighting the IRS and you have a legitimate beef and you don't think you will end up owing $50,000 or anything? Well be that as it may, that rule is going into effect.

But it got us thinking. It happens sometimes. Why not the same deal going after terrorists or those with terror ties because when it comes to that sort of thing, the IRS is all hands off and that worries Lisa Boothe.

I couldn't believe this, first of all, the IRS thing, because I have serious issues with that. People legitimately fight the IRS on claims. But this is a whole other thing. You're going after citizens in this country. You're just bypassing those who might wish ill to this country. Weird. What's going on?

LISA BOOTHE: Weill Neil the juxtaposition is mind-boggling because this is an administration who has actively fought against the idea of revoking passports for American citizens who are fighting alongside with ISIS. The administration has even said on the grounds of the Americans have a right to freely travel.

So it's a little mind-boggling how the IRS clearly has no problem with that. And not to mention just that angle, Neil. It's also really upsetting, considering the fact that just the size and scope of the IRS alone. The IRS is already way too big, way too corrupt, and wields entirely too much power.

CAVUTO: And now we have the IRS ignoring such terror issues and ties here and going with far greater zeal after Americans who might be in arrears on their taxes for perfectly legitimate reasons. That, that's weird.

BOOTHE: It is weird. And Neil I think it speaks to the reason why almost 60 percent of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of ISIS and you've got 70 percent of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track because of the ridiculousness of the federal government, the ridiculousness of the Obama administration in particular.

And Neil we're also talking about an organization who in seemingly intentionally went after conservatives with various ideologies --

CAVUTO: Exactly.

BOOTHE: -- based off of ideology. And Neil an organization that is so dumb, an organization that has sent out the wrong forms to 800,000 Obamacare employees who completely lost tens of millions of dollars of an Obamacare slush fund. It just went missing. So we're talking about an incredibly incompetent agency as it is.
Both Cavuto and Boothe failed to mention that the IRS provision was approved overwhelmingly by the GOP-controlled Congress, they had the majority.

The IRS rule was a provision of the (FAST) Act, which passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Congress this December, getting more than 80 percent approval in the Senate and House.

Politifact Names Donald Trump The Liar Of The Year
By: Steve - December 22, 2015 - 11:00am

And they had so many lies to pick from they easily named him the winner. Out of 77 statements checked, 76 of them were found to be mostly false to false to pants on fire lies.

PolitiFact has chosen the many campaign lies of Donald Trump as the Lie of the Year because they could not settle on which of his lies was the biggest. "To the candidate who says he's all about winning, PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year."

Among the big lies...Trump claiming he watched thousands and thousands of people cheering in New Jersey upon the fall of the World Trade Center, Trump claiming the Mexican government sends "the bad ones" over here, Trump claiming on Twitter "Whites killed by whites -- 16%. Whites killed by blacks -- 81%."

His good friend Bill O'Reilly even called Trump out for those lies, saying he could find no evidence to back up any of those claims, and even warned Trump about tweeting out bad information because they would use it to call him a racist.

Then there was also just the announcement speech, "When Trump declared his candidacy on June 16, 2015, PolitiFact looked at five statements from his announcement speech. All of them were inaccurate."

Then Trump started talking about foreign policy. False. Trump denied all of the nasty things he's said about women and claimed Megyn Kelly accused him of saying things he didn't say. Also not true. Trump claimed we were the most highly taxed nation when he made the mistake of opening his mouth regarding economic policies. Also false.

Facts don't stop Donald Trump, and this is probably what gets fact checkers up in arms about him. Once fact-checked, Trump just rides confidently over the facts and stays on his course of inaccuracies. No facts? No problem! He doesn't even try to justify his lies. Trump is making up his own reality and if you don't like it, hey, that's why his pal Putin killing journalists isn't so bad.

PolitiFact says Trump has "an unprecedented record on the Truth-O-Meter" and that is why he earned their Lie of the Year Award.

The real problem is that Republican primary voters don't seem to care one bit that their candidate is so divorced from reality. They just want the comfort of Trump's bigotry and anger. This is who the Republican Party has become, as even Senator Lindsey Graham said today as he quit the Republican race that his wing of the party is gone. Gone, replaced with the crazy far-right Sarah Palin wing.

Fox Legal Analyst Thinks We Should Just Kill Everyone At Gitmo
By: Steve - December 22, 2015 - 10:00am

Then close it. Which would be ummmmm, murder and illegal, not to mention a violation of the Geneva Conventions and possibly a war crime, and who knows what else. Now remember this, Kimberly Guilfoyle is a legal analyst for O'Reilly on the Factor, she is on almost weekly for the "Is It Legal" segment on the Factor.

She is one of the co-hosts of The Five on Fox News Channel. She is a contributor to The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, and is an occasional guest host for On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren. She was previously an anchor at Court TV and a legal analyst/commentator for ABC.

Fox's Kimberly Guilfoyle: "Just Kill Them All And Close Gitmo"

After Obama gave a speech on terrorism the goons at Fox talked about it, here is a partial transcript.

ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): So, we've just solved the terror problem?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): He's so bad, that's not even like an F in class. He's got to repeat the year, because he's so confused. Does he think, what's his excuse going to be when he closes Gitmo and they're all like jihadi delight together in Yemen and other places, like regrouping. What's he going to blame it on then? That's his counter terrorism strategy?

GUILFOYLE: I agree, just kill them all and close Gitmo, that's fine. They don't have to come here, they don't have to stay there.


Think about that for a minute, you have a lawyer and legal analyst at Fox saying we should just kill all the prisoners at Gitmo, with no trial, no due process, no anything. Just line them up and murder them, proven guilty or not.

And the scary part is Fox does nothing, they did not suspend her, or fire her, or anything. They should at least suspend her and tell her that even if you think that, as a lawyer and a Fox employee you can not say that on the air.

So much for Republicans supporting the constitution, or due process, or justice for all. Their answer is just kill em all, then close it. And O'Reilly uses this loon as his regular legal analyst, I would also bet he never says a word to her about that crazy statement.

Republican Lindsey Graham Drops Out Of The Presidential Race
By: Steve - December 21, 2015 - 11:00am

Lindsey Graham claimed that since most of the Republicans now support sending American troops back to Iraq and Syria, his campaign has been successful, so he is quitting the presidential race. Which is just laughable, he is dropping out because he is at less than 5% in the polls, if he was higher he would never drop out.

And btw, I sure am not in the business of giving Republicans advice, but this is real simple. If you want to beat the insane lying Donald Trump, you need to do this.

The RNC should pick one guy to support against Trump, whether it's Cruz, Rubio, or even Bush, and the rest of them should get out. Then that one guy would most likely be polling with Trump, or maybe even ahead of him.

Right now they are splitting the vote, so Trump is killing them all. They are actually helping Trump by having the vote split between 12 other candidates, wake up and get them out, run one guy against Trump.

Now I also have to say that once in a while Trump actually makes a true statement, not very often, but in this one case he did. He noticed that Jeb Bush is not even using the Bush name, his campaign website is jeb2016.com, which should tell you something.

His brother George was such a terrible President he wants people to forget he is a Bush, his last name has such a bad reputation he does not even use it in his campaign, so for once Trump was actually right about something.

Ted Cruz Tells Hate Group He Wants to Turn America Into A Theocracy
By: Steve - December 21, 2015 - 10:00am

This alone should disqualify Cruz from being the President, and if anyone votes for him, you should be ashamed.

While speaking to the American Family Association (a listed 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 upon Biblical principles.

CRUZ: "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: "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."

In other words, he wants millions of evangelical Christians to go and vote for politicians who would basically turn this country into a theocracy. How is a presidential candidate happily speaking to an organization which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It's always made me laugh how "pro-Israel" Republicans like Cruz claim to be, yet American Jews tend to vote for Democrats. While this rhetoric is nothing new from Cruz, it's just 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.

I very much doubt Cruz will win the Republican primary, so most likely we will never have to worry about this dishonest far-right extremist getting into the White House.

Freddie Gray Mistrial Shows Baltimore Police Have Problems
By: Steve - December 20, 2015 - 11:00am

Here is the stuff Bill O'Reilly ignores, because he does not want you to know the truth about what some of the police in America are doing. Now I am not say all police are bad, I am saying some are, and it looks like a lot more than we thought. Just read this information, it is not good news for the police.

BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore Police Department is a clear loser in the no-win situation left by a hung jury in the state's first effort to convict an officer in the death of Freddie Gray.

Both defense attorneys and prosecutors portrayed the department as so dysfunctional its officers either aren't aware of mandatory orders or ignore commands without consequence. First responders described being unfamiliar with first aid. Officers said they only check their email once a month, on old computers that barely work.

When Gray finally arrived at the Western District station injured and comatose, Officer Zachary Novak testified that he tried to revive him with a "sternum rub" -- a pain stimulus that involves grinding the chest with a fist.

"I was never qualified to do it. I just saw it a few times in my career," Novak said.

The jury deadlocked Wednesday on all four charges against Officer William Porter: manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct.

Prosecutors showed that Porter was a callous officer who intentionally failed to buckle Gray into a seat belt and didn't call an ambulance even after Gray indicated he needed medical aid. But Porter claimed officers rarely belted prisoners, if ever, despite their general order requiring them to do so. He called it common practice to avoid calling ambulances.

Witness after witness told similar stories reflecting institutional failures and chaotic, dangerous situations. Young officers on patrol weren't adequately trained or mentored, they said, and simply tried to do their best despite next-to-no experience. Porter even described how his academy training was disrupted when a teacher accidently shot a student during an exercise.

The defense exploited deep fissures between the police and the people of Baltimore, saying the department failed its officers as well as the city it's designed to protect.

As the three-week trial progressed, jurors got schooled in aspects of policing that rarely show up on TV.

"The case is emblematic of a bigger issue: In the wake of scandal, the bureaucrats roll out an official police department that doesn't really exist," said Eugene O'Donnell, a former officer who teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "Cops are alienated from the public, like in Baltimore. But in every department, cops are often alienated from their own bureaucracy, and that's a huge issue."

Officer Mark Gladhill testified that he had never belted a prisoner, and couldn't recall any of his emergency medical training, let alone what he should do when prisoners struggle to breathe. Officer Matthew Wood said he had never seen anyone buckle a prisoner in a van during more than 100 arrests.

Prosecutors said such testimony reflects a "culture of silence" in which police protect their own.

"We know police departments have a bad culture of tolerating brutality, but it's incredibly difficult to challenge a culture in a court case. It's these officers who are on trial, but the reputation of the police department was irreparably damaged when Freddie Gray died."

Baltimore's history is already rife with allegations, investigations, lawsuits and expensive court settlements over how officers treat people on the streets and in custody.

As mayor from 1999-2007, Martin O'Malley championed aggressive policing in response to endemic crime. The NAACP and ACLU sued, blaming systemic abuse of power for the arrests of thousands of people without probable cause.

The city settled in 2010 for $870,000, agreed to retrain officers and publicly rejected zero-tolerance policing, but complaints continued: A Baltimore Sun investigation last year revealed the city had paid roughly $5.7 million in police brutality settlements, involving 102 instances of excessive force, since 2011.

And this is never reported by Bill O'Reilly, ever, he hides it because he does not want you to know this is happening, while slamming protesters and defending the police. Millions and millions in taxpayer dollars are being paid out in most major cities every year in America for police abuse, it's your money, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, ever, not one time in the 15 years I have covered him has he said one word about these multi-million dollar payouts for police abuse cases.

Abuses linger in the collective memory of neighborhoods like Sandtown-Winchester, where Gray was arrested when he tried to flee from officers. His neighbors said it can be safer to run from police than risk interacting with them at all.

Jeffrey Alston emerged from a police wagon paralyzed from the neck down in 1997, the year the department issued a general order requiring officers to buckle their passengers into seat belts. The order was strengthened, eliminating exceptions, in a command that hit Porter's inbox days before Gray's arrest.

Alston's family settled with the city for $6 million in 2004. Dondi Johnson died the following year, two weeks after his neck was broken in the back of a police van. His family received $219,000 after accusing police of punishing Johnson with a "rough ride."

The city didn't even wait for Gray's family to sue before paying them $6.4 million, reasoning that Baltimore jurors would recommend a far more expensive payout in a civil case.

Baltimore's current mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, welcomed a U.S. Justice Department investigation focusing on allegations of excessive force and unconstitutional searches and arrests. Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said he expects results next year.

Meanwhile, other juries will soon consider whether the department's dysfunctions justify saving Porter's fellow officers from jail.

And O'Reilly will continue to ignore it all, because he is biased towards the police, and he does not want you to know the facts. Police abuse is real and it is a big problem, and it is why a lot of people run from the police and are scared of them.

I have seen police abuse myself, many times when I was younger. Most of the police are good, but there are a lot of bad cops who abuse their power, and the other cops say nothing, they go by the code of silence. They let the power go to their head, and it is allowed because the other cops never report them. It is a big problem in America, and until people like O'Reilly admit it and report on it, the problem will never end.

I think we should do this, if a cop is convicted of abuse he should have to pay for it out of his pension money, this would stop the abuse in it's tracks. No taxpayer money should be used to pay for a cop who abused or killed someone, they should be fired and they should lose their pension to the family they abused.

That would end police abuse today, and it will never happen, because of people like O'Reilly and others who lie and defend bad cops, and the cops who cover it up by being silent.

Glenn Beck: If GOP Nominates Trump It Will End The Republican Party
By: Steve - December 19, 2015 - 11:00am

Beck: "If They Put Donald Trump In....It Will Just Be Over"

Partial Transcript:

MEGYN KELLY: And there are now some people are saying that if he's the nominee -- somebody said this on our show last night -- Hillary Clinton will win 49 out of 50 states and the Republican Party will face devastation like it's never seen before, that they will give up -- they will give up in state legislators and so on because so motivated will the democrats be to get to the polls and stop him.

GLENN BECK: I know that I won't go to the polls. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton and I won't vote for Donald Trump. I just won't. And I know a lot of people that feel that way. I know people in the GOP who are like, look, well he is better that Hillary Clinton. Maybe, I don't know.

I mean the guy last night, he didn't even know what the triad was. He didn't even know what are the missile silos and the strategic air command with missiles on the planes and our nuclear submarines. He didn't even know what that meant. He couldn't answer that question. It was bizarre.

He is also a giant progressive. So I can't vote for progressive. I can't vote for Hillary, and I can't vote for him. I said, probably a year and half ago that I thought we were entering the times of the Whig Party. That the Republicans were going to go to the way of the Whigs, who they demolished back in Abraham Lincoln's time. I think that's happening.

They have not, they got power, they said we just have to have a House and Senate. We got it. Now they say, we have to have the House and the Senate and the White House. Well wait a minute, we heard that before with George W. Bush.

They're not listening. They're not doing what the people have hired them to do. If they put Donald Trump in, try to put him in office, if that's what the people want, you are going to see an end to the Republican Party. It will just be over, there'll just be nothing left.

Freddie Gray Attorney Gives Crazy O'Reilly A Reality Check On Protests
By: Steve - December 19, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly said the Baltimore Protesters Are Immoral. So Bill Murphy said this:

"This Is A Free Speech Society" And "These Young People Last Night Who Came Out And Protested Were Well Within Their Rights"

O'Reilly is not only wrong about the protesters, he is a biased right-wing hypocrite. Because when Republicans protest O'Reilly supports them and calls them great Americans. He only says they are wrong or immoral when they are Democrats protesting a wrong by the police or the Government.

It's just more proof Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing jerk, and not even close to the Independent he claims to be.

