Trump Abruptly Cancels Black Clergy Press Conference
By: Steve - November 30, 2015 - 11:30am

After prematurely announcing the endorsements of 100 black pastors -- prompting several to protest they were not, in fact, supporters - Donald Trump's campaign abruptly cancelled a press conference with the group scheduled for Monday afternoon at Trump Tower.

The botched endorsement rollout represents an embarrassing setback for a campaign struggling to combat the perception that its candidate is racially divisive.

The cancellation comes on the heels of an incident last weekend in which a Black Lives Matter protester was manhandled at a campaign rally in Alabama. Trump responded to the incident by suggesting "Maybe he should have been roughed up" and later tweeted a chart that featured a menacing depiction of a black gunman and statistics that overstated the percentage of white murder victims killed by blacks.

So let's have a reality check, if any of them endorse Trump you can bet they are Republicans.

Ohio pastor Darrell Scott, Trump's unofficial liaison to the black evangelical community and an organizer of Monday's meeting, said those incidents have intensified scrutiny of black faith leaders who may otherwise support Trump. He chalked up the premature announcement of endorsements and subsequent cancellation of the press conference to a miscommunication with Trump's campaign staff.

Yeah right, as usual Trump was caught in a lie and now he is trying to spin his way out of it with political damage control.

According to a Trump insider, a group of about 40 pastors was prepared to endorse the candidate following Monday's meeting but the final number of invitees swelled to over 100. Faith leaders who joined after the initial group were less committed to endorsing Trump -- and some of those invited actually opposed his candidacy. Finding themselves under fire within black religious circles, several came out to say they do not plan to endorse him.

Others signaled privately that they will not make a final decision before meeting with the candidate.

The campaign originally announced the press conference in a press release on Wednesday, writing, "Trump will be joined by a coalition of 100 African American Evangelical pastors and religious leaders who will endorse the GOP front-runner after a private meeting at Trump Tower."

But some of those listed as invitees quickly took to social media to condemn the billionaire businessman. Detroit pastor Corletta Vaughn called Trump "an insult and embarrassment" in a Wednesday Facebook post.

On Friday, Los Angeles-based Bishop Clarence McClendon announced that he would not attend the meeting, writing on Facebook, "The meeting was presented not as a meeting to endorse but as a meeting to engage in dialogue." Bishop Paul Morton of Atlanta tweeted, "I was asked 2 meet with Mr. Trump too but I refused because until he learns how to respect people you can't represent me thru my endorsement."

It was a bait and switch, they said we want to meet with you, then Trump said they were all going to endorse him. When they heard about it some of them said it was not true, so the lying coward Trump cancelled the meeting.

Also on Friday, over 100 black religious readers condemned Trump in an open letter published by Ebony Magazine, calling on black clergy preparing to endorse him to reconsider their support.

And of course Trump never said a word about that, I would also bet anything that the only black pastors who will endorse Trump are Republicans.

Amid the furor, the campaign canceled the public portion of the event. The private meeting will go forward as planned, and Scott said that the guest list has continued to grow in recent days. Even as some pastors drop out, he said he expects the total attendance to exceed 100.

It is not clear how many endorsements Trump will receive following the meeting.

Let's Tell The Real Truth About Why Donald Trump Is Leading the GOP
By: Steve - November 30, 2015 - 11:00am

The media should be about one thing above all else: Reporting truth and facts. Such as the bigotry, racism and ignorance that's a big part of the Republican party.

I am sick of watching so-called political experts sit there on television trying to break down why Trump has become the overwhelming leader among the GOP candidates.

They know the real reason why. And it's not because he is an outsider. Carly Fiorina is an outsider, and she is polling at 3 percent. It's not because he's tapping into an anger many Americans have toward the status quo government. And it sure isn't because he's qualified to lead this country.

The real reason Trump has risen as high as he has is because he is pandering to the bigotry, racism and ignorance that runs rampant among many conservatives, especially those who are in the tea party. When he called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, his star didn't rise because some Americans are frustrated with our immigration system. O'Reilly knows it, but he never says it, because he is one of them and he does not want Hillary to win.

Trump got to #1 with conservatives because most conservatives oppose immigrants. They believe that Mexican immigrants are nothing but savages coming here to take our jobs and drive up crime. This is not about a genuine concern from the right about how to rationally deal with illegal immigration. This is about the deep-seated disdain many conservatives have toward immigrants, especially the ones who don't happen to be white.

Trump's rise is as much about his false bravado and idiotic fake machismo as it is about bigotry and racism. From trying to bully any journalist who dares to call out his lies, to sexist attacks on reporters and other women, all the way to mocking a writer with disabilities, his disgusting tirades feed right into the hands of those who think being offensive is some kind of slap in the face to political correctness.

When the truth is, Trump is a 69-year-old wealthy right-wing white man with the temperament and maturity of a 5 year old child. He got to the top of the polls with the far-right by using racism against blacks, mexicans, and now muslims, and that is a fact.

When Trump shares a blatantly racist graphic based on fake crime statistics trying to paint African-Americans as murderous monsters, it's meant to appeal to the racism that drives a lot of conservatives, because that’s the sort of lies and nonsense they want to believe. It doesn't matter if it's true to them, because most Trump supporters could care less about the truth.

And neither does Trump. Following the terrorist attack in Paris, Trump realized it was his moment to seize on the anti-Muslim bigotry that's not only accepted among many conservatives, it's embraced among them. That's why he immediately began talking about databases to track Muslims and making up ridiculous lies about thousands and thousands of people celebrating in the streets of New Jersey.

And it doesn't matter if these celebrations never happened, because many conservatives will believe Trump no matter how many people fact-check him and prove he is lying. Even if there is not a shred of evidence (anywhere) to support his lies, they still believe him.

Why? Because it's what they want to believe. Just like the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor, I would bet 80% of what O'Reilly says is either lies or spin, but he bills himself as this non-partisan Independent who is fair and balanced in a no spin zone, and his brainwashed viewers buy it. Even though it has been proven that most of what he says is wrong, a lie, or spin. They believe him because they believe what they want to believe.

Want more proof? Anyone with any common sense knows the birther/Muslim nonsense that followed President Obama for 6 years has been based on racism. Well, guess who's a birther? Donald Trump. Someone who began building his current base of conservative support upon pandering to the crazies who think the president is a Muslim who faked two forms of his birth certificate.

It's no surprise that almost 70% of Trump supporters think President Obama is a Muslim. Trump is the most fascist-like presidential candidate we have ever seen, and yet he's embraced and adored by millions of conservatives. But to listen to many within the mainstream media talk about Trump's rise, they act like they do not know why he is doing so well.

They use the generic talking points about the appeal of an outsider, the dissatisfaction with government or whatever other drivel they feel like saying to avoid the harsh and obvious truth: Donald Trump's rise to the top of the Republican presidential leaderboard is the living, breathing proof of the bigotry, hate, racism and overall ignorance that's a big part of the Republican party.

It's the dirty little (not so) secret about the Republicans, that they have a lot of racists in the party, they just refuse to admit it, and it's about time more of the mainstream media starts calling them out. If there were not so many racists in the Republican party, Trump would be in last place with conservatives at maybe 1 percent.

He is only at #1 because he is playing the racism card, and that is a fact the media will not admit or report on. Everyone knows it is true, and yet, they just will not report it. Trump is a racist birther, and the conservatives love him for it. They are the voters in the GOP primary, and that is who he appeals to, and he knows it, that is why all he talks about is mexicans, blacks, and muslims, and it's all lies.

Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists
By: Steve - November 30, 2015 - 10:00am

You can't promote violence and then act surprised when it really happens.

An abortion rights leader is calling out anti-abortion activists who spread lies about -- or incite violence against -- abortion providers, then act appalled when violence actually transpires.

Ilyse Hogue, president of advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, derided two anti-abortionists in the wake of Friday's shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood that left three people dead and nine injured.

"The language you choose matters," she wrote in a Saturday night Facebook post. "You are not free from the judgement of the consequences of your hate-filled rhetoric."

She specifically mentioned David Daleiden and Troy Newman.

Daleiden is the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, the anti-abortion group responsible for heavily manipulated videos that purport to show Planned Parenthood doctors talking about selling fetal parts for profit, and altering their abortion methods so as to leave fetuses intact.

Newman, the president of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, advocated for doctors who provide abortions to be "executed" in his book, published in 2000.

"You don't get to create fake videos and accuse abortion providers of 'barbaric atrocities against humanity' one day and act shocked when someone shoots to kill in those same facilities," she wrote.

She also accused Newman of crying "crocodile tears" now that someone has taken his "vision into his own hands."

Though police have not officially disclosed a motive for the Friday attack, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press that gunman Robert Dear said "no more baby parts" after his arrest.

Republicans Still Silent After Planned Parenthood Attack
By: Steve - November 29, 2015 - 11:30am

Over 10 hours after the shooting had taken place, not a single one of the 14 Republican presidential candidates had tweeted any condolences, concerns, or thoughts of solidarity with the victims of the Planned Parenthood shooting.

On Saturday morning, Texas Senator Ted Cruz finally broke the GOP silence, by tweeting this:
Praying for the loved ones of those killed, those injured & first responders who bravely got the situation under control in Colorado Springs.
As of 11:00am Sunday morning none of the 13 other GOP hopefuls had mentioned the Planned Parenthood shooting.

It is telling that members of the Republican Party who are eager to denounce the first sign of violence at a black lives matter protest, and who go into a tweeting frenzy over terrorist attacks launched by Muslims, are silent when terror strikes home at a women's health clinic.

Many of the Republicans refuse to even stand with Planned Parenthood workers and their families when they are victims of a murderous unprovoked assault on their clinic. Supposed moderates like Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie should be embarrassed that they got shown up on the compassion scale by Ted Cruz, of all people, who though he was a bit slow, at least had the decency to post some concern for the victims of the attack.

Bush, Kasich and Christie, however, are probably well aware that if they are going to try to win over Iowa evangelical GOP voters, they must not appear too upset about the Planned Parenthood killings, so they and most of their fellow GOP candidates cower in silence, at a time when the courage to speak up is needed.

O'Reilly & The Gop Partly To Blame For Planned Parenthood Attack
By: Steve - November 29, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly is 100% pro-life, as is most of the Republican party. They somehow feel they have the rights to tell women what to do with their body, and they oppose all abortions, so if you disagree with them and you actually support freedom (even for women who want a legal abortion) you are a bad person and the enemy.

I am pro-choice, because I believe in freedom in a free country, I just dont say I do. Real freedom is to leave women alone and mind your own business, you have no right to tell a woman if she can have an abortion or not, especially when abortion is legal. It is none of your business what a woman does with her body, period.

Abortion should not even be a political issue, because it is legal and nobody should even be talking about it. The far-right pro-life nuts make it an issue, when it should not be, and they use lies, fear, and violence, even killing to support their insane cause. If you are reading this right now and you are pro-life, you need to think about what a hypocrite you are.

You claim to be pro-life, but you support the death penalty. So your pro-life position only counts for unborn babies? How the hell does that make sense?

Why do you think it is any of your business to tell a woman you are not related to, and do not know, what she can or can not do with her body. How is it your business? And how can you claim to be pro-life when you support the death penalty.

There was a domestic terrorist attack at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs a couple days ago. Three people were confirmed dead, including one police officer. The suspect, who was taken alive, is a white male that carried out his attack with an AK-47 assault rifle. All signs point to right-wing terrorism, an issue that Bill O'Reilly and the GOP cannot bring themselves to admit exists.

I want to know why the GOP refuses to address recent incidents in the United States as "racist attacks" or "right-wing terrorism." They barely mention it, let alone admit it is right-wing terrorism.

The shooting was an attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic by a white man, not a Muslim or a Syrian refugee. The Black Lives Matter shooters in Minneapolis were radicalized via racist forums online, and we wait to see what the full story behind the Planned Parenthood killer was. Reports say he said he was there to end the selling of baby parts, and that he also spoke bad of President Obama. Which is right out of the GOP talking points memo.

These are not isolated incidents. While much of the attention recently has been on the massacre in Paris by ISIS terrorists, there is a long history of violence and murder in the United States by radical and racist groups going back at least to the Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s.

It should not be any surprise that this shooting comes after months of a renewed smear campaign by Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and the GOP against Planned Parenthood which is based on heavily-edited and false videos produced by the far-right pro-life group Center For Medical Progress.

This organization has been tied to the Operation Rescue organization, a radical group which has a long history of harassing abortion providers and women's healthcare centers.

Many of them feel that shooting healthcare professionals, engaging in harassment or vandalism including arson are justifiable. Planned Parenthood offers a number of healthcare services, and abortions are a very small percentage of what they do. That hasn't stopped the pro-life right-wing nuts who have ramped up their campaign against Planned Parenthood since 2010 when Republicans gained control of Congress.

Why can't the GOP refer to attacks like these as right-wing terrorism and demand their followers denounce violence, just as they've demanded President Obama use the phrase "radical Islam" when referring to ISIS? The answer is simple. If Republicans make this demand, they'll be seen as traitors to the far right who believe violence against a woman's right to choose is justified.

Some pro-life websites I have looked at even promote and praise it, they call guys who shoot abortion doctors heroes, and honor them with whole sections of their website devoted to these killers. One website called "Army of God" does that very such thing, and O'Reilly never even mentions them. They worship guys who shoot and kill abortion doctors, they say they are doing Gods work, which is just sick.

And these are the same people who think it's ok for a young black man to be shot for resisting the police, while they make excuses for the Planned Parenthood shooter who killed a cop and wounded four other members of law enforcement.

O'Reilly says the Black Lives Matter protesters promote violence against the police, then they deny the pro-life groups and all the trash talk about Planned Parenthood leads to violence against abortion clinics, are you kidding me.

And there is a big difference between the Black Lives Matter people protesting police abuse by cops who are paid with taxpayer money to protect and serve, and a group of pro-life nuts who kill abortion doctors because they do not like women getting legal fricking abortions.

O'Reilly ignores it and excuses it because he is also a pro-life nut. Not once has he mentioned the Army of God, not once has he slammed them for what they do, and not once has he slammed any pro-life group, because he is one of them. Then on top of that he promotes the lies and edited videos that dishonest pro-life groups put out, as if they are valid, when they are not.

He called Dr. Tiller (Tiller The Baby Killer) a hundred times on his show, then Dr. Tiller was killed by a pro-life nut, and O'Reilly denied it had anything to do with him, when it did. Then he blames the Black Lives Matter group when a cop is shot, because they protest police abuse, how ridiculous is that?

Where Are Bill O'Reilly & The GOP On Gas Prices Now
By: Steve - November 29, 2015 - 10:00am

Remember when gas prices were over $3.00 a gallon about a year and a half ago in May of 2014, the average price was $3.68 a gallon. Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans went nuts, they talked almost every day about the high gas prices and how it was all Obama's fault. O'Reilly did numerous talking points memos and full segments on it, and he mentioned it almost every day, as a measure of how bad a President Obama was.

Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the Republican party, and all the Republicans running for President made a career out of slamming Obama for the high gas prices. It was non-stop 24/7 attacks on Obama as if he were to blame for the high gas prices.

Now it's a whole different story in November of 2015, gas prices are under $2.00 a gallon, yes I said under $2.00 a gallon. As of today gas is $1.68 a gallon here in East Peoria Illinois. But O'Reilly, the Republicans, and the Republicans running for President are silent, not a word. They are silent because they can not use the price of gas as a dishonest political tool to attack President Obama.

And Bill O'Reilly is as guilty of it as anyone in the Republican party, even though he claims to not be one of them (when we know he is) and he uses the exact same attacks and talking points the Republicans use.

The fact of the matter is, the president has little control over gas prices, and any politician who says otherwise is lying through their dishonest teeth. This is about the stunning hypocrisy from Republican and right-wing media detractors over the volatile price of gas during the Obama and Bush administrations.

During the summer of 2008, when Bush was still in office, the average cost of a gallon of gas was over 4 dollars, which is the high mark for gas prices under the Bush and the Obama administrations.

Point that out to your favorite Bush-loving, Obama-hating friend and be prepared to argue. They will say there is no way the prices were higher under Bush than they have been under that socialist commie tree-hugging Obama. That is what they say. But they are wrong, and the facts are on your side.

The Bush Recession started in the fall of 2008, with Bush still in office, this crashed the U.S. economy. So then gas prices crashed, the same way the housing and stock markets crashed. So while it is technically correct that gas prices were low when President Obama stepped into the White House, they were only at that level thanks to the economic crash at the end of the Bush administration.

Now Guess who was not blaming President Bush for the record high gas prices during the summer of 2008?

If you guessed Republicans, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly, you are right on all three counts.

According to them, it was market forces at work, and if we were to start riding bicycles to work instead of driving our 10 mpg Suburbans, then the prices would fall. Not a word was said about drilling for oil on federally owned land, building pipelines, or President Bush forcing the prices higher so Americans could demand green energy as an alternative to using gas.

O'Reilly even said it was a crisis, but never once blamed it on Bush:



Fast forward to 2012, when prices were high again, approaching four bucks per gallon. But instead of George W. Bush, President Obama is in office. Was Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the GOP/Fox News gang busy scolding Americans for driving gas-guzzling SUVs to work instead of furiously peddling Schwinns down America's beltways? Of course not, because Obama was in office.

And that was not the only time O'Reilly blamed President Obama for high gas prices, or was he the only member of the Fox News/GOP gang doing so back in 2012.