Trump Thinks Putin Killing Journalists Same As Obama Killing Terrorists
By: Steve - December 18, 2015 - 11:00am

Now this is just ridiculous, and proves Donald Trump is an idiot who is not qualified to be the President. He loved Putin saying he is very talented, and defended Putin killing journalists who disagree with him, by saying America kills people too to Joe Scarborough. If a Democrat said that O'Reilly and Fox News would slam him 24/4 for weeks, but so far they have been silent.

It is an outrage for Trump to compare Putin killing journalists to Obama and America killing terrorists. He even praised Putin as a great leader and slammed Obama as not being a leader. Trump is a fool, and if anyone votes for him for anything, you are just stupid.

Here are the details:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday seemed unconcerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills journalists who disagree with him.

Trump was pressed on his support for Putin by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe" Friday. The comments came a day after the Republican presidential hopeful and the Russian president publicly praised each other.

"I mean, also it's a person that kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously, that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked Trump.

Trump, who has repeatedly attacked the media and called out individual reporters during his presidential campaign, responded by saying that Putin was at least a better leader than President Barack Obama.

"He's running his country and at least he's a leader. You know, unlike what we have in this country," Trump said.

Scarborough responded by pressing Trump again on the killing of journalists in Russia, saying "but again, [Putin] kills journalists that don't agree with him."

Trump, again, seemed unfazed.

"I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe...There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on and a lot of stupidity and that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me the question. You asked me a different question. So that's fine," he said.

On Thursday, Putin called Trump "very talented" and said he was the "absolute leader of the presidential race." Trump called the praise "a great honor."

Insane O'Reilly Thinks It's Terrorism To Cancel A School Play
By: Steve - December 18, 2015 - 10:00am

Yes, you read that right. The insane far-right Trump loving idiot Bill O'Reilly now thinks it is terrorism to cancel a school play for religious reasons. My God, no wonder he loves Trump, they are both far-right idiots who will say anything.

Bill O'Reilly: It's Terrorism To Cancel A School Play Over Religious References

O'Reilly: "I Think That Is Terrorism. This Is A National Holiday. And If You Don't Like It, Then Get The Holiday Revoked. Stop Terrorizing People Who Like The Holiday."

Terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Partial Transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: These people who threaten to sue over a religious references we shouldn't be caving in. This is terrorism too. I think that is terrorism. This is a national holiday. And if you don't like it, then get the holiday revoked. Stop terrorizing people who like the holiday.

ANDREA TANTAROS: You think taking out or canceling a play because of a religious reference is same thing as terrorism?

O'REILLY: I think it is terrorism. I don't think it is same thing as Islamic terrorism. But I think little kids are being terrorized by these PC idiots. If I were the principal, I have two words for those people. And they aren't Merry Christmas.


Wow! I'm thinking it may be time for O'Reilly to retire, he is losing his mind.

Carly Fiorina Caught Lying In Debate About Gen. Jack Keane
By: Steve - December 18, 2015 - 9:00am

Now here is my question, does she ever tell the truth? Because almost everything she says turns out to be wrong, or a flat out lie.

Fox Contributor Calls Out Carly Fiorina's Debate Lie

Fiorina Falsely Claimed Fox Contributor Gen. Jack Keane "Retired Early" After Dispute With President Obama

The Republican presidential candidate claimed during Tuesday night's debate in Las Vegas that Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the United States Army, had offered unwelcome advice to the president and was then pressured to step down.

The retired Keane now works as a military analyst for Fox News, said Wednesday morning on "Varney and Co." that Fiorina's claim was bogus and impossible.

Keane retired from the U.S. Army in 2003, and he co-authored a January 2007 paper that served as a blueprint for the Iraq troop surge later that year.

Fiorina's characterization of the other military leaders partings with the Obama administration are also a lie.

Gen. David Petraeus resigned as director of the CIA in 2012 after admitting to an extramarital affair, and he pleaded guilty earlier this year to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information he leaked to his mistress.

And Gen. Stanley McChrystal resigned in 2010 after he angered the president by making insulting comments about Vice President Joe Biden in a magazine interview.

Partial Transcript:

STUART VARNEY: You heard it. Carly Fiorina, last night, mentioned General Jack Keane by name and guess who is here: Gen. Jack Keane. Alive and alert, and with us this morning. Did you in fact, general, give advice to President Obama, which he didn't want to hear and didn't take?

JACK KEANE: No, I have never spoken to the president.That's not accurate, and I never served this administration. I served the previous administration.

Two people, Generals James Mattis and Michael Flynn did, as Fiorina claims, step down from their positions after Obama disagreed with their recommendation to expand military operations beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

And btw, nobody else supported that idea, especially the people on America, about 70% of the people opposed the plan to expand military operations beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the other military leaders. Something Fiorina never mentioned.

At the time, only the far-right loons wanted to expand the war, everyone else saw it as a failure, a massive waste of money, and a massive waste of American lives.

Even Donald Trump admits the Iraq war was a total failure that did noting but cost us money and lives and make terrorism worse, not to mention making the middle east a powder keg that is what it is today, including creating ISIS.

Even The Far-Right Krauthammer Thinks Trump Terrorism Plan Is Insane
By: Steve - December 17, 2015 - 10:00am

Now remember, this is the far-right neo-con Charles Krauthammer who mever met a war he did not like and support, and even he is saying the Trump plan to kill the family and children of terrorists is insane.

Fox's Krauthammer: Trump's Plan To Kill Relatives Of Terrorists Is "An Unbelievably Irresponsible, Semi-Insane Policy"

Charles Krauthammer: To Do What Trump Is Calling For "You'd Have To Tear Up The Geneva Conventions"

Let's just say Trump is the President (never gonna happen) and he sends some special forces troops in to Iraq to kill the families of terrorists, and they kill a hundred of them. How many more new terrorists do you think that will create? It would be a disaster, and it would most likely create thousands of new terrorists, so we would be worse off.

It's not only an insane plan, it's illegal, and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. So Trump could face war crime charges for it.

Partial Transcript:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Trump says that he would, or he was asked, would you kill the relatives of terrorists? Trump I thought would deny it and would fudge. He didn't. He essentially said yes. Bush muffed the answer. That is an unbelievably irresponsible, semi-insane policy, and Bush swung and missed. It was actually Rand Paul who picked it up in the next question in saying it was essentially ridiculous to even talk about that.


KRAUTHAMMER: Because you'd have to tear up the Geneva Conventions.


And btw, if we stop going by the Geneva Conventions, they could do whatever they want to our troops, torture them, anything, and not one American would support that, except for maybe the insane Trump supporters.

O'Reilly Defends Crazy Trump Statement Again
By: Steve - December 17, 2015 - 9:00am

Once again Bill O'Reilly is defending a crazy statement Donald Trump made about killing the family of terrorists, including children, as he claims he is not defending it. He does this because Trump is his friend, he is a fellow Republican, and because it makes Trump look so crazy even the far-right neo-con Charles Krauthammer thinks it is a crazy statement.

O'Reilly Downplays Trump's Plan To Kill Relatives Of Terrorists As Merely Political "Theater"

Bill O'Reilly: "He's Going To Say Whatever He Thinks Is Going To Put Him Over The Top To Win"

Partial Transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: Okay, do you believe that Donald Trump would murder people if he were president of the United States? Do you, Charles Krauthammer, believe he would murder people?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well if he doesn't wants to, why did he say it?

O'REILLY: Because he wants votes. He's doing all of this -- it's theater to get votes. That's what he's doing.

KRAUTHAMMER: So you're saying that this is a candidate for the presidency of the United States talking to the American people and the world and saying, "I'm going to do X, Y, and Z," and that the words he says are meaningless? I have no idea what he would do as president. All I have to go on is what he says.

O'REILLY: He wants to win. He is going to say whatever -- like almost every other politician, he's going to say whatever he thinks is going to put him over the top to win. But I'm not justifying it. I'm explaining it. And so people can make their own minds on whether you vote for a guy like that or you don't. But he's running as a rogue candidate. He's getting people whipped up so that they will like him because their emotion and his emotion coincide.


Now get this, basically O'Reilly just said Trump will say anything to win, and that he is lying about saying he would kill the families of terrorists. Okay, if that is true, how can you believe anything Trump is saying, and how can you support or vote for him when you know he is lying to you.

O'Reilly is a Trump stooge who will defend anything his crazy friend Trump says, and that is why you can not trust anything Trump or O'Reilly says.

Trump Thinks Polls Are Biased Unless He Is Winning Them
By: Steve - December 16, 2015 - 10:00am

This is the exact same thing O'Reilly does, he loves polls that agree with him, but when the poll disagrees with him he ignores it, or claims it is biased or a bad poll. Which is kind of funny, because Trump and O'Reilly are friends, and they both cherry pick polls and claim they are bad if they are against them.

If there's one thing Donald Trump loves to do more than offend just about everybody, it's brag about his polling numbers. I have never seen a candidate openly brag about where he stands in the polls as often as Trump.

Trump has been the lone dominant Republican candidate for months. Except in one state: Iowa. Iowa has been the one place where Trump's performed weaker than he has nationally. At the peak of Ben Carson's now dying surge, he actually led Trump by 9 points in Iowa.

Now as Carson fades more and more with each passing poll, Ted Cruz has become the newest GOP frontrunner in Iowa. Naturally, Trump hasn't taken this news well. In fact, following the release of the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll showing Cruz with a 10 point lead, he went full conspiracy nut over it on Twitter.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
New CNN Iowa poll --- Trump 33, Cruz 20. Everyone else way down! Don't trust Des Moines Register poll- biased towards Trump!
Yes, he said biased "towards Trump" when he should have said "against Trump." He's an idiot, what do you expect?

Trump's tweet followed the release of the CNN/ORC poll that showed him with a 13 point advantage, clearly in contrast to what the DMR/Bloomberg poll showed.

It's obvious Trump believes that the skew toward Cruz by the DMR/Bloomberg poll is some conspiracy against him. Obviously one of the two (if not both) had unintentionally found a bad random sample that skewed the results. This leads to the next question, which poll was more inaccurate?

Well, we have our answer: The CNN/ORC poll showing Trump with a 13 point lead. You know, the one Trump took to Twitter to brag about in his tirade against the DMR/Bloomberg results.

Two new polls out of Iowa, Fox News and Monmouth, both show Cruz ahead of Trump, though neither shows such a disparity between the two candidates as the CNN/ORC or DMR/Bloomberg polls.

In the Fox News poll, Cruz leads Trump by only two points, 28% to 26%. Meanwhile, the Monmouth poll shows Cruz leading by five points, 24% to 19%.

In other words, while both the CNN/ORC and DMR/Bloomberg polls seem to indicate some rather large distances between the two candidates compared to the other two polls, Cruz is the winner in three of the four newest polls.

It seems from the tweet sent out Sunday night, Trump is confused as to why Fox News would not mention the one poll showing him beating Cruz.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Why doesn't @FoxNews quote the new Iowa @CNN Poll where I have a 33% to 20% lead over Ted Cruz and all others. Think about it!
Are you kidding me? Trump is a fool. Why would Fox News cite a CNN/ORC poll when they have their own poll showing different results?

And it's ridiculous how Trump keeps pushing the CNN/ORC poll, completely ignoring the fact that in three of the last four polls out of Iowa he's losing to Cruz.

For a bit of perspective, here's a list of the last 10 winners of the Republican Iowa Caucus:

2012: Rick Santorum
2008: Mike Huckabee
2004: George W. Bush (unopposed)
2000: George W. Bush
1996: Bob Dole
1992: George H.W. Bush (unopposed)
1988: Bob Dole
1984: Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
1980: George H. W. Bush

Only once since 1980 has a non-incumbent Republican candidate gone on to win the general election after winning Iowa and only twice has a non-incumbent actually gone in to become the nominee.

Basically, for Republicans, history tells us that winning Iowa does not mean a whole lot. Going beyond that, the Fox News and Monmouth results helped to further expose how ridiculously juvenile, insecure and immature Trump is, as are most people who tend to whine about bias in the polls.

While you hear about this sort of rhetoric from candidates who are trailing all the time, it's rare you see a leading candidate throw around insane conspiracy theories about polls as Trump did. As with most everything else Trump says, reality debunked the idiotic propaganda he was trying to push.

According to Trump, the poll is biased, unless they have him winning, then it is an honest and trustworthy poll.

Charles Barkley Slams CNN For Terrible Trump Coverage
By: Steve - December 16, 2015 - 9:00am

Charles Barkley always speaks his mind, kind of like a certain Republican presidential front-runner. But Sir Charles is no fan of Donald Trump. And he's apparently not happy with the way his own company has covered Trump, either.

The NBA Hall of Famer and TNT basketball analyst was asked during Thursday's pregame show for his take on Trump's popularity. (CNN, TNT's Turner Broadcasting sibling, will carry a Republican presidential primary debate on Tuesday.)

Barkley said watching Trump's campaign has been alternately funny and sad, before adding this:
To be honest with you, CNN has done an awful job this election -- an awful job. They have followed ratings and sound bytes this entire cycle. I mean, think about it -- and I love CNN because they're part of our company -- but they've been kissing butt, chasing ratings.

I mean, they've become like Fox News for the Republicans, to be honest with you. They follow every single sound byte just to get ratings for these debates. And it's been sad and frustrating that our company has sold their soul for ratings.
Around the same time that Charles was sounding off, another hoops legend, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, was giving the media a piece of his mind on MSNBC.
It's really frustrating to watch it, because you can see the lies coming out. And until, here in America, we require that our candidates tell the truth, we're going to have to deal with this issue.

Because unless somebody is fact checking them right there and printing it on a crawl below on the screen or some way to counteract the attempt to just snowball the American public, we're going to have to do something.
So, to summarize: CNN and the media at-large (especially Fox and Bill O'Reilly) have spent too much time covering every outlandish/racist/insane thing Trump says in an effort to grow audiences, and they need to do a better job of fact-checking his lies.

Donald Trump Voted Biggest Liar In America For 2015
By: Steve - December 15, 2015 - 11:00am

1) Donald Trump

Everything about Trump is great, including his lies, according to Politifact and the NY Times. 75% of the statements analyzed came back with varying degrees of fabrication, giving new meaning to the term "pants on fire." Some of his best whoppers include when he:

-- Retweeted claims that "crime statistics show blacks kill 81 percent of whites" (shown to be a total lie)

-- Said that he was present "in Jersey City, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as the World Trade Center collapsed" (debunked in The Washington Post and Politifact)

-- Said that "the Obama administration wants to take in 250,000 Syrian refugees" (not true)

-- Said that "the federal government is sending refugees to states with governors who are "Republicans not the Democrats." (lie - Politifact)

-- Said the "the unemployment rate may be as high as 42%" (lie - Politifact)

-- Said that "A poll asserting that 25 percent of Muslim Americans condone violence against other Americans," adding it was from a "very highly-respected group of people." (lie - Washington Post)

-- Trump, who declared in September, "I love Muslims," and then in December vowed to block them from entering the country, now says hatred among Muslims against America is "beyond comprehension." Who's beyond comprehension now?

-- Trump told MSNBC that parts of London are "so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives." London Mayor, Boris Johnson, called Trump's comments "utter nonsense." Referring to Trump's comments about Muslim's, British Prime Minister David Cameron called them "quite simply wrong."

-- Trump said that he would deport all undocumented immigrants in the space of two years - something that would require nearly 16,500 deportations every single day. Which is not only a lie, it would be impossible to do and cost Billions.

-- Trump said: "I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party." But now he says he might run as an Independent.

-- Trump said he is buddies with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump and Vladimir Putin did appear on the same show on the same night. But both men appeared in pre-taped segments. Trump was recorded in his New York office. Putin was interviewed thousands of miles away, in Moscow. So Trump never even met Putin.

-- Trump also said he would Build a border wall, and make Mexico pay for it. This is a scheme he has floated before, and Mexico's president has said that, obviously, his country would not cooperate.

Bill O'Reilly Is Nothing But A Biased Donald Trump Apologist
By: Steve - December 15, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly has established a pattern of justifying Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's highly controversial policy positions, racism, and inflammatory rhetoric, defending the candidate while pretending to disagree with him.

We all know that off the air O'Reilly is telling Trump he agrees with everything he says, while on the air he sometimes tells him to tone it down because he is making himself and Republicans look bad to the non far-right voters.

O'Reilly Criticizes Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban, Then Points Out "Where Donald Trump Is Correct."

On the December 8th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly criticized Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., calling it "simply bad anti-terror policy to overreact and prohibit Muslims." In his conclusion however, O'Reilly claimed that "where Donald Trump is correct" was to criticize the "political correctness and weakness" of the Obama administration and Democratic Party.

O'Reilly Tells Trump, "You Were Wrong By Saying Thousands" Of Muslims Celebrated 9/11 Before Clarifying, "But It Did Happen."

On the December 3rd edition of his show, O'Reilly challenged Trump's claim that he saw thousands of Muslims cheering on 9/11 in the U.S. O'Reilly aired a 2001 WCBS-TV report that "found eight men celebrating" but told Trump that he found "no videotape about, you know, thousands of people celebrating. It doesn't exist, and we really looked everywhere. I mean it's just not there."

Immediately after debunking Trump's claim, O'Reilly clarified "but there were people celebrating, you were wrong by saying thousands, but it did happen."

So O'Reilly justified the Trump lie by saying he just said it wrong.

O'Reilly Claims He "Never Saw Any Racism From" Trump, Moments Before Highlighting Trump's Racist, Inaccurate Tweet.

During a November 23rd interview with Trump, O'Reilly told Trump that he "never saw any racism from you," moments before he debunked Trump's tweet falsely claiming that whites are killed by blacks "at a rate of 81 percent."

O'Reilly called the statistics "totally wrong" and chastised Trump for not checking them. He concluded the exchange by saying Trump's tweet handed "the other side ... stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you are a racist."

Everyone else in America saw it as a racist tweet meant to make blacks look like savage killers, only O'Reilly justified it and claimed it was not racism, while admitting Trump gave ammo to people to call him a racist by tweeting that garbage. Earth to O'Reilly, if it gave ammo to people to call Trump a racist, then it was a racist tweet, you idiot.

Here is a direct quote from O'Reilly, where he not only admits it was racist, he admits to being a good friend of Trump that he is looking out for. He even calls Trump an honest politician, when it has been proven that only 7% of what Trump says is true.

O'REILLY: Look, you know I'm looking out for you, right? You know that? That I'm looking out for you? I look out for every honest politician, I don't care what party they are in. Don't do this. Don't put your name on stuff like this. Because it makes the other side, it gives them stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you are a racist. I mean, you just handed them a platter.

Despite Trump's Sexist And Outrageous Attacks Against His Colleague Megyn Kelly, O'Reilly Says "They Both Bring Things To America That Are Worthy And Positive."

On the August 25th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly called on Donald Trump to cease his attacks on Fox host Megyn Kelly. Though O'Reilly said that Kelly took "the high road by not responding" to the attacks, but offered Trump support by saying "they both bring things to America that are worthy and positive."

Bill O'Reilly Excuses Trump's Attacks On John McCain: "I Know He Thinks He's A Hero."

After Trump received widespread condemnation for his remarks attacking John McCain, Bill O'Reilly spent an entire segment of his July 20th show defending Trump from criticism. O'Reilly dismissed the comments by saying that Trump doesn't mean "half of what he says" before claiming that "I know he thinks John McCain's a hero."

And remember this, O'Reilly claims to be a fact-based journalist who only reports the facts, then he says he can read Trumps mind and that he knows he actually thinks McCain is a war hero. Not to mention this, when a Democrat is on his show and he speculates about a Republican, O'Reilly stops them and says he has a no speculation zone. But it's fine for him to speculate about Republicans.

Here is the actual quote:

BILL O'REILLY: I don't want to play psychologist here, but I've known the man for a long time. And I go to games with him, you know, and all that. And we both get booed and cheered. I don't think he means half of what he says. He's a showman. He needs to get attention. I just don't think he, I know he doesn't think John McCain -- I know he thinks he's a hero.

O'Reilly Also Justified Trump's Nasty Comments About Mexican Immigrants, Says Trump Just "Didn't Speak To It In A Specific Way"

On the June 29th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly justified Donald Trump's controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants by claiming that maybe "he was highlighting a problem ... that is harming the nation and just didn't speak to it in a specific way." Continuing his defense of Trump, O'Reilly said he didn't "think Donald Trump was trying to demonize all Mexican people."

On the July 6th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly doubled down on his justification of Trump's comments calling Mexican immigrants "rapists."

O'Reilly once again speculated that "the rape situation Donald Trump mentioned" must have been referring to the sexual molestation of women by people smuggling them across the border. He went on to say,"It's not ordinary Mexicans doing the raping, it's the gangsters, and Trump should have made that clear."

Trump never said that, he said he wants to build a wall to keep all the Mexicans out because they are all rapists and criminals. Now ask yourself this, who else has O'Reilly defended, and the answer, nobody, only Trump.

Republican Bob Dole Says Cruz Is Extreme And Trump Is Over The Top
By: Steve - December 15, 2015 - 9:00am

Former U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, like so many other Reagan-era Republicans, has sharply criticized the ignorance, bigotry, and extremism of this year's crop of Republican presidential candidates.

In an interview on MSNBC, Dole talked about the current state of the Republican party, which he said had become "an extreme group on the right."

And btw, O'Reilly said nothing about it. But when a Democrat says the same thing, O'Reilly slams them and says they are wrong. But when the Republican Bob Dole says the exact same thing, O'Reilly is silent, and does not have him on the Factor to discuss it.

Dole joined the growing chorus of Republicans who have harshly criticized the GOP front-runner Donald Trump in the wake of his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Dole called Trump "over the top" and said that he "could not understand" how people support him.

Dole also had harsh words for Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who pulled into first place in a poll of Iowa Republicans released yesterday, saying "Cruz is so extreme, he's not a traditional conservative" and roundly criticizing his so-called Senate "achievements" of shutting down the government twice and calling Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a liar on the Senate floor.

Dole, like many traditional and Reagan-era Republicans, represent an era that modern conservatives constantly idealize but is seriously disillusioned with the current extremism and ignorance of the Republican Party, which he's said is "out of ideas."

Dole also said that he doubted Ronald Reagan would win the nomination if he ran in the current extremist climate of the Republican Party. And btw, every single Republican on earth praises Ronald Reagan and says he is their hero, and yet, if he ran today he would never win because he would be seen as a RINO and too moderate for the far-right Ted Cruz/Donald Trump wing of the party that basically controls the GOP.

In a refreshing break from the traditional rhetoric of the Republican Party, where acknowledgement of even the slightest positive achievement by President Obama is seen as heretical, Dole also praised president Obama as a "very good man."

While saying that he would not support Hillary Clinton in a potential general election matchup with Trump or Cruz, Dole said that he also would not be able to bring himself to vote for either of those Republican demagogues, saying with a laugh that he "might oversleep" on election day.

So even Bob Dole would not vote for Trump or Cruz, which shows just how bad their candidates are. And O'Reilly never mentions any of this, because he is too busy defending his friend Donald Trump and trying to fool people into thinking Trump or Cruz would be a good President.

The Republican Party needs more people like Dole, who, despite their flaws, are at least sensible enough to see and call out blind hatred, racism, and extremism when they see it, and who work towards unity and compromise rather than divisiveness.

Fox News Ignores Planned Parenthood Shooter Admitting He Is Guilty
By: Steve - December 14, 2015 - 10:00am

As I predicted, Fox News almost totally ignored the news about the Planned Parenthood shooter admitting he is guilty and saying he is a warrior for the babies, and O'Reilly has ignored it totally. Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about it, even though there is video of the man in court saying he is a warrior for the babies, and he is a known religious Republican.

Fox spent just 30 seconds covering Dear's statements--after leading the charge in frequently airing the phrase "baby parts," that the shooter reportedly used. CNN spent 2.5 minutes of coverage on Dear's statements, while MSNBC spent 21.5 minutes noting his admission of guilt and claim that he is "a warrior for the babies."

Now get this, when the dishonest pro-life groups put out their edited and misleading videos that made Planned Parenthood look bad, Fox was #1 in reporting on them and using the words baby parts.

Fox News Aired The Phrase "Baby Parts" Or "Parts Of Babies" More Than Any Other Cable News Network.

Fox News led the field with 72 mentions spread out across 14 separate shows. Sean Hannity's show Hannity aired the most mentions of any program. Fox Business Network mentioned "baby parts" or "parts of babies" an additional 11 times.

But when a guy shoots up a Planned Parenthood, then admits he is guilty and a warrior for the babies Fox and O'Reilly barely mention it and spend less than 3 minutes in covering it, while complaining that the other cable news networks are biased for reporting so much on it.

And on top of that, right after the shooting Fox and O'Reilly denied the guy was a pro-life right-wing nut, so when it is proven he was, they do not report it. Talk about bias, this is it, we have total bias right here.

Pretty much every single person at Fox denied the guy was a right-wing nut, including O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly: "Planned Parenthood Is In The Baby Body Parts Business, And Deserves Much Of The Harsh Criticism Directed Toward It."

On the November 30 edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly denied that "harsh criticism" of Planned Parenthood played a role in the shooting, citing the repeatedly-debunked claim that Planned Parenthood "is in the baby body parts business" to argue that the organization "deserves much of the harsh criticism directed toward it":

BILL O'REILLY: Planned Parenthood is in the baby body parts business, and deserves much of the harsh criticism directed toward it. The situation is reminiscent of the assassination in 2009 of Dr. George Tiller, a late term abortionist in Kansas. For $5,000 Tiller would terminate any pregnancy for any reason. He was nicknamed "Tiller the Baby Killer" by organizations who objected to his grizzly practice.

I reported extensively on Tiller, and after he was assassinated by a named Scott Roeder, some far-left loons blamed me. The truth is, I reported accurately on Tiller, whose assistant was stripped of her medical license after the assassination. By the way, Roeder was given life in prison, a well-deserved sentence.


Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a biased hack, and you have no right to complain about bias from anyone else, because you are worse than any of them. If a liberal had shot up a pro-life building you would report it every day for a month, you are a fraud and not a journalist.

Bernie Goldberg Tells O'Reilly He Is Wrong About Trump
By: Steve - December 13, 2015 - 10:00am

Wow, someone at Fox actually told O'Reilly he is wrong, but of course O'Reilly disagreed with him, because he can not admit reality, that his good friend Donald Trump is a far-right racist idiot.

Think about it, who in their right mind could possibly think Trump is a net positive for the Republican party, oh yeah I know, another far-right racist idiot who is a good friend of Trump. Everyone else with a working brain can clearly see Trump is hurting the Republican party, and the Republicans even worry Trump is making them look bad so they might kill his nomination.

This is 100% proof O'Reilly is a biased fool, and that he can not be objective when it comes to Trump. O'Reilly even admits that Trump is a good friend that he goes to games with and has known a long time. He claims that Trump is not really a far-right racist idiot, that he is just misunderstood and the media hates him so they lie about him.

Which is just laughable, because Trump is making a fool of himself and the Republican party. He has shown everyone that he is not qualified to be the President, that he is a racist moron, and the Republicans do not even want him to win their primary, but O'Reilly can not admit it, because he is too busy kissing Trump's rear end.

Here is what Goldberg said:

Here is a partial transcript:

BERNIE GOLDBERG: Look, you said on this program a month or so ago that Donald Trump was a net plus for the Republican Party. You're wrong. You're wrong in a big way. He's not only a net minus, he is a giant net minus. And here's my prediction. If Donald Trump wins the nomination, say hello to President Hillary Clinton.

And then Trump supporters will blame the liberal media. They will blame the Republican establishment. They will blame the PC culture. They will blame everything and everybody except themselves. But if he wins the nomination, they are the ones. They are the ones.

BILL O'REILLY: It's possible, but I don't know.

GOLDBERG: But they will be the ones who are responsible for the train wreck that is approaching.

O'REILLY: But just remember something, it is not bad for the Republican Party or for the country to have an unconventional candidate get out there and speak his mind, even if you disagree. And he doesn't have power. He doesn't have any influence other than his own verbiage right now. So that's why I said what I said.


This is real simple, Trump has figured out that a big part of the Republican party is racist, so what he does is slam Mexicans, Blacks, and Muslims, to get the votes of the far-right wing of the party. And if Trump ever does win the Republican primary, he will get crushed by Hillary Clinton.

Because outside of the far-right of the Republican party, Trump has about 20% of the vote, if that, and if you can not get at least 50% of the vote, you can not win, and it takes at least 40% of the Latino vote to win the White House, Trump is at about 16% with Latinos, so he can never win.

And O'Reilly is delusional about Trump when he says he is a net positive for the Republican party, because he is a biased Republican and Trumps friend. Recent polls from a few days ago even show it, they say that a majority of Americans - and an even greater majority of Latinos - say that GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is hurting the Republican Party's image, and half of Americans believe that his rhetoric is "insulting and offensive," a new MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll shows.

According to the poll, 58 percent of adults say that Trump has marred the GOP's reputation, compared to just 24 percent who say he is helping its image. Among Hispanics, that margin is 65 percent compared to just 16 percent who say he has helped the party.

Republicans are divided on the question, with 43 percent saying Trump is helping the GOP's image and 40 percent saying that he has hurt it.

Only a few Republicans think Trump is helping the GOP's image, they are called Trump supporters. Even 40% of the Republicans think he is hurting their party. But the clueless O'Reilly says Trump is a net positive for the Republican party, which is beyond laughable, and even the total O'Reilly ass kisser Bernie Goldberg knows it.

Chicago Officer Had A History Of Complaints Against Him
By: Steve - December 12, 2015 - 11:30am

Here are some more facts O'Reilly has ignored in his very little actual reporting on the Chicago cop charged with murder, none of this was ever mentioned by O'Reilly or anyone on his show.

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer charged in Laquan McDonald's shooting death, had a history of complaints before he gunned down the 17-year-old last year -- and in almost every case, he was cleared in one way or another.

The allegations mostly involve excessive force, and at least one complaint alleges he used a racial slur.

There appear to be no criminal proceedings against Van Dyke before this week, but a jury did award a Chicago man $350,000 after determining Van Dyke employed excessive force during a traffic stop. (The city of Chicago also gave McDonald's mother, who had not yet filed a lawsuit, $5 million in April).

Before Tuesday, Van Dyke had remained with the Chicago Police Department on limited duty since the October 2014 shooting. A judge's ruling that a graphic video of McDonald's death must be released to the public spurred Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to announce a first-degree murder charge earlier than she had planned, she said.

Outraged that it took 13 months to charge the officer, largely peaceful demonstrators took to the Windy City's streets Tuesday to demand justice in McDonald's death.

According to the dashboard camera footage and a criminal complaint filed in Cook County Circuit Court, Van Dyke responded to the scene and remained in his car for more than 20 seconds as McDonald, armed with a knife and with PCP in his system, approached police cars in the street before veering away from officers who had their guns trained on him.

None of the eight or more officers on the scene fired their weapons, but within six seconds of exiting his vehicle, Van Dyke began unloading the 16-round magazine in his 9 mm pistol. McDonald was about 10 feet away when he opened fire.

The criminal complaint paints Van Dyke's response as excessive -- an allegation his lawyer has denied -- and it isn't the first time Van Dyke was accused of using unnecessary force.

On at least 20 occasions, citizens have filed complaints against Van Dyke, according to the Citizens Police Data Project, a database of misconduct complaints filed against more than 8,500 Chicago police officers. The database is not comprehensive and represents only three data sets spanning 2002 to 2008 and 2011 to 2015.