House Majority Leader John Boehner urged his colleagues to use the rising gas prices against the Obama administration, citing the lack of an energy policy and blaming environmentalists for it.

Then there was Mr. 47%, Mitt Romney, who has earned a reputation for playing both sides of the fence rather deftly, simultaneously blaming President Obama for high gas prices while sidestepping a pledge to bring down prices to a certain level had he won the 2012 presidential election.

Tea Party darling Allen West even wrote a sarcastic article that he would prefer to be jettisoned at this point. West mocked the fact that the price of gas had dropped four cents to a still-high $3.67 per gallon and insinuated that the high prices were all President Obama's fault.

After all, if West and his cohorts are going to blame the president for high gas prices, should they not give him credit when the prices drop? What's fair is fair, after all, even as we acknowledge that President Obama doesn't deserve credit for the low cost of gas any more than he was to blame for the past high prices.

And that is my main point, when gas prices were high O'Reilly and the GOP blamed Obama, but when they are low, they go silent and do not give him credit for the low prices. He can not be to blame for high prices, if he is also to blame for low prices.

But O'Reilly and the GOP only slam him when prices are high, to score cheap political points, when they know they are being dishonest. But when prices drop to record lows they say nothing, and do not give Obama credit for the low prices.

O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing fraud, and he uses the right-wing talking points lies put out by the GOP as if he is a Republican member of Congress. Then he denies he uses them, as he is using them, word for word. And he hopes someone will believe him when he says he is not a Republican and never uses their talking points.

Well I am here to tell him that nobody believes anything he says, but the but the 2.5 to 3.2 million fools who watch his dishonest and biased show. To the rest of the country and the world, Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased right-wing hack.

In fact, I get emails all the time from people in foreign countries asking me how we let the lying O'Reilly have a show on the air here when all he does is lie. I write them back and tell them he has free speech and he has a right to lie, and I tell them not to worry about him because only 1% of Americans watch his garbage, so he is just preaching to his own believers.

O'Reilly claims to be fair and balanced, to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, and it's all a lie, it's a meaningless slogan. There is not a word you can trust on the Factor, from the average Republican, or any Fox News host. In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for them to give Obama any credit for the low gas prices, or the economy, or jobs, or health care, etc.

Fox Analyst Slams Trump For Lies About Muslims In NY On 9/11
By: Steve - November 29, 2015 - 9:00am

He pretty much admits Trump is lying, and says the reason they fact-check him is because he lies a lot, and this is coming from a Republican who works for Fox News.

Fox's Stephen Hayes Blasts Trump's False Claim That Thousands Of Muslims Celebrated 9/11

Hayes: "The Reason Donald Trump Is Fact Checked...Is Because He Says Things That Are Factually Not True"



Partial transcript:

STEPHEN HAYES: I think people are looking for moral clarity and they're looking for somebody who is not sort of living their life or having these arguments in the nuances. And if that describes anybody, it describes Donald Trump. Unfortunately I think in situations like this, you know, he's fact checked for a reason. He's fact checked because he got the facts wrong.

There were not, in fact, thousands and thousands of people in Jersey City cheering. And the The Washington Post article that he tweeted out doesn't actually support that contention. It's a different thing altogether.

Now that doesn't mean that there weren't maybe these tailgate parties, although the author of the The Washington Post story at the time has started to walk that back a little bit. But, the reason Donald Trump is fact checked as often as he is, is because he says things that are factually not true. That's part of the problem.

-------------------------------------------

Now when Hayes says Trump says things that are factually not true, it is a kind way of saying Trump is a liar who tells a lot of lies. And that is backed up by facts, the non-partisan fact-checking website politifact has looked at a bunch of statements Trump has made and they say only 7% of what he says is true.

No GOP Presidential Candidates Have Responded To The Planned Parenthood Shooting
By: Steve - November 28, 2015 - 11:50am

Not a one, but if Obama and the Democrats do not respond instantly to terrorism by Muslims, the very same GOP candidates slam them for it. This is terrorism by a white man at an abortion clinic, and the GOP candidates are silent.

24 hours after a gunman went on a shooting rampage at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, only two presidential candidates have issued statements expressing support for either the three victims or the women's health organization.

Of the candidates running for President, only former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have put out public statements in response to the massacre, which lasted approximately five hours and resulted in the deaths of one police officer and two civilians.

As of Saturday afternoon, none of the 14 Republican candidates had mentioned the shooting.

But, some candidates tweeted about other topics as details of the shooting unfolded Friday evening. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), for example, sent out a tweet about his campaign merchandise. Donald Trump tweeted about his polling numbers and how he "cannot be bought."

Shortly after the shooting suspect was apprehended, Trump also released a statement insulting a New York Times reporter he had made fun of earlier in the week. The reporter suffers from a physical disability, but nothing about the abortion clinic shooting in Colorado.

President Obama weighed in early Saturday, angrily decrying the frequency with which mass shootings have occurred in recent years and calling for legislative action on gun control.

"This is not normal. We can't let it become normal. If we truly care about this -- if we're going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience -- then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough," he said.

"May God bless Officer Garrett Swasey and the Americans he tried to save -- and may He grant the rest of us the courage to do the same thing."

Bill O'Reilly has also not said anything about it, he did not put out a statement or call in to any Fox shows to slam the shooter, and Fox News barely covered the shooting. They reported on it for a little while then cut away and went back to their regular programming, while CNN and MSNBC covered it much longer.

And btw, Bill O'Reilly is a far-right pro-life nut who is opposed to all abortions and supports the GOP 100% on the abortion issue for religious reasons, he even calls abortion killing babies, when he knows that is a lie and that the Supreme Court ruled an abortion is not killing a baby. They ruled it is not a baby until after it could live on it's own outside the womb, which O'Reilly and the right disagree with.

They argue that all abortions are killing babies, even though the law says it is not, and they are the very same people who claim we must follow the laws or we have chaos. They also claim to believe in freedom and yet, they try to tell a woman what to do with her body, and tell her if she can have a child or not, when that is not freedom and it is none of their business.

More Chicago Cop Shooting Info O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 28, 2015 - 11:30am

Here is more to the story of the Chicago cop shooting the black kid 16 times, and of course Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of it, while slamming blacks for being black and getting shot by the police.

Burger King Manager Told Grand Jury Of Gap In Laquan McDonald Video

Minutes after 17 year old Laquan McDonald was shot 16 times by Officer Jason Van Dyke on a Southwest Side street, several police officers entered a Burger King located just yards from where the teen fell, demanding to view the restaurant's password-protected surveillance video, Jay Darshane, a district manager for the fast-food chain, told the Tribune this week.

When the police left the restaurant almost two hours later, the video had an 86-minute gap that included when McDonald was shot, according to Darshane.

The equipment had been in perfect working order for weeks before the shooting, Darshane said. But the next morning, Burger King discovered the 86-minute gap when investigators with the Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates police shootings, sought to make a DVD copy of the surveillance video.

Missing was any footage from 9:13 p.m. to 10:39 p.m., Darshane said.

When the video system kicked back on, it recorded two police officers in the Burger King office who appeared to be looking at something on the monitor over and over, according to Michael Robbins, an attorney representing McDonald's family.

None of this was ever mentioned by Fox News, or Bill O'Reilly. It shows corruption and obstruction of justice, by the police. And O'Reilly ignores it all, proving his bias and his lack of journalism ethics.

Chicago Protester Tells Hannity Why They Protest Cops Shooting Blacks
By: Steve - November 28, 2015 - 11:00am

Protester: "It Becomes A Problem When You Can't Even Call 911 And Feel Like You're Safe"

Think about it, how would you feel if you were scared to call 911 because you are afraid you might do something wrong in the cops view, and be killed by the very same police you called to help you. That is a real fear a lot of blacks have, and the a-hole right-wing nut Sean Hannity even admitted the guy makes a good point.

He also makes another good point, crime is going to happen almost everywhere, and there is a big difference in a citizen shooting another citizen, from the police shooting citizens, who they are paid with taxpayer money to protect. And the cops do not even get fired, the cop in chicago who shot the black kid was not even fired, they kept the video secret and paid the cop his salary until a week ago.

Here is the video:



Partial transcript:

SEAN HANNITY: Hey Mike, I have a question for your guest. Can I ask a question?

MIKE TOBIN: Go ahead, Sean.

HANNITY: I want to ask him. There have been 818 murders in Chicago from 2014 through November 2015. We've had 4,224 people shot, shooting incidents in Chicago in that time frame. Ask him if he can name one person who was shot or one person who was killed.

MIKE TOBIN: Well, someone in New York, Sean Hannity, is asking, of all the people who have been gunned down in the streets of Chicago, gang violence, black on black violence, other than Tyshawn Lee, can you name anyone?