To put the complaints against Van Dyke in perspective, the Chicago Police Department has about 12,000 officers. Like Van Dyke, 402 officers have 20 or more complaints on file in the database. The most complaints against any officer, according to the database, is 68.

"The misconduct complaints we do have in our data tool show by and large excessive force and racial slurs. And he has largely operated with impunity and under a code of silence with the same huddle of officers again and again," Alison Flowers of the Invisible Institute said.

Van Dyke has also faced at least two lawsuits alleging excessive force during his time on the force. One was dismissed, but in the other, a jury ruled for the plaintiff in a civil case accusing Van Dyke and his partner of excessive force, assault, battery and illegal seizure.

According to the complaint, Edward Nance, an African-American, was driving with his cousin, Carlton Clark, on July 9, 2007. Van Dyke and his partner pulled the pair over.

Van Dyke painfully cuffed Nance, injuring his shoulders, before pulling him out of the car, the complaint said. The car was impounded after Clark was arrested for possession of marijuana. No criminal charges were filed against Nance, but he had to go the hospital and required surgeries on his shoulders, according to the complaint.

A jury awarded Nance $350,000, and a judge tacked on $180,000 for Nance's legal fees, court records show.

The cable company employee and high school basketball referee told the Chicago Tribune earlier this year that he felt the Police Department didn't take his complaint seriously and that Van Dyke and the partner were "back on the street like nothing ever happened."

And if you watch the Factor for news about this story, you would not know any of these important details, because O'Reilly does not report any of it. All he did was have an all white panel of Fox stooges on for 1 segment, and they used it to slam the black lives matter protesters while blaming the black kid for getting shot by the out of control cop.

Remember this, 8 other cops were already on the scene, something O'Reilly never mentioned, when Van Dyke showed up he jumped out of his car and unloaded his entire clip into the kid. Which is why they did not release the video, and why the city paid his mother $5 million dollars before she even filed a lawsuit.

This shows they knew the cop was wrong, and they wanted to pay her off before a jury awarded her even more than $5 million. O'Reilly does not report any of this, because he is a biased hack who should be sued for fraud for claiming to be a journalist, and saying he is fair and balanced with a no spin zone.

New Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Beating All The Republicans
By: Steve - December 12, 2015 - 11:00am

A new poll shows that the guy O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends call a crazy socialist is beating every single one of the Republicans running for President, including Trump and Carson.

This shows just how bad the Republicans are doing with the American people, if they can not even beat the crazy socialist how are they going to beat Hillary?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, is gaining steam against top Republican rivals, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

In a hypothetical matchup against the current GOP front-runner, business mogul Donald Trump, Sanders takes 49 percent of the vote to Trump's 41 percent. He also beats Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 10 percentage points and Ben Carson by 6 points.

Fifty-nine percent of voters also say Sanders is honest and trustworthy -- placing him well above all top Republican candidates tested in the poll.

New Poll Shows Most Republicans Are Racists Who Support Racism
By: Steve - December 12, 2015 - 10:00am

Following Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's statement where he said that he wants to see a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was quick to denounce Trump's comments in a press conference Tuesday.

"This is not conservatism," Ryan said. "What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it's not what this country stands for."

When I heard that I was confused, because it is conservatism. Donald Trump is a racist, plain and simple, and 65% of the Republican party support his racist policy proposals. Which proves there are a lot of racists in the Republican party, in fact, Trumps approval numbers actually went up 8 points in North Carolina after making the statement about banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Was Ryan not paying attention to the same Republican party I have reported on for the last 15 years? More importantly, how do you rationally claim that the values of your party's leading presidential candidate don't represent those of your party?

Voters support the candidate who they feel most represents their values. So we don't even have to ask those questions anymore. A poll that just came out proves that Ryan is either a liar or flat-out delusional because Trump's bigoted and hate-filled racist rhetoric is exactly what most Republicans support.

According to a Bloomberg poll, 65 percent of likely Republican primary voters support the ban. Let me repeat that, 65 percent support Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Now compare that with the overall population where only about 30 percent of likely voters backed such a proposal.

In other words, it is Republicans and their so-called values that make up the majority of Americans who support banning all Muslims from entering the United States. And for Ryan to deny that Trump represents his party is laughable.

This is not some random candidate who had a brief moment at the top of the polls like Herman Cain did in 2011. From the moment Trump called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals he's been the overwhelming frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination. And with every new racist and crazy remark, from disrespecting a war veteran to mocking the physical disabilities of a reporter, his numbers have only continued to climb.

Bill O'Reilly, Paul Ryan, and the rest of his fellow Republicans can deny it all they want, but their fear-mongering and pandering to the scum of our society is what created Donald Trump the presidential candidate.

What the hell did these people think was driving this Obama isn't an American, he's a Muslim socialist who is trying to destroy the United States and that he hates the Constitution. These are people whose hate, racism, bigotry and intolerance used to be cast out into the shadows.

Now they have been given a voice and representation in our government via the tea party and Donald Trump. And now they have their very own presidential frontrunner. But make no mistake about it, this sort of radical rhetoric is not limited to Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz is even worse. Not only does he line up with Trump on every issue, he brings a Christian radicalism that Trump can't even touch.

So let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it's just Trump who built a platform on hate, fear, racism, and intolerance; Cruz has done the exact same thing since getting elected to the United States Senate.

The debate is over, most Republicans are now known racists and fascists. While many of us on the left have seen this for quite some time, the rise of Trump has cemented the GOP as a party driven by fascism, racism, and hate for anyone that is not white or Christian.

Whether or not people like Paul Ryan want to admit that is their problem or not. The thing about reality is that it's real, whether or not O'Reilly and his Republican friends want to believe it or not, it's real and it's true.

Another Republican Proves He Is A Racist Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - December 12, 2015 - 9:00am

But the scary part is this time it's a fricking Supreme Court Justice, and of course O'Reilly and Ben Carson are silent about it, because they are also Republicans who ignore it because it makes them look bad.

Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at "Slower" Colleges

Yes, he really said that. And some Republicans in the media are already defending what Scalia said, claiming it was not racism, when it clearly was.

During oral arguments in an important affirmative action case on Wednesday morning, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that African American students might belong at less rigorous schools than their white peers, and that perhaps the University of Texas should have fewer black students in its ranks.

Scalia's comments came during arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case over whether the university's use of race in a percentage of its admissions decisions is constitutional. The University of Texas-Austin is being challenged over its use of race in admissions decisions for about 25 percent of its freshman class.

About 75 percent of the students at UT-Austin are admitted through what's known as the Top Ten Percent program, in which any student graduating within the top 10 percent of his or her class is guaranteed admission, regardless of race.

The other 25 percent are admitted via a process that takes race, and other factors, into account. It's this program that a white woman Abigail Fisher (who was denied admission for the university in 2008) is challenging.

The University of Texas has determined that if it excluded race as a factor, that remaining 25 percent would be entirely white. During the oral arguments, former US Solicitor General Greg Garre, who is representing the university, was explaining this to the justices.

At that point, Scalia jumped in, questioning whether increasing the number of African Americans at the flagship university in Austin was in the black students best interests.

He said this:
SCALIA: There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.

One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.
In other words, Scalia is saying blacks are not as smart as whites so maybe they should go to a school where you do not have to be as smart as the whites. And if that is not a racist statement, I'm Elvis.

He went on to also say this:
SCALIA: I'm just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer blacks. Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.
Maybe he should just be honest and put a white robe and a pointed hood on, instead of having a black robe that represents an honest and impartial judge, then resign as a Supreme Court Judge. This man should not be a justice on the highest court in the country, because he is a joke, a partisan, and now a known racist.

Seth Meyers Calls Out Media For Wall-To-Wall Coverage Of Crazy Donald Trump
By: Steve - December 11, 2015 - 11:00am

Partial Transcript:

MEYERS: Finally you might be wondering why did Trump suddenly come out with this crazy plan to ban Muslims now? What could possibly have motivated him to say something so controversial that it would demand wall-to-wall news coverage? Well, how about this poll released Monday showing Trump falling to second in Iowa behind Ted Cruz.

Trump knows exactly what he's doing. After his comments, he appeared today on three major morning shows. Trump coverage is wall-to-wall on television. Meanwhile, the last time other candidates like Rand Paul appeared on TV was as an extra on Bones. He was great.

Trump's rhetoric is dangerous and has been for a while now. He's cynically appealing to people's fears and inciting racial resentment purely for his own political gain. You know the old saying, those who get a 'C' in history are doomed to repeat it.

Kareem & Ali Slam Donald Trump For Muslim Ban Proposal
By: Steve - December 11, 2015 - 10:00am

NBA great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote a column Wednesday comparing the presidential candidate to ISIS, the self-described Islamic State sullying the international landscape with their widespread violence and terrorism.

Just three days after Trump called for Muslims to be barred from "entering the United States," Abdul-Jabbar argued that the culture of fear that Trump has created with his reliance on intimidation, lies and downright discrimination is analogous to the literal, physical terrorism that ISIS has perpetuated of late.

Citing Webster Dictionary's definition of terrorism -- "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" -- Abdul-Jabbar put forth a theory: "If violence can be an abstraction -- and it can; that's what a threat is -- the Trump campaign meets this definition."

Abdul-Jabbar positioned the Republican candidate as a political terrorist, whose offensive verbal strikes are executed to generate fear, with the assumption that that fear will, in turn, turn into votes. And this tactical use of terror as a means to an end is, Abdul-Jabbar claimed, akin to ISIS own blueprint of deploying panic and horror as stepping stones to political supremacy.

"Trump has taken advantage of misinformation, half-truths and deception in order to gain access to a position that should only be held by those who would be repulsed by that strategy," Abdul-Jabbar wrote, also calling Trump's supporters "brainwashed" and deeming their support "harmful to the country."

Abdul-Jabbar converted to Islam over 40 years ago, a fact that Trump seems to have forgotten on Monday when he suggested that he wasn't aware of any Muslim-American athletes, which also ignores Ali. And btw, Trump and the former Laker have a history of butting heads, having exchanged blows in the media this summer over, among other topics, the importance of free speech.

It is no secret that Trump is a candidate who has relied for months now on polarizing, oft-personal verbal attacks to draw out impassioned reactions from frustrated constituents. But, with the words of Abdul-Jabbar's latest column in mind, we can only hope that we will all more deeply consider now how essential it is to repel one kind of terrorism at home as we all pray for the end of its physical form overseas.


Muhammad Ali is also striking out against Donald Trump's plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

Ali released a statement today aiming directly for Trump, never singling out the former reality TV star by name but the release was headlined, "Presidential Candidates Proposing to Ban Muslim Immigration to the United States":
ALI: We as Muslims have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda. They have alienated many from learning about Islam. True Muslims know that it goes against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody.

Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people's views on what Islam really is.
Ali joins every Democrat running for president, television commentatators like Tom Brokaw and Shepard Smith, as well as a broad swath of organizations opposed to hate.

Trump's proposal has even been described as a risk to American security, as a high profile person smearing Islam is the exact sort of hate fuel that ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other anti-American organizations have so desired.

Ali also spoke out against the terrorists who murdered 14 innocent people in San Bernardino, California:
ALI: I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic Jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.
Ali, a former heavyweight champion of the world, is one of the most famous and admired athletes in the history of sports.

He has also been a longtime advocate of social justice. Ali was sent to jail because he refused to violate his faith and fight in the Vietnam War, and he used his fame to push for racial equality.

For him to speak out so forcefully against the Republican presidential front runner is another sign of just how much over the line the conservative movement has gone this time.

Two Republicans Slam O'Reilly Book & He Goes After The Liberal Media
By: Steve - December 11, 2015 - 9:00am

Okay, I have reported on Bill O'Reilly for 14 years, yes it has been that long and I am not insane from it, yet. And I usually understand why he does some crazy attack on someone, but this one is so far out there it has me stumped.

Two Republicans have slammed him for his dishonest book about Ronald Reagan, that has been proven to have many errors in it. And O'Reilly goes after the so-called liberal media, ummmmm, huh? What in the hell does the so-called liberal media have to do with the Republicans George Will and George Shultz slamming O'Reilly for his book?

And btw folks, O'Reilly claims to write these books, but does he? If he is actually writing them why does he have the co-author Martin Dugard. I have no proof, but I would bet anything Martin Dugard writes those books and O'Reilly just adds a few lines so he can claim to be a co-author.

Tuesday night Fox News host Bill O'Reilly devoted an entire segment of The O'Reilly Factor to attack critics of his book Killing Reagan. O'Reilly lashed out at former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, George Shultz for his recent op-ed in The New York Times.

Shultz criticized O'Reilly's depiction of President Ronald Reagan writing that the Reagan in his book "bears no resemblance to the man [Schultz] knew and worked so closely with for years."

O'Reilly has previously been criticized by Fox contributor George Will who called the book "nonsensical history and execrable citizenship" in a Washington Post column. From the December 8 edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor:

Partial Transcript:

O'REILLY: So what is really going on here? First of all, the high profile attacks on the book are coming from a close knit group of people all of whom know each other. It's coordinated. They object to any reportage that does not play into the deification of Ronald Reagan. In George Shultz' case he doesn't even seem to understand what the book's all about.

Lamenting that we did not write about arms reduction, for example. It's obvious to anyone who even reads the book jacket that Killing Reagan is not, not a biography. It's a personal story of a brave man who overcame a devastating trauma to become one of our greatest presidents. You think that would please the Reagan zealots, but it doesn't.

Because we write about a real man, not somebody from Mount Olympus. Ronald Reagan once tried to join the Communist Party. Did things as an actor he was not proud of. Had regrets. In short, he had flaws like we all do. How he overcame them is the heart of the book.

The first wave of attacks on killing Reagan were printed in the Washington Post whose publisher has a relationship with the hatchet men who wrote the articles and who is actually a fundraiser for an arm of the Reagan library. Of course none of that was disclosed by the Washington Post.

And when Martin Dugard and I asked for op-ed space to reply, the Post to its shame said no. The latest slam appears in The New York Times, which up until this point has totally ignored Killing Reagan even though it is a massive best seller that dominates its own best seller list. That's not unusual as the Times usually deep sixes authors it does not agree with ideologically.

Earlier this year it denied Ted Cruz his rightful place on the best seller list and the paper is presently ignoring the sales of David Limbaugh's new book. It's beyond question that the liberal press and the literary establishment both despise the fact that the killing series is now dominating the history industry.


And now some actual facts for Bill O'Reilly: Killing Patton was a joke. Patton broke his neck in an automobile accident. He was paralyzed from the neck down and died from pneumonia. Somehow, Billy managed to claim he was murdered.

Killing Lincoln: During the book's initial release, Rae Emerson, the deputy superintendent of Ford's Theatre National Historic Site, conducted a review of the book's text and discovered a number of inaccuracies, which she described as "factual errors" and listed as numbering ten, each different and one additionally occurring multiple times.

As a result of the review, the National Park Service, which manages Ford's Theatre, made the decision not to allow the edition of the book containing the errors to be sold at the Eastern National Bookstore located in the Museum at Ford's Theatre National Historic Site.

All these books are full of errors, O'Reilly just refuses to admit it, then he attacks anyone who points out the errors and claims they are wrong and part of the evil liberal media that hates him. Even when they are Republicans, somehow the two Republicans who are also slamming him are now part of the so-called liberal media, it's insane, and I am shocked O'Reilly thinks anyone is buying his ridiculous excuses.

NBC/WSJ Poll Shows 57% Oppose Trump Muslim Ban
By: Steve - December 10, 2015 - 11:00am

Almost six in 10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

Views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.

And among Republican primary voters, it's 38 percent support, 39 percent oppose.

By comparison, 75 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents disagree with Trump's proposal.

The NBC/WSJ poll also finds a plurality of Americans (41 percent) believing that Trump's general campaign statements are frequently insulting and have the wrong approach.

By contrast, 24 percent say that Trump's manner and language might be problematic, but think he's raising important issues. And 22 percent say that Trump is telling it like it is and has the right approach.

Among Republicans, only 16 percent find him insulting; 37 percent believe he's raising important issues despite his language; and 40 percent say he's telling it like it is.

Finally, the poll shows that Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, have a favorable opinion of Muslims -- 59 percent positive to 29 percent negative - which is relatively stable on a question dating back to 2002.

But attitudes among Republicans are more negative: 43 percent hold a favorable view of Muslims, versus 48 percent who hold an unfavorable view.

That compared with 75 percent favorable/14 percent unfavorable among Democrats, and 59 percent favorable/25 percent unfavorable among independents.

O'Reilly Argues That Terrorism Can Only Breed From Islam
By: Steve - December 10, 2015 - 10:00am

Which is ridiculous, because there are many cases of terrorism by white Christians. When the guest points that out, O'Reilly denies it saying no, no, no. Which is a flat out lie, there are Christian terrorists everywhere in the world, they kill abortion doctors and one of them just shot up a Planned Parenthood. O'Reilly will just not admit it is Christian terrorism. He only sees Muslim terrorism. Because he is a pro-life Christian Republican, and a biased hack.

Bill O'Reilly: "This Is Where The Precinct Of Terror Lies. In Islam"

Partial Transcript:

EBONI WILLIAMS (Democratic FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR): Why do we treat Islam different than Christianity? There are radical Christians.

BILL O'REILLY: No, no, no.

WILLIAMS: Historically, there is the KKK.

O'REILLY: No come on Islam is much different than Christianity.

WILLIAMS: It is different, but we are singling it out--

O'REILLY: Because that's where the terror component is.

WILLIAMS: -- in a way that we want it to be painted with a broad brush that we would never do with Christianity.

O'REILLY: Because there is no terror component in Christianity.

WILLIAMS: Historically, it has been. The KKK --

O'REILLY: But not now, we are living in the here and now. Come on Eboni. That's ridiculous.

WILLIAMS: That's a slippery slope, that's not ridiculous.

O'REILLY: This is where the precinct of terror lies. In Islam.

WILLIAMS: Sure. Radical Islam.

O'REILLY: That's right. No Christian component. All right. I have got to go.


And now I am going to make O'Reilly look like the right-wing fool he is. Do this, google christian terrorists, you get 48 million results. Wikipedia even has a page devoted to christian terrorism, and in the United States.

Here is a partial quote: Contemporary American Christian terrorism can be motivated by a violent desire to implement a Reconstructionist or Dominionist ideology. Dominion Theology insists that Christians are called by God to rebuild society on Christian values to subjugate the earth and establish dominion over all things, as a pre-requisite for the second coming of Christ. Political violence motivated by dominion theology is a violent extension of the desire to impose a select version of Christianity on other Christians, as well as on non-Christians.

After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States. A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.

And it goes on and on, there are hundreds of examples of christian terrorism in the USA and the world.

Bill O'Reilly you have proven to be a liar once again.

O'Reilly Lectures Trump Not To Run As An Independent
By: Steve - December 10, 2015 - 9:00am

The so-called non-partisan Independent with a ridiculous no spin zone Bill O'Reilly just showed once again that he is a partisan hack with a total right-wing bias. Because he basically warned his friend Donald Trump that if he runs as an Independent he will give the election to Hillary, which would kill O'Reilly because he is a Republican who hates her.

O'Reilly: If You "Run On A Third Party Ticket" You Will Be "Handing The Election To Hillary Clinton."

Partial Transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: I got one more very serious question here. You mentioned the establishment Republicans don't like you and that's true. They don't. If you don't get the delegate count to put you over the top, you go to the convention, okay? And then the convention brokers do what they do. There's a good chance you are not going to get as many delegates to give you the nomination. So, if they deny the nomination to you, which is very, very possible, are you going to run on a third party ticket, thereby handing the election to Hillary Clinton?

DONALD TRUMP: I think that I will get the delegates. I'm winning in Iowa big. I'm winning in South Carolina. I'm winning in New Hampshire big.

O'REILLY: If you don't -- If you don't?

TRUMP: If I'm treated fairly, I would never do it. If I'm not treated fairly, I might very well do it. Because frankly my deal was -- my deal was I have to be treated fairly.

O'REILLY: If you do it, it's President Clinton.


What you saw there was O'Reilly making sure his good friend Donald Trump got the message that if you run as an Independent you will get Hillary elected. This was a warning to Trump that if you do not win the Republican primary you must drop your run and get out so some other Republican has a chance to Beat Hillary.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Ralph Peters Fox Suspension Story
By: Steve - December 9, 2015 - 11:30am

Fox News military analyst Ralph Peters was suspended for 2 weeks for calling President Obama and very bad name on the air, and his friend Bill O'Reilly has still not said one word about it, or slammed Peters for saying it.

This despite the fact that Peters is a Factor regular and the senior military analyst for Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly has ignored the entire story and went silent about it.

Now imagine if a senior military analyst for MSNBC was suspended for 2 weeks for saying something bad (on the air) about George W. Bush when he was in office. O'Reilly would lose his mind and flip out, reporting on it at least one time, if not 2 or 3 times.

O'Reilly would slam MSNBC for even having him on the air, and call for MSNBC to fire him for disrespecting the President, and most likely call him an un-American traitor. But when his very own military analyst does it, he says nothing, not a word.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham Tells Trump To Go To Hell
By: Steve - December 9, 2015 - 11:00am

Senator Lindsey Graham said it's time for Republicans to rebuke presidential hopeful Donald Trump, urging his party to tell Trump to "go to hell."

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell," Graham said on Tuesday, picking up on the GOP front-runner's famous slogan, "make America great again."

The South Carolina Republican was responding to Trump's statement released Monday calling for the U.S. to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

"He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," Graham said. "He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represents the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. He's the ISIS man of the year."

Graham said Trump's rhetoric benefits ISIS in helping them recruit people to their cause. He said having traveled to the Middle East 36 times as a lawmaker and in the Air Force reserve, he knows the troops and diplomats on the front lines are very concerned.

"What Mr. Trump is doing -- and I don't think he has a clue about anything. He's just just trying to get his numbers up and get the biggest reaction he can," Graham said. "He is helping the enemy of this nation. He is empowering radical Islam. And if he knew anything about the world at all, you would know that most Muslims reject this ideology."

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious death. And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand for," Graham said. "Going to a military high school, Donald, is not military service. You've never worn the uniform. So knock it off. You're putting people at risk."

The senator has become increasingly outspoken about the direction his party is headed, trying to position himself as the voice of reason even as his campaign struggles.

Graham said it's a "dirty little secret" of American history that there has always been an appetite for bigotry and exclusion, but a presidential candidate should "bring us together."

Graham also called out other presidential candidates for not being stronger against Trump, saying the entire party needs to speak out against the mogul.

He specifically spotlighted his fellow GOP presidential candidate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for not condemning Trump strongly enough.

"This is not a policy debate, Ted," Graham said.

On Monday, Cruz said Trump's positions are not his own when asked about the call to ban Muslims and described his own proposals to place a moratorium on refugees entering the country from areas with strong footholds for terrorists.

Graham said it was time for the party to reject Trump even if it hurts them in the long run.

Trump has left the door open to mounting an independent bid for president if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, a possibility that spurred the Republican National Committee to have each candidate sign a pledge to support any eventual Republican nominee.

"I'd rather lose without Donald Trump than try to win with with him," Graham said.

"I wish he would leave the party. I don't care if he runs as an independent. If we lose the 2016 election. So be it. I want to be in a category of 1% who said 'B.S., this is not who we are at a party, this is not who we are as a nation.' And I'm calling on Ted Cruz, you're trying to have it both ways here."

It's the second time in less than a week that Graham has had harsh words for Cruz, who he also criticized along with Trump at the Republican Jewish Coalition presidential forum in Washington, last week for being too hardline on immigration.

Graham said Cruz is trying to pick up Trump supporters for his own campaign and is ignoring a "moral imperative" to speak out against the rhetoric.

"He's trying to get all the Trump people when Trump falls. He's trying to get all the Carson people when they fall," Graham said. "What I'm trying to do is be a president worthy of a great nation and a great party. So this doesn't cut it for me.

This is not a policy debate, Ted. This is about you and us and our character as a party. Up your game. Condemn it, because it needs to be condemned."

Trump Slams Christie After Christie Slams Trump
By: Steve - December 9, 2015 - 10:00am

Donald Trump launched an all-out attack against Gov. Chris Christie (R) during a Monday-night rally.

Trump called Christie a "friend," but he said he had to hit back after Christie strongly criticized his plan to bar all Muslim immigrants and visitors to the US.

Christie called the proposal unconstitutional during an interview with conservative talk-show host Michael Medved.

"There are folks in this race who don't care about what the law says because they're used to being able to just fire people indiscriminately on television. So, they don't have to worry about laws say or not say," Christie said.

"And you do not need to be banning Muslims from the country," Christie added. "In my view, that's a ridiculous position and one that won’t even be productive."

Trump suggested that Christie attacked him because the governor is "not doing well in the polls."

"I've been nice to Christie, but he really hit me today," Trump said, speaking at a National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day campaign rally in South Carolina. "He really hit me on the whole thing with we have to stop the Muslims until we find out what's going on. ... So Chris, who's a friend of mine, he hit me hard. And I said, 'I've got to hit him at least once.'"

Trump then proceeded to accuse Christie of being complicit in the so-called Bridgegate scandal. Some of Christie's aides and appointees were accused of deliberately creating debilitating traffic around the base of the George Washington Bridge in 2013 as a petty act of political retribution.

Christie denies any knowledge of the lane-closure plot and touts the fact that he fired the staffers once he became aware. But Trump said he was very confident that Christie was involved.

"Look, here's the story: The George Washington Bridge, he knew about it. Hey, how do you have breakfast with people every day of your lives. They're closing up the largest bridge in the world," Trump said. "They never said, 'Hey boss, we're closing up the George Washington Bridge tonight.' No, they never said that. They're talking about the weather, right? So he knew about it. Totally knew about it."

Trump Calls For Ban On All Muslims Entering The Country
By: Steve - December 8, 2015 - 11:30am

Which is just insane, because it would even cover American citizens who are Muslims, and Muslim Americans who are in the military.

So if you are an American citizen, born here, 100% American, but you are a Muslim and you are in a foreign country for some reason, under Trump you would not be allowed to come home, to your own country. This would not only be un-American, it would be illegal and a violation of the constitution.

And think about this, say you are a Muslim American who is in the U.S. military, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. And you are serving in a foreign country, you would not be allowed back into America, are you kidding me, and Trump is winning? He should be in last place, he is crazy and un-American.

Even some Republicans are saying Trump has gone too far. Including Dick Cheney, who says Trump is a fool. Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday evening slammed Donald Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

"I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in," the conservative Republican said on the conservative Hugh Hewitt radio show.

A few other GOP officials, like Cheney, took a harder line against Trump's proposal.

Jennifer Horn, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, released a strong statement rebuking the 2016 candidate:

"There are some issues that transcend politics. While my position is certainly political, I am an American first," she said. "There should never be a day in the United States of America when people are excluded based solely on their race or religion. It is un-Republican. It is unconstitutional. And it is un-American."

Even Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, also appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show on Monday. He said he opposed Trump's idea but understands why Trump has suggested it.

Matt Moore, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, also responded via Twitter:

As a conservative who truly cares about religious liberty, Donald Trump's bad idea and rhetoric send a shiver down my spine.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was asked about Trump's idea and called it "foolish." He added he's "never seen anything like it."

Harvard Law Professor: Trump's 'Ban Muslims' Proposal Is Both Illegal And Stupid

A Harvard Law professor specializing in the Constitution pointed out the premise of Trump's Muslim ban is patently illegal.

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Dr. Laurence Tribe. He noted that Trump's outrageous plan actually violates two Amendments, "both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Fox Suspends O'Reilly Military Analyst Ralph Peters
By: Steve - December 8, 2015 - 11:00am

I told you this jerk Ralph Peters is a biased Obama hating idiot, and he finally went too far, for even Fox News. He called Obama a name and Fox did not fire him, they just suspended him for 2 weeks. And he is the senior military analyst for Bill O'Reilly. In fact, O'Reilly loves him and agrees with pretty much everything he says.

Fox News suspended two contributors for "comments on different programs that were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air."

During a December 7th appearance on Fox Business, Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters said of President Obama after his Oval Office address last night: "I mean this guy is such a total pussy, it's stunning."

Host Stuart Varney told Peters he can't "use language like that on the program," and Peters replied that he was sorry.

While co-hosting Outnumbered, contributor Stacey Dash reacted to Obama's remarks by stating: "I felt like he could give a shit -- excuse me, like he could care less."

CNN's Brian Stelter reported today that the two commentators were suspended on Monday for using profanities while criticizing President Obama on Monday:
"Earlier today, Fox contributors Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash made comments on different programs that were completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air," Fox senior executive vice president Bill Shine said.

"Fox Business Network and Fox News Channel do not condone the use of such language, and have suspended both Peters and Dash for two weeks," he said.
Fox News host Howard Kurtz, who hosts the weekend media analysis program MediaBuzz, also criticized Peters and Dash for their "crude language on the air," calling their conduct "embarrassing."

So far, O'Reilly has been silent about it, even though Peters is a regular on his show and his senior military analyst.

O'Reilly Ignores Insane Rant About Obama From GOP Congressman
By: Steve - December 8, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly reports on every little thing (he considers crazy talk) from Democratic Congressman and Senators, but when Republican Congressman and Senators say insane things, he usually ignores it, especially when it's about Obama. Because he is a Republican, and he does not want to make them look bad.

And here is a perfect example. Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert recently said some insane things about President Obama while co-hosting a right-wing radio show.

Sometimes I use the term crazy to emphasize just how ridiculous someone is behaving, but not when I talk about Gohmert. He is someone who I believe is actually crazy.

And while he has said plenty of absolutely insane things in the past, his ridiculous rant about President Obama following the San Bernardino shooting, in my opinion, perfectly exemplifies the insanity that's driving today's Republican party.

Here's what he said while co-hosting for a radical right-wing radio show:
The places in the country where there's so much death from guns are places that have very strong gun control, so it's rather ironic that we have a president and Hillary Clinton, a wannabe president, who's telling us after they have allowed so many people to come into this country as refugees; we know just this year there were at least a dozen people who came in, were brought into this country as refugees, most of them given citizenship and then they have been charged this year, some have been charged, some have been convicted already, of being terrorists.

So the president has an open, porous border, people are pouring across and we know that some violent people have come in across our southern border. They come in, every week we read of new violent crimes, murders, rapes, obviously the vast majority don't do that, but when you have a porous border, you get people who are criminals. Then we learned again this week that it may be 179,000 or so that we know of who are illegally in the country, have been picked up by the administration but have been let loose on the interior of our country.

You know the name Caitlin who was killed out in San Francisco by an illegal alien, a criminal illegal alien, and fortunately every alien that's here illegally is not committing felonies but there are those who are. So the president has presided over hundreds of thousands, millions really, being in the country illegally, at least 179,000 that, as I understand it, they have detained previously but have let loose on the country who have committed crimes, including murder, rape, robbery.

And with all of those people that are coming into the country, some of whom are violent criminals, coming into our interior, some of them are actually picked up by Homeland Security and shipped all over our country, no matter whether they're sick or not, I've seen them shipped out while they're sick, but they're shipped all over the country, not knowing for sure whether they're violent criminals or not. So then we have people in the country that should never have been allowed in the country.