BRENDAN GLOVER (PROTESTER): I go by basically what I see on the news. The most disturbing thing I've seen this summer was the Tyshawn Lee situation. For that to be a child and for somebody to do that is very disturbing. This situation strikes home to me with Laquan because that could have been me, my little brother, one of my friends. And the fact that we don't feel safe with the police around, they're here to serve and protect. And the fact that I don't feel safe around police, it's disturbing.

TOBIN: Essentially the question he's getting to is why is there not the outrage when there's black on black violence?

GLOVER: Because crime is going to happen, wherever you go. Crime happens. And the people that are here to serve and protect are a part of that problem. So it becomes a problem when you can't even call 911 and feel like you're safe to protect you from people that are committing crimes. That's the point I'm try to make.

TOBIN: Thank you. I thank you for making the point. That's one of the distinctions we've heard from people like Mr. Glover here is there's a difference when you have someone who is paid by your taxes to protect and serve and that person is out there charged now for doing something quite heinous, Sean.

HANNITY: That's a good distinction. I'll say that.

--------------------------------------------

Hannity wanted the protester to name one person who was shot or one person who was killed in Chicago from 2014 to 2015. Which is just insane, what does that have to do with anything. How would he know that information, or why should he, if the media does not report it and he does not see that reporting he would not have a clue who was shot or killed in the city he lives in.

I do not watch the local media, or much of the national media, so I would not have a clue what the name is of anyone killed in the city I live in. And what the hell does that have to do with white cops shooting and killing black men and black kids?

What does that have to do with a white cop putting 16 bullets in a 17 year old black kid, when 8 other cops were already on the scene and they did not shoot anyone, not one shot was fired by anyone but one cop. The question Hannity asked is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with the story of blacks protesting white cops who keep killing them.

Crazy Ben Carson Does Not Believe There Are Police Racial Problems
By: Steve - November 28, 2015 - 10:00am

This alone proves he can not admit reality, which is not the kind of person who should ever be the President, or hold any elected office.

Speaking to a bipartisan group of black lawmakers and community leaders on Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said he has yet to see evidence that black men and women are being disproportionately targeted by law enforcement.

During the 2020 Club's Presidential Justice Forum at Allen University, a historically black university in Columbia, South Carolina, Carson said that he's not convinced that there are racial biases in policing or that law enforcement singles out African Americans.

"I'm not aware of a lot of cases where a police officer comes up to someone like you and says 'Hey, I don't like you. I'm going to shoot you,'" he said to moderator Jeff Johnson from Black Entertainment Television. "I'm still waiting for the evidence."

Johnson quickly responded: "I'll show you the Tamir Rice tape," to loud applause from the black audience.

Rice's death is just one recent example of systematic biases within police departments. Studies conducted in labs show that police are considerably slower to press the don't shoot button for an unarmed black man than they are for an unarmed white man.

They are also faster to shoot an armed black man than an armed white man. And recent evidence shows that police in departments across the country are more likely to stop and approach black members of the community.

When presented with evidence of these biases, Carson appeared to change his tone, saying that police who kill unarmed black men should be swiftly brought to justice. But he could not name any policies he'd promote as president to change the systematic violence inflicted by police against black people.

"Whenever something like that happens, there must be swift justice," he said when asked what he'd do about the fact that more than 30 unarmed black men and women have been killed by police this year. "If there is a situation where you have a rogue policeman who does something like that, that needs to be publicized and they need to be punished to the severest extent of the law."

When pressed by a reporter about what policies he'd push to prevent the recurrence of police violence, whether it's body cameras or improved police training, he refused to name concrete proposals.

"One policy that I would encourage is whenever an instance like this happens, the very fact that I've only heard about one of them but there's a whole bunch of them you're saying, that's wrong," he said. "We should all know about this and they should be made into a big deal, not only for the community but for the police department."

"When you are given the authority and you are given a gun, that carries a tremendous responsibility and anybody who abuses that should be the dredge of the earth," he continued.

So let me get this straight, because Carson claims to be clueless about racism by white cops against blacks and he says he has only heard about one case, that means he would do nothing to stop it? That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard from anyone, and this guy wants to be the President, now that's funny.

Someone should ask Carson this, because you do not know about the thousands of fires that burn houses down every year, does that mean you would not have fire departments? It's ridiculous, and Carson is a joke. If anyone votes for this fool you are insane.

Activists with Black Lives Matter have been attempting to make victims of police shootings become well-known names. But Carson has disparaged the group, calling it silly and sickening.

When asked about the movement during Saturday's Q&A, he said activists should really be focusing on the black lives that are lost at abortion clinics. Which totally ignores the whole story of white police abusing their power and being racists to blacks, while also not answering the question.

O'Reilly's All White Panel Claims Black Men Are The Problem
By: Steve - November 27, 2015 - 11:00am

After an officer accused of fatally shooting a Chicago teen 16 times in October 2014 was charged with first-degree murder Tuesday, O'Reilly does a segment on the Factor with all white guests. Do they slam the cop, or the police department for hiding the video for over a year, and slam the cop for racism.

Haha, are you kidding me, this is Bill O'Reilly. Instead of doing what an honest journalist would do, he has an all white panel on to claim black men are to blame, for what? I guess being black.

The segment should have been about a white cop murdering a black kid, instead O'Reilly used it to claim all black men are out of control, and not one black guest was on to debate it.

Hey O'Reilly, where is that fair and balanced no spin zone you speak of, how is that fair or balanced, or a no spin zone.

And btw, here is a fact O'Reilly never once mentioned. The city has paid $5 million to the McDonald family, before they even filed a lawsuit. That is taxpayer money folks, your money. And yet, O'Reilly has no outrage about that, and no mention of it.

Instead he says the problem is black men, not the racist white cops who kill black kids and men. And he does this while claiming to be a fair and balanced Independent. It's a joke, and O'Reilly is a fraud.

Hours after Chicago police released video of an officer shooting Laquan McDonald, Bill O'Reilly hosted an all white right-wing Fox News panel to focus on two cases that he said proved black on white crime was the real "problem."

Even though stats show that 81% of crime is white on white and black on black, O'Reilly even pointed that out in a Trump segment last week, and yet, he still does a dishonest segment claiming the real problem is black on white crime, which is not just wrong, it's laughable.

O'Reilly said this: "The group Black Lives Matter has gained traction among the left in America by saying the American system is out to punish black people. At the same time, violent crime generated by African-Americans is an enormous social problem."

O'Reilly also said this: "African-American young males -- I think it's between 15 and 24 -- commit way out of proportion crime to every other group," the Fox News host told contributors Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

"So Black Lives Matter, they run around and say American society is punishing and stalking young black men when the reality is young black men are doing far more damage than the police in Chicago."

Although O'Reilly said that he wasn't justifying police shootings in Chicago and Minneapolis, he did not mention Laquan McDonald, Jamar Clark or the details of their cases. That's right, no mention of the actual story of the cop shooting, or any details, just a biased one sided segment when the 3 white Republicans attack all blacks for being the problem.

O'Reilly also never mentioned the cops refused to release the video for over a year, or that 8 other cops were already on the scene (who did not shoot anyone) when the cop who did the shooting showed up and unloaded his entire clip on the kid.

"But the horrendous situation in Chicago and Los Angeles and here in New York in some areas is generated by blacks," he insisted. "Most programs won't do this type of report. It is a complete double standard."

The story is about a bad cop who murdered a young black kid, when he could have tackled the kid, or used his training to restrain him, instead he put 16 bullets in the kid, and was charged with murder, but O'Reilly never talked about any of that.

"When you have blacks that are killing this poor white woman, there's no Black Lives Matter coming after them!" Wiehl exclaimed.

"Because this doesn't match their singular focus," Guilfoyle agreed. "There's hypocrisy there, and they are essentially espousing hate against police officers." "That's exactly right," Wiehl replied.

"I almost think they are inciting violence to the point of hate crime. When they're coming out and saying pigs in a blanket and all that, they're trying to incite that violence. If that escalates, that's a hate crime."

Which is just ridiculous, and an argument a 4 year old would make. Protesting police abuse and murder is not a hate crime, and it's not even close.

O'Reilly, Guilfoyle, and Wiehl are just biased fools, and their distraction reporting is laughable. They ignore the actual story, change the subject, and report on an unrelated and isolated black on white crime that has nothing to do with a cop (who is working on taxpayer money and sworn to protect and serve) killing a black teenage kid.

O'Reilly also ignored the fact that the cop has numerous abuse charges in his past, or the fact that the city also paid out $530,000 in another case with the same cop, for police abuse. So this one cop has cost the taxpayers and the city $5.5 million dollars in lawsuit payouts, and they let him keep his job.

This segment was so ridiculous, I can not believe O'Reilly even did it. All the rest of the media (the real media) reported on the story of racism and police abuse, a story of a white cop being charged with murder for killing a young black kid, that's the story. O'Reilly ignores all that, no details, nothing, instead he claims the blacks are the problem.

It's not only bad journalism, it's racist bias, and he did it with an all white Republican panel. Which is a violation of the rules and ethics of journalism at the Society of Professional Journalists, a journalism union that O'Reilly claims to be a member of and go by their rules, and he even complains about similar violations when other journalists at MSNBC and CNN violate the same rule.

Republican Leader Will Not Say If People On Terror Watch List Should Get Guns
By: Steve - November 27, 2015 - 10:00am

Now this is crazy, the new Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will not say if he thinks people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns in America, that is how far up the rear end Republicans are with the NRA. They are ok with possible terrorists buying guns, because if they opposed it they would make the NRA mad at them.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- People on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list often can't board commercial airliners, but they can walk into a gun store and legally buy pistols and powerful military-style rifles.

Sensing a political opening from last week's Paris attacks, Democrats are renewing calls for Congress to pass legislation aimed at preventing terrorists from buying guns. Similar bills -- including a post-9/11 measure backed by the Justice Department under Republican President George W. Bush -- have been stymied for years, thanks in large part to opposition from gun-rights groups and congressional Republicans.

According to a March analysis by the Government Accountability Office, people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist successfully passed the background check required to purchase firearms more than 90 percent of the time, with more than 2,043 approvals between 2004 and 2014.

The FBI is notified when a background check for the purchase of firearms or explosives generates a match with the watch list, and agents often use that information to step up surveillance on terror suspects. Under current federal law, however, association with a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives.

About 420,000 people are on the list administered by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, though only about 2 percent of those are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents legally able to buy guns.

The new Democratic push, which is considered unlikely to succeed in the GOP-controlled Congress, is focused on legislation by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would let the attorney general compile a list of known and suspected terrorists.

Federally licensed gun dealers would be barred from selling firearms to them, just as they are already prohibited from sales to people with felony convictions or serious mental illnesses. The proposed legislation would not prevent transactions that don't involve licensed dealers, such as those between private individuals at gun shows or many sales online, which don't currently involve background checks.

Feinstein introduced her bill in February, well before the mass killings in Paris injected new life into terrorism and public safety as top-tier political issues. The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Feinstein's bill echoes legislation that the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., proposed repeatedly over the last decade. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has also long pushed the same legislation to no avail.

Republicans took advantage of voters newly aroused security concerns this week, when they easily pushed legislation through the House preventing Syrian and Iraqi refugees from entering the U.S. until the administration tightens restrictions on their entry.

That issue put Democrats on the defensive. Forty-seven of them voted for the bill, ignoring a veto threat by President Barack Obama, who said the current screening system is already strong and accused Republicans of fanning fear among worried voters.

Democrats are hoping to turn the political tables on Republicans by focusing the debate instead on terrorists access to guns.

"I think this is a no-brainer," said Feinstein, a longtime gun control supporter. "If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun."

The GOP-run House has not held any votes on major gun control measures since the killings of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did not respond directly when asked Thursday if he favored barring people on the watch list from buying guns, saying, "We are just beginning this process of reassessing all of our security stances."

The National Rifle Association signaled this week it will oppose Feinstein's bill, as it did those before it.

More Facts About The Chicago Protests O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 26, 2015 - 11:00am

Marchers took to the streets of Chicago Tuesday night, protesting the death of Laquan McDonald. McDonald, a 17-year-old black man, was shot 16 times by Officer Jason Van Dyke in October 2014, but video of his death was only released Tuesday, the same day Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder. In general, the protests seem to have remained calm. Police said there were few scuffles and fewer arrests.

So let's get to the heart of this protest, which O'Reilly never talks about. The official account of McDonald's shooting, published the day after he died in the Chicago Tribune, turned out to be almost completely contradicted by the video, in other words, the cops lied about how it happened, and when the video was released we saw the truth.

Then, police and city authorities stonewalled the release of the video of McDonald, making it public only when ordered to do so by a judge, something else O'Reilly never reported. While the contents of the video had been known for some time, a prosecutor announced the first-degree murder charge only Tuesday, hours before the video went public.

This is exactly what happened in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray: Police tried, and largely failed, to calm people who had lost all faith in their probity. So far, the Windy City protests have been more controlled than their counterparts in Charm City. But in other ways, Chicago authorities seem to have learned surprisingly little from what happened in Baltimore this spring.

It took 400 days for authorities to take any action more concrete than suspending Van Dyke. They fought tooth and nail against the release of the video. While Van Dyke was suspended from police duties after the shooting, his pay only stopped on Tuesday.

"What happened here is wrong. There is no justification and it's profoundly hideous, in my view," Emanuel said during a short call with ministers on Monday. "And it's a shock to your conscience of what happened, and it should not have happened."

"Jason Van Dyke violated both the standards of professionalism that come from being a police officer, but also basic moral standards that bind our community together," Emanuel said during his press conference on Wednesday. "Jason Van Dyke will be judged in a court of law. That's exactly how it should be."

Meanwhile, the focus on Van Dyke's actions skips over the extent to which McDonald's death, while horrifying in its own right, has become a symbol of a much longer and broader critique of the Chicago Police Department. "Jason Van Dyke does not represent the police department," Emanuel said, but many activists very clearly believe that he does, and they bring a long series of damning statistics and stories to make that case. As Matt Ford wrote Tuesday:
In perhaps the most notorious case, Chicago police commander Jon Burge and his unit used torture to extract confessions from more than 200 defendants over a three-decade span between 1972 and 1991. Some of those defendants received death sentences as a result of their coercion, and the ensuing scandal led Illinois Governor George Ryan to commute the state’s entire death row in 2003.

In April, activists successfully convinced the Chicago City Council to create a $5.5 million reparations fund for victims of police torture. More recently, The Guardian reported that Chicago police officers held over 7,000 people at an "off-the-books interrogation warehouse" at Homan Square over the past decade.
A recent study found that officers were very seldom disciplined despite many citizen complaints. Those statistics, of course, only became public after a long legal battle that the city resisted. Of 400 police shootings since 2007, the city's independent review board found only one to be unjustified. And that doesn't even get into the thorny questions specific to the McDonald case, like the deletion of Burger King security-camera footage.

One other difference between how Chicago and Baltimore have handled their cases is that, in Baltimore, prosecutor Marilyn Mosby moved swiftly to bring an unusually strong set of charges against six officers involved in Freddie Gray's death. Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez did bring what is reportedly the only first-degree murder charge against an on-duty Chicago cop in 35 years, but it also came after 400 days. She, too, is coming in for harsh criticism for her slow pace.

It's surprising that despite watching similar protests unfold in Baltimore other cities, Emanuel seems to underestimate the depth of the anger that has built up against the police department. It's much less surprising that activists don't believe the official story about Malcolm London's arrest.

This is why there are protests, not just the murder of one black kid, it's about a pattern of abuse by white cops against blacks in Chicago, but you never hear any of this from O'Reilly. Because he does not want you to know all the facts, he just wants you to know the cherry picked information he wants you to see.

That is not journalism, it's one sided bias. Journalism is reporting all the facts and giving both sided equal time to tell their story. O'Reilly only gives you partial facts, and one side of the story, with an all white panel of Fox employees who are simply on the show to agree with him to make it look like he is right.

Right-Wing Media Try To Cover Up Trumps Muslim Database Comments
By: Steve - November 26, 2015 - 10:00am

Donald Trump is essentially nothing more than a live version of a far-right blog running for president. He is a cartoonish political figure who's so absurd you could take many of his quotes word for word and make comedy sketches on SNL out of them. Now I do not find him all that offensive (though he is to a lot of people, especially Mexicans and Women) because his rhetoric is so far out there I can not take him seriously.

Let's look at the recent controversy surrounding his support for setting up databases to register and track Muslims. Or, wait… did he actually say that? Well, predictably, Trump took to Twitter to deny that he ever said he supports creating a database to track Muslims.

His excuse for not saying it is that the reporter asked him about it and he simply replied to the question. So, yes, technically he never said the exact words, "I support setting up a database to register and track Muslims." Someone should remind Trump you don't have to literally say something to have implied meaning.

Especially when a reporter specifically asked him about supporting databases for Muslims and his response was this: "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases."

So he not only supports databases, he wants to go beyond that. Now he could have simply said no, but he didn't. He said beyond databases. So, how would he not support databases when he said he was going to go beyond them?

How would someone go beyond something that they supposedly don't support?

Later that day he was asked to clarify his remarks, specifically concerning how his database registry for Muslims would be any different than what the Nazis did to the Jews -- and he avoided answering the question. He didn't say that was ludicrous or try to clarify what he meant. He avoided answering a very specific question -- a question that he clearly understood.

But to listen to the conservative media (mostly Fox) embarrassingly go out of their way to try to coverup his comments, you would think this was all something liberals just made up. I have even seen conservatives lie that he was only talking about illegal immigrants -- even though the initial question from the Yahoo reporter specifically asked about a Muslim database.