Refugees that have been allowed in the country, some of whom are violent terrorists, and they've been let in the country, and then when they do some act of violence, we're told, and I know they haven't said these words but basically by the position the administration is taking, they're saying, 'Yep, we've let all of these terrorists, these criminals come into the middle of our country, so all of you law-abiding citizens are going to have to give up your Second Amendment rights because I've let all these terrorists in; we can't let terrorists go in and buy guns so we need to be really restrictive.'

So law-abiding citizens are going to have to give up a big portion of their Second Amendment rights because we've allowed all of these terrorists to be in our country without doing anything to remove them. Yes they've removed some, but there's a massive number they haven't.

As members of Congress, we are supposed to, we take an oath and we are supposed to be defensive against all enemies foreign and domestic. The president is. We owe an oath to the Constitution. Then we see reports that some folks, maybe two-thirds of people who believe in Allah, actually would like to see Sharia law take over the place of our Constitution. You cannot be an American citizen and believe Sharia law should supplant our Constitution.
In case you decided to just skim through that, what Louie Gohmert is essentially saying is that President Obama is currently orchestrating a plot to spread criminals and terrorists throughout the country (especially in the interior) as part of an elaborate ploy to seize guns and help Muslims implement Sharia law. He actually called President Obama an enemy of the United States.

I'm not a mental health professional, but if Gohmert honestly believes what he said, he needs some serious help. To really believe that nonsense isn't healthy. Especially when it's based on absolute delusions. While his words are insane to most of is, they're not at all shocking. In fact, in his little diatribe, he summarized how most conservatives feel about President Obama.

While they might not all be as radical as Gohmert, most of them do seem to view this president as some sort of anti-American radical Islamist who is trying to destroy this country. Then as the Jade Helm nonsense showed us, with people literally burying their guns in their backyards to hide them, even going on seven years into his presidency many Republicans still believe he's going to enact some massive gun confiscation.

Even though the most radical thing the president has even suggested is reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, expanding background checks and banning high-capacity magazines. These aren't exactly radical ideas, unless you're an extremely paranoid individual bordering on mental instability. And the worst part is, this sort of rhetoric is never condemned by Bill O'Reilly, anyone at Fox News, or the GOP.

Here we have a sitting member of Congress essentially accusing the President of the United States of treason, and the depravity of these comments won't get a single condemnation from party leadership. Then again, why would they? It's been this sort of ridiculous rhetoric that's driven the Republican party for the last few years.

And the sad part is most Republicans agree with Gohmert, even though it is insane far-right nonsense.

Tough Talk And A Cowardly Vote On Terrorism
By: Steve - December 8, 2015 - 9:00am

Here is something everyone in America should read, it's a copy of an op-ed published in the NY Times Newspaper:

Investigators now believe that what initially seemed a workplace shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., was a well-planned attack by a married couple with at least some contact with Islamic extremists.

The evolving situation has forced Republican leaders and presidential candidates to contort themselves: talking tough on terrorism, yet ignoring the fact that the two were armed to the teeth with two .223-caliber assault rifles and two 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammo, all purchased legally.

While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.'s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives.

The measure has been introduced repeatedly by Democrats since 2007. The Government Accountability Office has documented that over years of congressional blockage, hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watchlist bought guns.

Another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales to screen out convicted felons and the mentally ill also failed on Thursday. The four Republican senators running for president -- Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham -- all turned up to vote against these common-sense measures.

"If you need proof that Republicans in Congress are hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today's vote," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watchlist measure.

In the hours after the attack in San Bernardino on Wednesday, President Obama specifically mentioned that legislation as an important security measure. "Those same people who we don't allow to fly can go into a store in the United States and buy a firearm, and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed," he said on CBS News. The George W. Bush administration backed the terrorist-list bill in 2007.

No matter. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, issued his party's weak defense of arming potential terrorism suspects on Thursday morning: "I think it's very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can't have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list." Mr. Ryan's Senate colleagues demonstrated that they are more worried about the possibility that someone might be turned away from a gun shop than shielding the public against violent criminals.

Gov. Chris Christie injected more fear: "The president continues to wring his hands and say 'we'll see,' but those folks dressed in tactical gear with semiautomatic weapons came there to do something. We need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war."

From Jeb Bush, a bizarre slam: "The brutal savagery of Islamic terrorism exists, and this president and his former secretary of state cannot call it for what it is."

And Donald Trump, true to his birther views, insinuated that Mr. Obama was hiding something: "Radical Islamic terrorism. We have a president that refuses to use the term. He refuses to say it. There's something going on with him that we don't know about."

Since the Paris attacks, Republicans have been trying to outdo each other in describing how they would crack down on global terrorism. But when a mass shooting at home calls attention to laws that put guns into the hands of suspected terrorists, they ask for a moment of silence, while taking action that speaks volumes.

Fox News Chris Wallace Proves He Is A Biased Republican Hack
By: Steve - December 7, 2015 - 10:00am

On Fox News you can make your own reality and bully some media figures (I will not use the word journalist), as did St. Louis-based radio host Jamie Allman to Fox News host Chris Wallace on Thursday. Wallace was appearing on Allman in the Morning when Allman protested about this:
"It agitates people, like me and my listeners, who are gun owners" that the media uses the term "assault weapon." He added that "people who are gun owners never call, that's not any official name of any weapon out there, an 'assault weapon.'"
And the only people it agitates are right-wing gun nuts, in my 55 years on earth I have never heard one person say they do not like the media using the term assault weapon, not one, ever. And I have also never heard anyone say that using the term assault rifles is wrong, and most people I know who have such weapons call them assault rifles.

Here is what Phillip Peterson Gun Digest Buyer's Guide to Assault Weapons said in (2008):
The popularly held idea that the term assault weapon originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.
Conservatives in some of the media have adopted the false National Rifle Association claim that the term "assault weapon" was invented by proponents of assault weapons bans in order to arbitrarily single out certain firearms for further regulation.

The facts say they are wrong, before the gun industry trade association attempted to rebrand assault weapons as modern sporting rifles in 2009, a change in terminology also adopted by the NRA at the same time, the gun industry and firearm publications routinely used the term assault weapon to describe the military-style semi-automatic rifles that would be covered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban.

Military-style semi-automatic rifles were called assault weapons because that is what gun manufacturers and gun enthusiasts called them. The term has played a key role in the ongoing effort of the gun industry to rebrand and market military-style weaponry to civilians.

Now, as legislation supported by a majority of Americans has been proposed to ban these weapons, the NRA and its gun industry and media allies are using semantics and terminology arguments to downplay the dangers of a class of weapons often associated with mass shootings and law enforcement killings.

But Chris Wallace kissed his arse like the little Fox News punk that he is:
"If that's something that ticks people off because it's so imprecise, and such a kind of cover word that means nothing, I don't want to do that."

He then pledged, "You will not hear the word assault weapon out of my mouth on Sunday. I may fall back into it later, but on Sunday I will be more precise"
I guess we should just call them big pistols. It’s much less threatening. The problem is, these are a specific class of weapons. They are not shotguns. They are not hunting rifles of the traditional variety. They are semi-automatic, can take flash suppressors or muzzle breaks, they use detachable, high capacity magazines, and have folding or collapsible stocks.

It is not those who use the term "assault weapon" who are trying to be misleading. And after all, as pointed out, liberals didn't invent the term; the gun industry did.

The military M-16 is an assault rifle. The AR-15 so popular these days, and used in the San Bernadino shootings, was a precursor to the M-16 and was itself originally developed for the military. Why not call a spade a spade?

And if these things are favored by sportsmen and for home defense, they are also favored by home-grown domestic terrorists.

We cannot make assault weapons go away by calling them something else. All we can do is sanitize the term in order to downplay the dangerous nature of these weapons.

Sure, any gun can kill somebody, but see how far you get taking an old bolt-action rifle into a theater. Even terrifying as a sawed off shotgun is, you won't get many shots off before you're overpowered.

The assault weapon does what the assault weapons is supposed to do. It's just that we should not be allowing it to do that against civilians in our own schools, businesses, and theaters.

I am a gun owner and I support the 2nd amendment 100%, but it does not say you have a right to an assault rifle, and in my opinion, those type of guns should only be sold to the police or the military.

They should also limit magazine capacity to everyone but the military and the police, and they should check on people who buy thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo, and if the NRA and the GOP do not like it, too bad, vote them out of office.

Nobody needs a stash of assault rifles, with high capacity clips, and six thousand rounds of ammo to hunt, or for self defense. And I can guarantee you when the founding fathers added the 2nd amendment to the constitution (they only had cap and ball single shot muzzle loaders btw) and they had no idea that assault rifles would even be invented in the future.

If you let people have an assault rifle, you should have to load it one bullet at a time, then the NRA and the GOP should have no argument to that, but they do, they oppose any change to the gun or the clips, while people are murdered with them every other day.

You Are 7 Times As Likely To Be Killed By Right-Wing Extremist Than Muslim
By: Steve - December 7, 2015 - 9:00am

Here is something you will never hear reported by Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, or any Republican in America. That's because they are too busy using fear of Muslims to scare you for almost no reason. You are even more likely to get hit by lightning than be killed by a terrorist.

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.

Here are some other stats:

-- You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism

-- You are 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism

-- You are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 4 times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist

And your prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other source of injury. Since 9/11, foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States. (Meanwhile, more than 100,000 have been killed in gun homicides and more than 400,000 in motor-vehicle accidents.

Terrorism perpetrated by Muslims receives a disproportionate amount of attention from politicians and reporters, the reality is that right-wing extremists pose a much greater threat to people in the United States than terrorists connected to ISIS or similar organizations.

As UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer explained last June, Islam-inspired terror attacks "accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years."

Meanwhile, "right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities."

Think about that, if you live in America you are 4 times more likely to get hit by lightning than killed by a Muslim terrorist. And if you do not live in a big city like New York, Chicago, etc. it is much less than that.

If you live in a small city of 100,000 people (or less) the odds are almost zero that you will ever be killed or even involved in a terrorist attack. But if you watch O'Reilly or Fox News, they act like there is a terrorist around every corner and you are in constant danger.

When the reality is you should fear cancer and lightning more than Muslim terrorists. Not to mention this, running around scared of things that could possibly happen in the future is no way to live your life. Yes, you should be careful, but if you live a life of fear of terrorism the terrorists have won, and the corrupt media has brainwashed you.

New Poll Shows Trump Supporters Are Literally Stupid
By: Steve - December 6, 2015 - 10:00am

And it also shows that the dumber you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump. These are numbers nobody in the media is reporting, especially O'Reilly, who is good friends with Trump and is trying to help him win.

Here is an embarrassing poll result you will never see Trump or O'Reilly talk about, because it shows that most of his support comes from people who are not very educated. In fact, in both the latest CNN/ORC and Quinnipiac polls you can make a sound scientific correlation that the less educated someone is, the more likely it is that they're a Trump supporter.

In the CNN/ORC poll, only 18 percent of those supporting Trump said they had a college degree. So it's safe to assume that the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to vote Republican, even though that is something the liberals have known for a long time.

While the Quinnipiac poll did not detail the specific demographics based on support, they did break down the favorability ratings by several different demographics, education being one of those. In that poll, only 27 percent of people with a college degree viewed Trump favorably while 67 percent view him unfavorable.

To put those numbers into perspective, Hillary Clinton scored a 50 percent favorability with college graduates while Bernie Sanders scored 49 percent.

These are scientific numbers based on the very same polls, conducted with the exact same methods, about which Trump often brags, and the numbers are consistent over time. Even looking back through older polls, most of his support is comprised of people without a college education.

These numbers clearly prove that Trump supporters, more so than those of any other candidate running for president, are the least educated.

And btw, this should not shock anyone. Trump supporters are a group of people who I have absolutely no respect for. And in my opinion, you have to be a moron to look at Trump and think he is someone who should be the president.

Not only is almost everything he says a lie, he is the closest thing to a fascist dictator we've seen taken seriously as a presidential candidate in history.

Trump is basically a 69-year-old with the mentality of a teenager and the vocabulary of a 4th grader, along with being a hypocrite, a racist, a bigot, a sexist and a liar. He is someone who has went to the top of the GOP presidential leaderboard by pandering to far-right extreme idiots, and he's hoping they will not smarten up anytime soon.

Senate Republicans Vote To Let Terrorists Legally Buy Guns In The USA
By: Steve - December 5, 2015 - 10:00am

Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block a measure that would have prevented individuals on the terror watch list from legally buying guns in the United States.

Politico wrote this:
The first gun control measure proposed by Democrats was legislation from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. The measure failed, 45-54.

The second vote revived legislation from April 2013, written in the aftermath of the shooting deaths of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Conn., with bipartisan backing that would enact universal background checks.

The four Republicans who backed the bill then -- Kirk and Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who co-authored the measure with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) -- also voted in favor of the Democrats plan on Thursday. Heitkamp also opposed the second gun-control measure, which was blocked on a 48-50 tally.
Senate Republicans have now put themselves on record as supporting the right of suspected terrorists to legally buy guns in the United States.

After the vote, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) hammered Republicans for being more afraid of the NRA than terrorists:
The American people want us to act on gun violence. Sadly today Republicans have proven that they are more afraid of the National Rifle Association than of FBI terror suspects buying assault weapons and explosives like those used in the Paris attacks and recent shootings in the United States.

As mass shootings rise and more innocent Americans die, Republicans showed the world that they are too scared of the NRA to take proven, common-sense steps to reduce gun violence.

By doing the NRA's bidding, Republicans ensured that FBI terror suspects -- individuals deemed too dangerous to board an airplane -- can continue to buy assault weapons here in the U.S. Republicans will have no one but themselves to blame if FBI terror suspects get their hands on the type of firearms we saw unleash horrific acts of violence on innocent people in San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Newtown, Fort Hood, Charleston, and Paris.
Reid was 100% right. Republicans are so terrified of the NRA that they won't do anything to prevent innocent Americans from being slaughtered in mass shootings.

And if you vote for any of these Republicans you need to be banned from voting, because you are nuts.

Crazy Rubio Says The USA Is Governed By God Not The Constitution
By: Steve - December 5, 2015 - 9:00am

While most of the attention this election cycle has been given to presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson, several others such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have slowly been inching their way up the polls, solidifying themselves as viable Republican candidates to the Republican voters.

One of those candidates, Marco Rubio, recently professed his belief that the United States is governed by "God's rules," not the Constitution:
"We are clearly called, in the Bible, to adhere to our civil authorities, but that conflicts with also a requirement to adhere to God's rules. When those two come in conflict, God's rules always win.

In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin, violate God's law and sin, if we're ordered to stop preaching the gospel, if we're ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin."
Which should disqualify Rubio from being President, because the Founding Fathers did not want religion to mix with Government.

Rubio believes that any Constitutional right given to Americans that he thinks goes against "God's rule" should be ignored, because "God's rule" supersedes Constitutional law. Those are his own words, he believes it and he stands by what he said.

While that sort of rhetoric isn't exactly new among Republicans, it's still extremely dangerous. The United States isn't (and has never been) a theocracy, but that's exactly what conservatives like Rubio want to turn it into.

They want a nation that ignores our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion in order to force millions of Americans to adhere to religious dogma that they don't believe in.

I think it's also important to point out that this isn't just Marco Rubio pandering to evangelicals for support. He's a Republican who doesn't even support abortion in instances of rape. He honestly believes that if a woman is impregnated following a brutal and violent sexual assault, that she should instantly lose the right to have control over her own body.

It's far-right extreme rhetoric like Rubio's that prompted me to declare that any politician trying to interject religion into our government should be disqualified from running for office.

Our First Amendment explicitly states that Americans have the freedom of religion. This means that any politician who's trying to force their views on others is instantly trying to infringe upon our rights as Americans, thus is not acting in good faith of the oath they took to adhere to our Constitutional law.

So I do not believe they should be allowed to be the President, or hold any public office. That is my personal opinion, but I believe it is an opinion that is valid, and that the majority of Americans agree with me.

This is why I can not say it strong enough how important it is for progressives and liberals to get out and vote in large numbers next November. We can not let Republicans win the White House in 2016.

If we do, not only will that essentially give the GOP power over the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years, but Republicans will undo all the progress we've made over the last few years, potentially setting progressives back decades.

O'Reilly & Kelly Lie About Failed Muslim Surveillance Program
By: Steve - December 4, 2015 - 11:30am

Bill O'Reilly and former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly defended the NYPD's now defunct surveillance program called, "The Demographics Unit" in response to the deadly attacks in San Bernadino, California. Kelly argued that the program foiled sixteen terror plots in New York City, but a report found that the program never produced one viable lead since being adopted.

And btw folks, no Democrats were on as guests for this segment, or the entire show. Mr. Fair and Balanced did the entire show with nothing but right-wing guests.

Bill O'Reilly discussed the San Bernardino attack and NYPD's Muslim surveillance program on the December 3 edition of his show with Kelly. O'Reilly lauded the program claiming "it did work" and said the program was merely about "protecting New York City." Ray Kelly agreed, arguing that the program was "perfectly legal" and insisted that the profiling unit stopped "sixteen plots against New York City."

That sounds good, but there is one problem, they are both lying. O'Reilly ignored Kelly's false claims, instead claiming that current Mayor Bill de Blasio labeled the program as profiling because he was "grandstanding" to his liberal base, which is also a lie.

Because a New York Times report found that the NYPD abandoned the surveillance program because it was completely ineffective. In an April 2014 New York Times report on the profiling program, "the police acknowledged that it never generated a lead," contradicting Commissioner Kelly's claim that the program stopped "sixteen plots against New York City."

The police admitted the program was worthless and nothing but a waste of taxpayer money, and O'Reilly never said a word about it, or had any guests on to provide the counter point, despite saying he has an equal number of Democrats on every show to Republicans.

Moreover, while O'Reilly argued that the program "was all about ... protecting New York City," the ACLU found that NYPD's surveillance program to be "suspicionless," "discriminatory," and "unlawful," and a United Nations report stated that the profiling based on race, ethnicity or religion "may constitute disproportionate interferences with human rights."

In other words, it was illegal, worthless, and unconstitutional, so they shut it down, and those are the real facts.

Even O'Reilly Can Not Find Evidence To Back Up Trumps 9/11 Claims
By: Steve - December 4, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly is a Trump supporter and friend, and even he can not find any evidence that what Trump said about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after the 9/11 attacks is true. Nobody can find it, no videos, no nothing. So it's one more lie from Trump, which adds to the million other lies.

Trump does nothing but lie, when his statements were checked they found that only 7% of what he says is true, and yet he is #1 with Republican voters, what a joke.

Bill O'Reilly has investigated Donald Trump's claim of seeing "thousands" of people celebrating in the streets of New Jersey in the wake of 9/11 and found no evidence to back up Trump's claim.

During Tuesday's episode of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn shared results of their own investigative reporting on the matter.

"There were some Muslims in America happy about the attacks," O'Reilly said. "That has been established beyond a reasonable doubt." But there were not thousands and thousands as Trump has described, Shawn and O'Reilly both concluded.

"There were people in New Jersey, according to the state police, that were investigated (Muslims) who were happy about the 9/11 attack," O'Reilly said. "But not vast numbers of them."

O'Reilly also said that he and his team tried to track down video evidence of celebrations occurring in the United States that Trump claims to have seen, but could not locate any such video after reaching out to every local news station in New Jersey.

O'Reilly's investigation comes on the heels of Fox News anchor Eric Bolling claiming that he too saw video of American Muslims cheering as the World Trade Center fell in 2001, but could not remember where the video was from.

"I remember video, I don't remember if it was Pakistan or Paterson New Jersey. But there was also a lot of talk," Bolling said at a round table discussion on Monday.

Are you kidding me, Bolling said he remembers video, but he does not remember if it was Pakistan or Paterson New Jersey, is he serious, that is ridiculous. I remember video too, it showed Muslims cheering the attack in Pakistan, not New Jersey, which is probably the same video Trump saw.

Trump and Bolling are idiots, and when O'Reilly does not back them up you know it's a lie.

Senate Democrats Propose Bill To Give Seniors Disabled & Veterans A Raise
By: Steve - December 4, 2015 - 10:00am

Senate Democrats are holding Republican feet to the fire with a bill that would give seniors, veterans, and the disabled a raise by eliminating a tax deduction for CEO pay.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Al Franken said this:
We're just one month away from the New Year. 2016 will bring a lot of new things, but one thing it will not bring is a cost-of-living increase for seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities.

Despite the fact that the costs of health care, prescription drugs, and housing are increasing, the size of a Social Security check won't go up one cent on January 1st unless Congress acts.

That's why my colleagues and I have introduced the Senior and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act - or SAVE Benefits Act. The SAVE Benefits Act gives a one-time payment to seniors and veterans receiving their earned benefits so they can better meet their basic living expenses.
And this bill proposes to pay for the one-time increase in Social Security benefits in the same spirit - rebalancing our tax code by ending a tax deduction for CEO pay that doesn't make sense and just allows corporations to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.

CEOs and big businesses will still do just fine under this bill. At the same time, the SAVE Benefits Act will provide critical assistance to Americans struggling to meet their expenses. In fact, this increase in benefits will lift about 8,000 Minnesotans out of poverty, and thousands more in every state.

Ultimately, the debate over this bill comes down to priorities. What's more important? Protecting high pay for the wealthiest Americans or ensuring that seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities have the income security that they need to pay for health care, prescription drugs, and housing?

The group of Democratic senators who are sponsoring the bill includes: Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Republicans are going to reject this bill and show that protecting CEOs and big business is more important to them than the 70 million Americans who would be helped by this cost of living increase.

It is important to note that they are not pushing for a permanent increase. They are only seeking a one-time payment to seniors, veterans, and the disabled. There will be more campaign ads than a person can count airing next year, but the best way to measure the intentions of an incumbent is to look at their actions when they are not up for reelection.

The Republican majority in the Senate has acted in ways that are anti-seniors, anti-persons with disabilities, and anti-veterans.

The Republican Senate majority talks a good game, but when the rubber hits the road, they always choose the interests of their corporate and billionaire backers. And you should remember that when you go to vote in the next election.

Senate Democrats are finally holding the Republicans accountable, and offering them a chance to back up their talk with action. Let's hope that on Election Day, voters will remember when Republicans chose billionaires and corporations over seniors, the disabled, and veterans.

I Have A Couple Questions?
By: Steve - December 3, 2015 - 11:30am

How come the FBI does not take a look at people who buy 6,000 rounds of long gun ammo?

Should the FBI watch someone with a foreign name who bought thousands of rounds of ammo, who also went to Saudi Arabi and was known to talk to terrorists?

If not, why not?

Why are we paying the FBI?

Are these not the people they should be watching?

Could someone in the damn corrupt media ask these questions, I have not heard anyone on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox, ask these questions. And if we do not watch people that buy long guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, why the hell are they not doing it?

Insane Trump Says He Would Kill The Families Of Terrorists
By: Steve - December 3, 2015 - 11:00am

In an interview Donald Trump made the three hosts of Fox & Friends sit in silence for a few seconds after saying something totally crazy. It happened Wednesday morning when Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said he would target and kill the families of terrorists.

"I would knock the hell out of ISIS. I would hit them, Brian, so hard, like they've never been hit before," Trump stated.

Even though we are already doing that, and most military experts say you can not defeat terrorism with military force. In fact, they say just killing them does nothing but making terrorism worse and creates more terrorists.

When Trump was asked how he would address civilian casualties, since ISIS tends to hide out in civilian areas and use civilians as human shields, he went on to suggest that he would bomb these targets anyway because we can't fight a politically correct war. "When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families," he continued. "They care about their lives. Don't kid yourself. But they say they don't care about their lives. You have to take out their families."

The three hosts then sat in silence for a couple of seconds, didn't follow-up or press Trump on the outrageous comment he had just made, then quickly shifted the topic over to immigration.

That's journalism? You get a leading presidential candidate to declare that he thinks we need to kill the families of terrorists - and you quickly change the subject. I would bet the moment of silence by the three Fox & Friends hosts was most likely them listening to producers telling them to quickly change topics after they realized what Trump had just said.

There's no other way to say it anymore - this is pure insanity from Trump. Take out their families?

So, according to what Trump said Wednesday morning, he's now endorsed the idea of murdering women and children. Because, that sure won't make terrorism worse. And this all comes on the heels of Trump suggesting that he would also set up a national database to track Muslims.

Do Not Listen To Bill O'Reilly Or The GOP About Terrorism
By: Steve - December 3, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and the GOP have a simple answer to the terrorism problem, just kill more of them. Even though there is one big problem with that, we have been doing that and it's not working, in fact, it's made things worse.

Now think about this, these are the same people who lied us into Iraq, crashed the economy, and killed jobs. So now we are supposed to listen to them about how to fight the war on terrorism, I don't think so. Especially when we have been killing more of them for 15 years and it is not working.

The more you kill the worse it gets, because it gives them a reason to add more terrorists to their groups. You kill 10, they add 20, so you are losing ground not gaining it.

Military experts even admit you can not wipe out terrorism with military power.

If we want to stop terrorism we should stop supporting terrorists. We are arming the most violent radicals in the Middle East, as part of a stupid geopolitical strategy to overthrow leaders we don't like. And we're overthrowing the moderate Arabs who stabilized the region and denied jihadis a foothold.

The French terrorists who murdered the cartoonists in Paris just returned from waging war against the Syrian government, where they directly or indirectly have obtained U.S. weapons or training.

If we want to stop terrorism, we need to stop supporting the terrorists.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. According to sworn declarations from a 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers.

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis).

And the Saudis - with U.S. support - back the radical "madrassas" in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible for 70 years. In addition, top American terrorism experts say that U.S. support for brutal and tyrannical countries in the Middle east - like Saudi Arabia - is one of the top motivators for Arab terrorists.

James K. Feldman - former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies - and other experts say that foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism.

University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape - who specializes in international security affairs - agrees.

We've fought the longest and most expensive wars in American history, but we're less secure than before, and there are more terror attacks than ever.

Remember, Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country. If we want to stop terrorism, we have to stop overthrowing Arab leaders and invading Arab countries to grab their oil.

Top CIA officers say that drone strikes increase terrorism.

The CIA - the agency in charge of drone strikes - even told President Obama that drone kills can increase terrorism. So if we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop the drone strikes.

We have to stop "throwing new bodies in the river."

But the powers-that-be don't want to change course, they gain tremendous power and influence through our current war on terror strategies. For example, the military-complex grows rich through war, so endless war is a feature - not a bug - of our foreign policy.

Torture was about building a false justification for war. Mass surveillance is about economic and diplomatic advantage and crushing dissent. Supporting the most radical Muslim leaders is about oil and power, "a small price to pay" to try to dominate the world.

A leading advisor to the U.S. military - the Rand Corporation - released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida." The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security.

As a press release about the study states:
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
Melissa Boyle Mahle, a former C.I.A. operations officer said this:
Our intelligence agencies have struck the terrorist group hard, detaining or killing many of its founding leaders. But these are not death blows -- because you cannot decapitate an ideology.

During the last five years, our priority has been to beef up defenses and take the war to the terrorists. It's time to start discrediting Al Qaeda's ideology and offering Muslims nonviolent alternatives.

The first step is to acknowledge that their grievances are legitimate and center on issues of dignity, economic disparity, border disputes and power alignment.

The second is to acknowledge that our current approach is only helping Al Qaeda
The People need to stand up and demand that our corrupt power-hungry leaders stop doing the things which give them more power, and are guaranteed to increase terrorism against us.

The Conservative Media Hypocrisy And Double Standards Are Stunning
By: Steve - December 3, 2015 - 9:00am

Fox News and the rest of the conservative media have tried to execute a sudden about-face following the Planned Parenthood terror attack in Colorado Springs last week. Scrambling for political cover in the wake of the gun rampage and news that alleged shooter Robert Dear likely targeted Planned Parenthood for political purposes, conservative commentators quickly rewrote their long-held talking points about inciting violence.

Here's the spin that the conservative press, along with the Republican Party, is now desperately trying to push: When you call people "baby killers" and "murderers" and claim organizations sell "baby parts" for profit, you're in no way promoting violence.

And you're in no way responsible if a like-minded person takes matters into his own hands, opens fire on a Planned Parenthood facility, shoots eleven people, murders three, and then reportedly makes reference to "no more baby parts" when the carnage is over.

But if a group of black people protest police abuse and racism (by cops who are paid with taxpayer money who are also paid to protect and serve) over white cops shooting and killing young black kids, and then a cop is shot, then those people are to blame for the cop shooting. That's how it works in the conservative media.

For the last year Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and its allies have been warning that rhetoric kills. And specifically, rhetoric from Black Lives Matter activists gets police officers killed. (Even though there's no evidence to support that claim.) And for that, Democrats, including President Obama, are to blame for the so-called made up "war on cops."

So in a matter of just a few days, Fox News has thrown away its established playbook and quickly written a new one where everyone should just chill about incendiary political taunts that are seen as being violent and potentially deadly.

Amidst the Fox News flip-flop, which brand of activist rhetoric is actually producing bouts of targeted violence today? As 2015 unfolds against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter protests, note that the number of officers shot and killed in the line of the duty has gone down this year.

By contrast, Planned Parenthood has experienced a spike in attacks on its facilities and employees this year, most likely the result of a coordinated smear campaign against the organization in the form of duplicitous videos, which kicked off last summer and have been heavily promoted by Fox News and other conservative media.

In fact, rather than producing violence as Fox suggests, Black Lives Matter protesters last week in Minneapolis were the target of gun violence. Four men have been charged in the shooting of five black protesters. Three of the arrested were reportedly fascinated "with guns, video games, the Confederacy and right-wing militia groups."

Fox News has even denounced Black Lives Matter as a "'murder' movement" and compared it to the Ku Klux Klan. It has also blamed the group for inciting violence. In May, after NYPD officer Brian Moore was killed, Fox host Eric Bolling responded by suggesting liberals and their "war on cops" was at fault.

According to Bolling, "The 'anti-cop left' in America seems to be fueling some of this hatred and, you know, murderous streak that's going on against cops."

Even though the facts show that there is no so-called "murderous streak" against cops in this country. And as Vox recently noted, "The goals and message of Black Lives Matter have nothing to do with harming police officers in any way."

In December 2014, following the killings of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, Fox News could not wait to blame the killings on rhetoric. The coverage of the New York killings leaned heavily on assigning a larger cultural, collective blame for activists who protested police misconduct, and Democrats who expressed support for the Black Lives Matter cause.

Today's media contrast is startling. Following the Planned Parenthood attack, Fox News contributor and National Review editor Rich Lowry insisted that a "broad-based movement shouldn't be tarred by the crimes of one individual."

Cop killing was a foreseeable consequence of "violent rhetoric," McCarthy stressed, insisting the New York City cop killer last year was "patently inspired by" police protesters.

Tragically, a policeman was among the victims last week in Colorado Springs. (A total of five officers were shot.) So what has McCarthy written about the anti-abortion "enablers" and the Planned Parenthood shooter being "patently inspired" by protesters?

What's McCarthy's take on the dangerous, "foreseeable" connection between violent rhetoric and cop killing in the wake of the Planned Parenthood terror attack?

The answer is, nothing. McCarthy hasn't bothered to address the issue at National Review. And that's where the conservative media denial comes in.