Trump was then asked how he thinks a database would actually work and his response was it's all about management. He also went on to say that we're going to have to do things that we've never had to do that might upset some people.

Which is code for: Violate the constitution and people rights, and if you elect Trump he will manage it like the great businessman he is.

Trump also said this: "We're going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we're going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

Now that sure as hell does not sound like he's talking about illegal immigration -- as many within the conservative media tried to claim. Breitbart whined that liberals were smearing Trump as a Nazi, even though in their very own article they include comments he made to CNN where, once again, he refused to condemn the idea of a database to register Muslims.

In fact, they also link an update from The Washington Post where Trump's campaign refused to address whether or not he would support a special registry. So, while they clearly tried to bash the so-called liberal media, their own article showcases several examples where Trump continues to imply he supports a database and registry for Muslims.

Then there was The Daily Wire which also denied Trump said anything about registering Muslims into a database. They defended him by essentially saying he's an idiot who just makes stuff up as he goes along if he doesn't know how to answer a question:

To understand what Trump actually said, it's necessary to understand that Trump is essentially a Magic 8 ball when it comes to answering media questions without full information. Trump's 2016 slogan is "Make America Great Again," but his secondary slogan could be, "Wing It With The Donald."

His go-to answer when he's asked questions about topics he doesn't really get is something along the lines of, "We're going to have to look at that."

One slight problem: The questions he was asked weren't confusing, convoluted or remotely complicated. There was nothing to look at. He was asked if he supports a database registry for Muslims and he responded by saying he would go beyond databases, those are his words.

It's pretty sad when even the conservative media is essentially admitting that Trump is a bumbling idiot who just says whatever nonsense pops into his head whenever he's confused.

Then there was Fox News who covered the story, they left out one huge part of his comment: The reporter initially asked Trump whether there should be a database to track Muslims. "We should have a lot of systems," Trump said, but then went on to tout the importance of a strong border and a border wall.

But here is Trump's full unedited response:

"There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases," Trump said in response to being asked if he would support tracking Muslims. "I mean we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it."

Notice something missing? Fox News completely edited out the part where he said "beyond databases."

Which is a huge part of why the story took off to begin with. The bottom line is, Trump was asked if he supports a database registry for Muslims and he specifically said he would go beyond databases.

Then when he was asked to clarify his remarks -- he refused to clarify -- and now he's trying to blame this on liberal bias, with help from the conservative media. I would say I'm shocked by his response, except I predicted it.

Then again, this is what Republicans do, including Bill O'Reilly. They say something, get called out on it, then they blame the media for being "out to get them" because they know conservative voters are brainwashed and stupid enough to believe them.

Fox News Barely Covers Whites Shooting Black Protesters
By: Steve - November 25, 2015 - 11:30am

After months of vilifying Black Lives Matter and labeling the movement a "hate group," Fox News devoted almost no coverage to a November 23 mass shooting that injured five protesters at a Black Lives Matter vigil in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and similarly downplayed the subsequent arrests of three white suspects.

By contrast, CNN provided updates throughout the day following the shooting, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow offered in-depth coverage of the escalating threats of violence leading up to the attack.

Minutes of coverage by the big 3 cable news networks:

CNN - 10:37
MSNBC -12:05
FOX - 1:16

Five protesters suffered injuries when at least one person opened fire on a Black Lives Matter gathering outside the Minneapolis Police Department's 4th Precinct building on the evening of November 23. The Washington Post reported protesters had been "camping in front of the 4th Precinct since Nov. 15, when two Minneapolis police officers were involved in the contentious killing of 24-year-old Jamar Clark."

As of November 24, "the police said that they had arrested a 23-year-old white man, and that two other white men, ages 21 and 26, turned themselves in on Tuesday afternoon," according to The New York Times, which added, "the police also said they were aware of a video in which masked men are seen driving to the protest site and brandishing a pistol, while making racist comments and justifying the killing of Jamar Clark."

Social media posts of the three suspects "reveal a fascination with guns, video games, the Confederacy and right-wing militia groups."

As the news of the shooting made national headlines and developments poured in on November 24, Fox News devoted the least amount of coverage to the incident among cable networks.

According to a Media Matters review, Fox only mentioned the Minneapolis shooting 3 times, with coverage totalling only 1 minute and 16 seconds. CNN covered the story for 10 minutes and 37 seconds throughout the day, while MSNBC covered the story for just over 12 minutes.

The November 24 broadcast of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show devoted a full segment to the incident, placing the shooting in the recent context of masked "anti-protesters or counter-protesters, or maybe you'd call them provocateurs" turning up at local Black Lives Matter protests to videotape the gatherings.

As host Rachel Maddow explained, demonstrators at the 4th Precinct faced racist intimidation and escalating threats of violence leading up to Monday's shooting.

The shooting follows months of Fox News attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement, including Fox hosts insanely comparing the movement to "the Nazi Party," and the "Klu Klux Klan," and a "hate group."

Fox host Bill O'Reilly continued his attacks on Black Lives Matter during an all white panel on his show the day following the shooting. During the November 24 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of the movement, "if black lives matter, how come this group isn't on the south side of Chicago when every weekend you've got a couple of dozen black lives lost," while a Fox analyst claimed Black Lives Matter is "inciting violence to the point of hate crime."

During that segment, O'Reilly even alluded to the police shooting of Jamar Clark, but failed to acknowledge that five people protesting Clark's death had been shot the night before or that three suspects had been arrested.

Racism Alert For Bill O'Reilly And Ben Carson
By: Steve - November 25, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly says he has never seen any racism from Donald Trump, even after Trump sent out a racist tweet, said it was ok for whites to beat up a black man at one of his campaign stops, and Ben Carson says he has never seen any evidence white police are racist against blacks. Which are ridiculous statements from both men, because the racism is there and we see it quite often.

In fact, I could probably report a story about racism by a Republican or a police officer every day. We just had a new police chief send out an e-mail using the n-word, and we had the Minnesota state GOP put out a racist tweet saying they have a negro problem.

A new police chief for the City of Farrell in Pennsylvania has come under fire for sending an offensive email that included racial slurs.

The newly sworn-in Thomas Burke, who is white, is slated to begin his term as police chief of Farrell, a city about 70 miles outside of Pittsburgh, on Jan. 1, according to WKBN Ohio News. In an April email soliciting donations for a local parent-teacher organization, Burke wrote: "Them Sharon n*****s gotta learn how to read."

And he was not fired, so this racist jerk is going to be the police chief for an entire city, and you think there is no racism by white cops against blacks Ben Carson, here it is jerk, right in your face.

Sharon and Farrell are neighboring cities in Mercer County, Pa. According to statistics pulled from the City-Data database, in 2010, 48 percent of Farrell's residents were black and 45 percent were white. This is the population that Burke has vowed to serve and protect as police chief.

Stephanie Sheffield, a Farrell city councilwoman, who is black, told Erie News that she was "hurt and upset" by Burke's e-mail.

Burke visited Sheffield at her home with an apology letter and explained that he uses the "n-word" frequently because that's "just the way it is" in their area, Sheffield told Erie News.

Minnesota GOP Apologizes For 'Negro Problem' Tweet

The head of the Republican party in Minnesota is apologizing after one of the GOP's district branches tweeted about a "negro problem."

The tweet, sent out by the state's 7th Congressional District GOP on Sunday, was a response to the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party's call to make joblessness and poverty in the black community part of a proposed legislative special session, the Star Tribune reported.

"MN #DFL now propose a 'special session' to deal with their self-created '#negroproblem,'" the tweet said.

It has since been deleted, but images of the tweet are still being circulated on social media.

The DFL -- the state's affiliate of the Democratic Party -- immediately condemned the remarks.

"You don't have to look far to find ignorant hate speech masquerading as acceptable party messaging," DFL Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement. "However, this is not the first time the Minnesota Republican Party and their affiliates have posted racially insensitive material."

Over the weekend, a group of Donald Trump supporters punched and kicked a Black man who attended a Trump rally, and disrupted the event with cries of "Black Lives Matter." When asked later about his fans deplorable and violent behavior, Trump said that "maybe [the man] should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."

There have been no cries of outrage about how this man's right to free speech was violated through use of actual violence. And when a liberal simply shouts down a conservative at a Democratic rally O'Reilly and Fox News scream bloody murder and cry that the left is trying to shut down their free speech rights.

Instead, Trump condones white violence against a non-violent protestor. And in doing so, he demonstrates not only the complete hypocrisy of the right wing on questions of race but also the extent to which a deep desire and will to do violence toward Black people exists just beneath the surface of most right-wing political discourse.

And btw, Bill O'Reilly has not reported on either one of these stories. He ignores them so his viewers are uninformed, then he can claim he has not seen any racism by Trump or anyone in the Republican party. This kind of thing happens virtually every day, and O'Reilly ignores it all, he never reports any of it, ever.

O'Reilly ignores all the stories about racism, then denies there is any racism, and he claims to be honest and a truth teller? Give me a break, he is a biased, partisan, lying, hack, and that is a fact, I just proved it. Here is the evidence, he ignores it all then claims it never happens, not only is he biased, he is a liar.

More Proof Republican Policies Are Bad For The Country
By: Steve - November 25, 2015 - 10:00am

9 of The 12 States With The Highest Unemployment Are Run By Republicans

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "North Dakota had the lowest jobless rate in October, 2.8 percent, followed by Nebraska, 2.9 percent. West Virginia had the highest rate, 6.9 percent. In total, 20 states had unemployment rates significantly lower than the U.S. figure of 5.0 percent, 12 states and the District of Columbia had measurably higher rates and 18 states had rates that were not appreciably different from that of the nation."

Here are the 12 states with a higher than the national average unemployment rate of 5.0%:
1). West Virginia (D) (6.9%)
2). Alaska (R) (6.4%)
3). Arizona (R) (6.1%)
4). Louisiana (R) (6.2%)
5). Nevada (R) (6.6%)
6). Alabama (R) (5.9%)
7). Georgia (R) (5.7%)
8). New Mexico (R) (6.8%)
9). Mississippi (R) (5.9%)
10). North Carolina (R) (5.7%)
11). Oregon (D) (6.0%)
12). California (D) (5.8%)
States with Republican governors tend to lag behind the national economy. And the fastest way for voters to kill economic growth is to vote a Republican into office. Something O'Reilly never mentions, or Fox News for that matter. In fact, if you listen to O'Reilly you would think Democrats who run states are terrible for job growth, when it is the exact opposite that is true.

The one thing that the Republican states on the list all have in common is that they have implemented the conservative economic policy of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

And to the surprise of no one, cutting taxes for those at the top in these states has not resulted in the magic job fairy raining jobs down from the skies on to the hard working people below. Republican economic policies do not create jobs, they just make the rich and the corporations richer.

The country is watching the Republican presidential candidates promise to use the same policies that are failing at the state level if they get into the White House.

The struggles of red states to perform at the level that President Obama has national economy humming at should be a red flag for voters.

President Obama has righted the economic ship, and the fastest way to sink the boat would be to let Republicans steer the country straight into the trickle down iceberg.

Fact-Checking Site Finds Trump Only Tells Truth 7% Of The Time
By: Steve - November 25, 2015 - 9:00am

So of course Bill O'Reilly calls him an honest politician, even though he is the biggest liar in the campaign.

Last week Donald Trump faced widespread criticism after tweeting a racially-charged graphic that falsely claimed that 81 percent of white murder victims are killed by people of color, when in fact, according to FBI data, 82 percent of white Americans were killed by other white Americans in murders where the race of both the victim and offender were known.

Additionally, Trump's graphic was sourced to the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco," which does not exist.

So O'Reilly had Trump on his show, he sort of called Trump out for the racist lies, while saying he is not a racist and telling him to stop using bogus stats.

Here is a partial transcript of what O'Reilly said, he called Trump an honest politician, even though fact-checkers have shown that only about 7 percent 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.
What I find most ridiculous about the rise of Donald Trump to the top of the Republican party's presidential ticket is the fact that almost nothing he says is true. And it's not just that he lies, it's that he seems to just make stuff up as he goes along. Then to top it all off, I can't remember a time where he's ever admitted being wrong about anything -- despite the fact that he's wrong about pretty much everything.

When looking at his scorecard on the non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact, the numbers are shocking. Politifact's ratings system is based on six metrics: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire.

The way I calculate numbers is everything that's True/Mostly True I consider truthful, everything that's Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire I view as being dishonest and I ignore Half True statements because often the conclusions are subjective and convoluted.

So, how does Trump rank? According to Politifact, of the 71 comments they've fact checked, only 7 percent (5 of 71) of what Trump says is truthful (all 5 of those statements are rated as Mostly True). Meanwhile, 75 percent (53 of 71) of what they've fact checked has been a lie.

For those who don't feel like doing the math, 18 percent (13 of 71) of his comments were rated as Half True. While his overall scorecard is atrocious, when you look at some of his Pants on Fire comments, the absurdity he spews is shocking.

It goes beyond basic dishonesty with Trump to outright propaganda. Anyone who runs for public office is going to slant and distort the truth from time to time, but Trump doesn't just distort reality -- he flat-out makes up his own. And the worst part is, his supporters actually believe he's honest, including Bill O'Reilly.

You cannot convince these folks that he's full of crap because most of them are every bit as delusional as he is. I guess if there's one positive thing that's come from Donald Trump running for president, it's that he's generously given plenty of job security to fact checkers.

O'Reilly said he was looking out for Trump because he is an honest politician, which is just laughable, and it shows two things about O'Reilly. That he is biased for Trump, and that he is dishonest for ignoring all the Trump lies, while telling his viewers that Trump is honest.

They are friends, both Republicans and both liars. So neither one of them can be trusted to tell you the truth, they are both proven liars.

Ben Carson Does Not Know Who Wrote The Constitution
By: Steve - November 24, 2015 - 11:00am

And what's worse is, he wrote a book about it, and still got it wrong.

During a Sunday interview, Carson was asked which founding father stood out to him, to which he answered Thomas Jefferson. The problem is, Jefferson was not around when the constitution was being drafted.

Carson said this: "I'm impressed by a lot of them, but particularly impressed with Thomas Jefferson, who seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react," Carson said. "And he tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control people's natural tendencies and control the natural growth of the government."

Jefferson was not around when the Constitution was being drafted. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. That's a fact which seems to elude many Republicans who often cite the words "endowed by our Creator" as proof that the nation was founded on Christianity.

To make matters worse, Carson's newest book, A More Perfect Union, manages to accurately cite the fact that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was drafted. This raises the question, how much did Carson actually have to do with writing his own book? For the record, James Madison is considered the "father of the Constitution."

This marks the second big gaffe Carson has made about our Founding Fathers in just the last couple weeks. Earlier this month he tried to defend himself from questions about whether or not he's qualified to be president considering his lack of political experience by inaccurately stating that none of the Founding Fathers had any political experience either:

"You are absolutely right -- I have no political experience. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need? Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience."

Unfortunately for Carson, the vast majority of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did have backgrounds in politics and government. He later tried to backtrack by saying he meant they didn't have any "federal" government experience.

Sadly for Ben Carson, the federal government didn't exist before it was created by our Founding Fathers. Are any of these statements particularly huge deals by themselves? No. Everyone is prone to making false statements now and again. The issue here is that Ben Carson makes them all the time. Over the last month or so he's repeatedly been caught saying one thing, only to adjust what he meant once he's been called out for saying something inaccurate.

Take for instance the statement he made during the fourth GOP debate where he clearly implied that the Chinese were conducting military operations in Syria. He actually doubled down on that statement before finally admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Luckily it seems as if even many conservatives are realizing how woefully unfit Ben Carson is to be our next president. Unfortunately, that's not really saying much considering many of those same conservatives think Donald Trump would make an amazing commander-in-chief.

O'Reilly Claims He's Never Seen Racism From Donald Trump
By: Steve - November 24, 2015 - 10:00am

And he said it while discussing a racist tweet from Trump. O'Reilly never sees any racism from any white Republicans, including himself, it's the same as Ben Carson saying he has not seen any evidence white cops are racist against black people. It's all lies from O'Reilly, Trump, and Carson, one lies and they all defend it and swear to it.

Monday night Bill O'Reilly defended Donald Trump, claiming he's never seen the GOP presidential hopeful show any racism, while correcting Trump's racist and inaccurate tweet that falsely claimed African-Americans are responsible for more than 80 percent of murders against whites.

Donald Trump faced widespread criticism after tweeting a racially-charged graphic that falsely claimed that 81 percent of white murder victims are killed by people of color. Even though FBI crime data shows that the majority of murders are committed by members of the same race.

On the November 13 edition of his show, O'Reilly interviewed Trump, who claimed he was "probably the least racist person on Earth." O'Reilly agreed with him, commenting "I never saw any racism from you," then immediately criticized Trump's racist tweet, explaining to him that the statistic is "totally wrong."

And btw folks, Trump has said a lot of racist things, O'Reilly will just never admit it, because he is his friend and he is a fellow Republican. O'Reilly and Trump have even been seen together at Yankee games, they are friends who sometimes hang out with each other, so he has a bias for Trump.

Partial Transcript:
O'REILLY: Are you aware that the liberal media and the Democratic Party in general are trying to paint you as a racist? Are you aware of that?

TRUMP: I think so. But I think people know better than that. I'm probably the least racist person on Earth.

O'REILLY: Well I have known you a long time --

TRUMP: I think people know better than that.

O'REILLY: -- I never saw any racism from you. However, when you tweet out a thing, and this bothered me, I got to tell you. You tweeted out that whites killed by blacks -- these are statistics you picked up from somewhere -- at a rate of 81 percent. And that's totally wrong. Whites killed by blacks is 15 percent, yet you tweeted it was 81 percent.

TRUMP: Bill, I didn't tweet. I retweeted somebody that was supposedly an expert and also a radio show.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but you don't want to be -- why do you want to be in that zone?

TRUMP: Bill. Bill. Am I going to check every statistic? I get millions and millions of people @realdonaldtrump by the way.

O'REILLY: You got to. You are a presidential contender you got to check it.

TRUMP: I have millions of people. You know what, fine, but this came out of radio shows and everything else.

O'REILLY: Oh come on, radio shows?

TRUMP: Excuse me. All it was is a retweet. It wasn't from me. And it did. It came out of radio show and other places, because you see all the names --

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.
And now some facts: According to FBI data, 82 percent of white Americans were killed by other white Americans in murders where the race of both the victim and offender were known.

Additionally, Trump's graphic was sourced to the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco," which does not exist.

Trump has made numerous xenophobic and racially-charged comments that were defended and praised by right-wing media. In July, Trump called Mexican immigrants "criminals" and "rapists," and later cited an "unabashedly racist" deportation plan created during the Eisenhower presidency, dubbed "Operation Wetback," as an example for his deportation policy.

Recently, Trump inaccurately claimed that thousands of Muslim-Americans cheered when the World Trade Center buildings fell, and when asked about a Black Lives Matter protester who was beaten at one of his rallies, Trump responded that, "Maybe he should have been roughed up."

Even Republicans Are Slamming Trump For Muslim Database Comments
By: Steve - November 23, 2015 - 11:00am

You know you screwed up (in politics) when your own people slam you for something you said, which is exactly what has happened to Donald Trump. Who now claims he never said what he said, or meant when they thought, when he clearly did, and he is just trying to back away from it now.

Saturday Donald Trump tried to back away from his support for a government database to track Muslims in the United States, an idea that drew sharp rebukes from his Republican presidential rivals and disbelief from legal experts.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the prospect of a registry "abhorrent." Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said the idea was "unnecessary" and not something Americans would support. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has largely avoided criticizing Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, said, "I'm not a fan of government registries of American citizens."

"The First Amendment protects religious liberty, and I've spent the past several decades defending the religious liberty of every American," Cruz told reporters in Sioux City, Iowa.

Trump was pressed on the idea of a registry by an NBC News reporter Thursday evening while the candidate campaigned in Iowa. Asked if there should be a database system for tracking Muslims in the United States, Trump said, "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases." The reporter asked if that was something Trump would put in place as president. Trump replied: "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely."

Trump also told the reporter that Muslims would "have to be" registered and said that the registration process could occur at "different places."

Then after getting slammed by virtually everyone in the world, Trump did an interview on Fox News Channel on Friday evening, where he changed what he said and tried to clarify his position. "I want a watch list for the Syrian refugees that (President Barack) Obama's going to let in if we don't stop him as Republicans," he said.

He also now claims he had trouble hearing the NBC reporter's questions, even though he gave specific answers and it was clear he heard exactly what the reporter asked.

Trump has also voiced support for closing certain mosques as a way to contain the terrorist threat in the U.S.

The Republican led House passed legislation this past week essentially barring Syrian and Iraqi refugees from the United States. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has slotted the bill for possible Senate consideration, though it's unclear whether the chamber could get enough votes to override a threatened veto by President Barack Obama.

The Republican candidates unified criticism of Trump was striking.

His rivals have vacillated in how they have handled other inflammatory comments from Trump, apparently wary of alienating his supporters while increasingly concerned that he has held his grip on the race deep into the fall.

Civil liberties experts said a database for Muslims would be unconstitutional on several counts. The libertarian Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro said the idea violates basic privacy and liberty rights.

Marci Hamilton, a Yeshiva University legal expert on religious liberty, said requiring Muslims to register appears to be a clear violation of the Constitution's protection of religious freedom.

"What the First Amendment does and what it should do is drive the government to use neutral criteria," Hamilton said. "You can use neutral criteria to identify terrorists. What it can't do is engage in one-religion bashing. That won't fly in any court."

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, at a Tennessee rally Friday evening, said, "Mr. Trump has attacked Mexican immigrants, he's attacked women and now he's attacking Muslim Americans. At some point you have to ask yourself, is that the kind of country we are?"

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Trump's words were "outrageous and bigoted."

Vice President Joe Biden, who gave the White House's weekly Internet and radio address while Obama was in Asia, said IS wants to "manufacture a clash between civilizations," and to turn away refugees (who are mostly women, children, orphans, torture survivors) and "say there is no way you can ever get here would play right into the terrorists' hands."

On the GOP side, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said creating a national registry based on religion and closing mosques "will do nothing to keep us safer and shows a lack of understanding on how to effectively prevent terrorist attacks."

Ohio Gov. John Kasich said requiring people to register with the federal government because of their religion "strikes against all that we have believed in our nation's history."

Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has challenged Trump's lead in the GOP race, said the U.S. should have a database on "every foreigner who comes into this country," but he rejected the idea of tracking U.S. citizens based on their religion.

"One of the hallmarks of America is that we treat everybody the same," he said. "If we're just going to pick out a particular group of people based on their religion, based on their race, based on some other thing, that's setting a pretty dangerous precedent."

More Proof Fox News Makes Republicans Clueless & Misinformed
By: Steve - November 23, 2015 - 10:00am

If you want more proof Fox News makes Republicans stupid and uninformed, here it is. These are most likely people who watch Fox News every day, and they are getting bad information.

A Bloomberg Poll released on November 19th found that a majority of Republican voters believe the unemployment rate has gone up during Barack Obama's presidency.

According to the poll, 53 percent of Republican voters erroneously think the unemployment rate is higher now than when Barack Obama was first inaugurated in January of 2009. Only 38 percent of Republican voters actually knew that the unemployment rate has dropped during Obama's presidency.

The unemployment rate has not only dropped since Obama took office, it has dropped dramatically. When Barack Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. It rose to 10.0 percent by October of that same year, as the full impact of the 2008 Bush caused economic crisis took hold and caused massive job losses in the U.S. economy.

In fact, since October of 2009, the unemployment rate has dropped sharply, and by October 2015 it had fallen to 5.0 percent.

Since the Bush economy crashed in 2008, Barack Obama has put Americans back to work again, and the nation has seen a good economic recovery.

Bill O'Reilly and the majority of republican voters however, live in an alternate reality. They are so resistant to the idea that America is not on the road to ruin, that they refuse to see any good news so long as Barack Obama remains in the White House.

O'Reilly still claims to this day that Obama has been a terrible President and that the economy is in Chaos, even though all the stats and economic measures show good growth, low unemployment rates, and low gas prices, the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and the GOP say.

Their frustration with President Obama is rooted in ideology, bigotry, and racism, not in genuine suffering. Republicans can believe what they want to believe, but they should never confuse their beliefs with the truth.

With the GOP base so detached from reality, it is little wonder that they have rallied behind Donald Trump's bogus "make America great again" slogan.

Republican voters refuse to admit that Barack Obama already made America great again, rebuilding it from the economic destruction caused by the policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The GOP refuses to accept reality. They want to believe Barack Obama is a terrible president who has caused Americans untold suffering. They want to believe that unemployment has risen with Obama in the White House.

But this made up nightmare is a figment of Republican voters collective imaginations. The unemployment rate has dropped under Obama's leadership, and even if Republicans ca not admit that reality, the rest of us know its the truth.

Just look at the facts, gas is $1.89 a gallon, the stock market is at or near record highs, job growth is over 250,000 a month, unemployment is at 5%, the GDP is doing well in every quarter, and virtually every economic measure we have shows good news, housing, banking, car manufacturing, and on and on, it's all good news.

But O'Reilly and the GOP have to lie to you about it because they want you to think the current Democrat in the White House is a bad President, so that Hillary will not be the next President.

Well I have some news for the lying O'Reilly and the GOP, your lies will not work and you can say hello to President Clinton soon, because none of the right-wing loons running will ever beat her, no matter how many lies you tell on the GOP/Fox News Network, that only 3 million people watch anyway.

Ted Cruz Is Opposed To Syrian Refugees He Supported A Year Ago
By: Steve - November 22, 2015 - 11:00am

Here is a perfect example of political bias and hypocrisy, a year ago Ted Cruz supported letting Syrian refugees into the country, now that Obama supports it and after the Paris attacks he is suddenly opposed to it, as are all Republicans.

Interviewed in February 2014, Republican Senator Ted Cruz declared that Syrian refugees should be permitted into the United States and argued that this could be done without jeopardizing national security.

"We have welcomed refugees -- the tired, huddled masses -- for centuries. That's been the history of the United States," he told Fox News in a video featured on Cruz's website. "