Keep in mind that Robert Dear's former wife described him as "extremely evangelistic." He was previously seen handing out anti-Obama pamphlets. He reportedly mentioned "no more body parts" after he was arrested. He made "anti-abortion" and "anti-government" comments to investigators. And he arrived at Planned Parenthood with a duffel bag full of guns and ammunition.

Also, this from the New York Times reporting:
One person who spoke with him extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing "God's work."

In 2009, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for the privacy of the family, Mr. Dear described as "heroes" members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings.
The Army Of God is the far-right pro-life group that calls people who kill abortion doctors heroes, and it's the very same group Bill O'Reilly never talks about, as he denies there are any far-right pro-life groups that are violent. They even had a manual on their website that showed how to make bombs etc. to bomb abortion clinics, until it was made public then they removed it.

Right now they have entire pages on their website devoted to people who have killed abortion doctors, they not only call them heroes, they worship them and encourage others to be just like them.

Partisans on the right can pretend the motivation for the killing spree will remain an eternal mystery. But a plausible link obviously exists. As does a plausible link between blood-soaked verbal attacks against Planned Parenthood and the possibility they inspire people to commit violent, and even deadly, acts.

"When Bill O'Reilly compares Planned Parenthood to Nazis," wrote Michelle Goldberg at Slate, "we shouldn't be surprised that some people conclude that taking up arms against it is permissible."

Documents Show Racist Cops In Alabama Framed Black Men For Years
By: Steve - December 2, 2015 - 11:30am

And btw folks, since O'Reilly has blocked my email address I had a friend of mine send this story to him and ask that he report on it, so who wants to bet me he never says a word about it on the Wednesday night Factor show, or ever?

And where is Ben Carson on this story, who claims he has never seen any evidence of racism by white cops against blacks, nowhere to be found, he is silent about it.

Reported by Manny Schewitz:

A story coming out of Alabama which has been published by the Henry County Report is deeply disturbing. According to the publication, police officers in the city of Dothan, Alabama have framed black residents for gun and drug crimes -- then covered it up at the highest levels possible.

This is not just a case of officers failing to report corruption and misconduct. This is an issue of multiple honest officers in Dothan reporting the actions of cops tied to a racist organization back in the late 1990s, only to have the Internal Affairs investigation shelved by the police chief and district attorney.

Via Henry County Report: The Alabama Justice Project has obtained documents that reveal a Dothan Police Department's Internal Affairs investigation was covered up by the district attorney. A group of up to a dozen police officers on a specialized narcotics team were found to have planted drugs and weapons on young black men for years.

They were supervised at the time by Lt. Steve Parrish, current Dothan Police Chief, and Sgt. Andy Hughes, current Director of Homeland Security for the State of Alabama. All of the officers reportedly were members of a Neoconfederate organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels "racial extremists."

The group has advocated for blacks to return to Africa, published that the civil rights movement is really a Jewish conspiracy, and that blacks have lower IQ's than whites. Both Parrish and Hughes held leadership positions in the group and are pictured holding a confederate battle flag at one of the club's secret meetings.

The documents shared reveal that the internal affairs investigation was covered up to protect the officers law enforcement careers and keep them from being criminally prosecuted.

This area of the country is extremely conservative and there are racist groups like the KKK and Neo-Confederates that are still active. There is a large concentration of Neo-Nazis, the KKK and other racist organizations which dot the SPLC's hate map throughout the Southeastern United States, and Alabama is far from exempt.

From 2007 to 2010, I lived a short drive from Dothan, where these alleged incidents occurred. I can attest to the rampant racism that was prevalent in the area, including white restaurant owners who felt no discomfort in dropping racial slurs while shucking oysters at the local bar.

This was in addition to locals who were openly hostile and even threatening to me based on the fact I had no problem voting for President Obama, despite living in what is probably the most conservative area of Florida.

The big problem is that many other officers in Dothan did come forward to report them, and the Internal Affairs investigation was shut down by higher powers. Even though many cities across the country do not employ members of racist organizations like Neo-Confederates, or advance them to high-level law enforcement positions, there are still a number of people like the police officers of Dothan who are working in local and state-level offices.

Our concern should be with helping groups like the SPLC uncover these racists in our government, and then forcing them out of office. Racism is alive and well in the South, and Dothan is apparently the most blatant example of it discovered in recent years.

O'Reilly Still Lying About His Use Of The Words Tiller The Baby Killer
By: Steve - December 2, 2015 - 11:00am

In the aftermath of a deadly shooting attack at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic, Bill O'Reilly defended his previous attacks on Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider who was assassinated by a gunman in 2009.

O'Reilly, who repeatedly referred to the doctor as "Tiller the baby killer" and said there was a "special place in hell" for him, insisted he had "reported accurately" on Tiller.

On November 27, a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing three and injuring nine others. After being taken into custody, the suspect reportedly said, "no more baby parts," referring to a series of deceptively-edited videos released by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, which allege that Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal tissue.

This was the first deadly anti-abortion attack since Dr. Tiller, who notably provided late-term abortions, was shot to death by an anti-abortion gunman in a church in 2009.

On the November 30, 2015 Factor show host Bill O'Reilly (who is also pro-life) argued that Planned Parenthood "is in the baby body parts business and deserves much of the harsh criticism directed toward it."

O'Reilly then exploited the recent shooting to defend his previous attacks on Dr. Tiller, claiming that after Tiller's assassination "some far-left loons blamed me. The truth is, I reported accurately on Tiller."

During the same segment, O'Reilly claimed that "For $5,000 Tiller would terminate any pregnancy for any reason. He was nicknamed 'Tiller the baby killer' by organizations who objected to his gristly practice." While ignoring that what Tiller was doing was legal and that he was found not guilty at his trial, in less than an hour.

March 28, 2009: WICHITA, KAN. -- In a trial watched closely by activists on both sides of the abortion debate, Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas physician accused of performing illegal late-term abortions, was found not guilty Friday. The jury of three men and three women deliberated for less than an hour.

Tiller has been targeted by antiabortion politicians, legal officials and activists for years, but this was the first time he faced a jury. O'Reilly slammed him for illegal abortions, when they were legal, and he proved it at trial, O'Reilly ignored the verdict and claimed the jury was stupid.

In fact, O'Reilly himself repeatedly referred to Dr. Tiller in his own words as "Tiller the baby killer," and as "Dr. Killer," a fact he later denied. On the June 9, 2009 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that it is "a lie" that he "called George Tiller 'Dr. Killer' while covering his murder last week." O'Reilly made the claim while criticizing a San Francisco Chronicle article that reported his reference to "Dr. Killer."

He then added: "Transcripts prove what reporter Joe Garofoli said was false."

In fact, the transcripts show that O'Reilly did lie, and that Garofoli was telling the truth, here is the transcript:
O'REILLY: On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle printed that I called George Tiller "Dr. Killer" while covering his murder last week. That's a lie. Transcripts prove what reporter Joe Garofoli wrote was false.

But the Chronicle will not correct the story -- we asked them to -- which is one of the big reasons it's on the verge of bankruptcy, as well. Readers cannot trust the paper to print the truth, so why buy it?
And it was not just one time, it was over 20 times, here is what the non-partisan politifact wrote about it in 2009, and they gave the O'Reilly denial a false rating.

Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan.

Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death. O'Reilly claimed he never called him Tiller The Baby Killer one time, he said he was only reporting that other people called him Tiller The Baby Killer.

We searched transcripts of The O'Reilly Factor , his show that appears on the Fox News Channel.

We found at least 42 instances of O'Reilly mentioning Tiller by name, going back to 2005. In 24 instances, we found that O'Reilly referred to Tiller specifically as a "baby killer."

Most of the time, O'Reilly would simply refer to Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" or as "Dr. George Tiller, known as Tiller the baby killer" without attributing it to anyone.

We only found four times when O'Reilly said that "some" called him Tiller the baby killer. We did not find any instance where O'Reilly named an individual or a particular antiabortion group that referred to Tiller that way.

And it gets worse. In a 2006 anti-Tiller rant on his radio show, O'Reilly said, "And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech. But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn't get worse."

What O'Reilly described as accurate reporting also included two segments from 2006 and 2007 during which The O'Reilly Factor producers "confront[ed] the doctor known as Tiller the baby killer" and his attorney.

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, an extreme anti-choice organization that "systematically harasses" abortion clinic workers and employs a felon who conspired to bomb an abortion clinic, wrote in his 2014 book Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time that he had helped The O'Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters "locate Tiller gassing his armored Jeep."

In March 2009, after Tiller was acquitted of charges of performing illegal late-term abortions, O'Reilly said that Tiller was "acquitted today of murdering babies ... there's got to be a special place in hell for this guy."

In May of that year, Tiller was assassinated by an anti-abortion gunman while attending a service at his Kansas church.

And now you know that Bill O'Reilly is a serial liar who can not be trusted to report the truth.

Larry Wilmore Calls Out Fox & The GOP For Racist & Anti-Abortion Rhetoric
By: Steve - December 2, 2015 - 10:00am

Larry Wilmore explains Fox News pattern of hyping anti-abortion rhetoric, which has spiked with the release of deceptively edited videos falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal tissue released by the conservative group the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

Fox has repeatedly ignored investigations clearing Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing and has promoted the videos, even go so far as to ask if CMP should receive a Pulitzer Prize.
LARRY WILMORE: I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. You know what I did? I did one of my favorite things. I do this every year, OK. Curl up on the couch, put on a little Fox & Friends, and I get my black holiday cooking tips.


ELISABETH HASSELBECK: You can do this any time of the year. I love that.

HARRIS FAULKNER: You can do this. I do it in the summer. And I put fresh strawberries in here, too.

BRIAN KILMEADE: Do you make Kool-Aid?

FAULKNER: That's another - do I do what?

KILMEADE: Make Kool-Aid.

FAULKNER: No, I don't make Kool-Aid.


WILMORE: No. What are you doing? You don't ask a black woman if she made Kool-Aid for Thanksgiving. For two reasons, by the way. One, because it's racist. And two, because of course she did. Duh. But now she has to lie about it on television.

Making that poor black woman lie on TV. That's wrong. And to make matters worse, her daughter Bella had to watch this drive-by racism up close and personal. Look at her face. That is going to leave an emotional scar. Even Steve Doocy's like, dude, you know we're on TV, right? I mean, I'm not wrong. That was racist, right?

KOOL-AID MAN: Oh yeah.

WILMORE: Thank you, Kool-Aid Man. We've always understood each other, me and Kool-Aid Man.

WILMORE: But, to be fair, it's not odd for a Fox News anchor to bring up Kool-Aid. It's constantly on their minds. Because that's what they're constantly serving people. It's true. Fox and the GOP love making up a big batch of Kool-Aid and doling it out like it's Jonestown.

And they start by pouring a pitcher of factless accusations, add a splash of fearmongering, and then they just stir up the base. This time, it had to do with Friday's tragic [Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic] shooting.

'No more baby parts.' OK now, this could be excused as just a nut uttering some crazy thing. But that sounds very specific. 'No more baby parts.' I mean, almost as if it was served up in an nice cold pitcher of Fox and their friends' Kool-Aid.


BILL O'REILLY: Selling the body parts of aborted babies.

CHARLES PAYNE: Baby parts.


O'REILLY: A dead baby's head.


WILMORE: Okay, so let's review. Since the summer, Fox and the GOP ramped up their rhetoric about baby body parts being sold [by] Planned Parenthood -- the Kool-Aid. Cut to, a guy shoots up a Planned Parenthood, then rants about baby parts. Now, you guys know what Occam's razor is, right?

The simplest explanation is probably the correct one. So do I feel comfortable saying that he was at least partially motivated by the right's demonization of Planned Parenthood?

KOOL-AID MAN: Oh yeah.
This is the same as O'Reilly denying he called Dr. Tiller "Tiller The Baby Killer" even though transcripts show he called him that 24 times. It's all lies from Fox and O'Reilly, they put out all this dishonest racist pro-life garbage and then after someone acts on it they deny it had anything to do with their hate and racist filled daily messages they put out.

As Predicted Hack O'Reilly Slams Planned Parenthood After Shooting
By: Steve - December 1, 2015 - 11:00am

And he lied with far-right talking points while doing it, saying they are in the baby parts business. When in reality, all the do is sell fetal tissue (which is not a body part of a baby) it's tissue and not part of any baby.

Not to mention, they were only selling fetal tissue for medical research, which helped other Americans who are sick, O'Reilly never mentions that, or the fact that they only made enough money to cover their cost, no profit, and they stopped doing it because of the complaints from far-right pro-life idiots like O'Reilly.

So now the medical research teams have less tissue to use for their research. Thanks to lying pro-life jerks like O'Reilly.

O'Reilly basically used the shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic to make a political statement against abortion (that is legal in all 50 states) and against using fetal tissue for medical research. Because he is a religious backwoods right-wing nut.

Real journalist were reporting on the shooting and the right-wing shooter, then again, O'Reilly is not a real journalist. Here is what the biased jerk said.

O'Reilly: "Planned Parenthood Is In The Baby Body Parts Business, And Deserves Much Of The Harsh Criticism Directed Toward It"

BILL O'REILLY: Planned Parenthood is in the baby body parts business, and deserves much of the harsh criticism directed toward it. The situation is reminiscent of the assassination in 2009 of Dr. George Tiller, a late term abortionist in Kansas.

For $5,000 Tiller would terminate any pregnancy for any reason. He was nicknamed "Tiller the Baby Killer" by organizations who objected to his grizzly practice. I reported extensively on Tiller, and after he was assassinated by a named Scott Roeder, some far-left loons blamed me.

The Truth is, I reported accurately on Tiller, whose assistant was stripped of her medical license after the assassination. By the way, Roeder was given life in prison, a well deserved sentence.


O'Reilly said Planned Parenthood blames the shooting on the harsh criticism directed toward it, and that is a lie. They blame the shooting on lies and doctored highly edited videos put out by dishonest pro-life groups, that O'Reilly supports.

Lies that are dishonest about what they do, they are not blaming the criticism, which btw, only comes from far-right pro-life loons like O'Reilly, nobody else cares, because abortion is legal and most people mind their own business and do not try to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Military Chief: Iraq War A Failure That Helped Create ISIS
By: Steve - December 1, 2015 - 10:00am

Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, former U.S. special forces commander in Iraq and Afghanistan who was the country's highest ranking military intelligence official, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.

"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview published Sunday.

"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision."

Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years and was former commander of special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.

"When 9/11 occurred, all the emotions took over, and our response was, 'Where did those bastards come from? Let's go kill them. Let's go get them,'" he said. Instead of determining why the U.S. was attacked by terrorists, Flynn said, the Bush administration was looking at where the terrorists came from and locations to attack.

"Then," Flynn said, "we strategically marched in the wrong direction."

Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 based on sketchy evidence presented by the Bush administration that linked weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organization Al Qaeda to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The fall of Hussein resulted in chaos and led to a power vacuum in the region that terrorist organizations, like the Islamic State, have taken advantage of.

Flynn acknowledged just how wrongheaded the U.S. approach was as evidenced by the country's release of current Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in late 2004. The Pentagon has said that Baghdadi was arrested earlier that year near Falluja, but was released in December along with a large group of prisoners it deemed to be "low-level."

"We were too dumb. We didn't understand who we had there at that moment," Flynn said.

Flynn, who, before retiring most recently served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency upon being nominated to the position by President Barack Obama.

In a recent interview Flynn took aim at Obama's publicly stated goals to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State, saying that while the administration is effectively degrading the organization, the group cannot be "destroyed."

"We may cause it to change its name, but we are never going to destroy this organization," Flynn said. "Destroy means to completely eliminate -- he should not have used those words, those were incorrect words to use and he should have been more precise."

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: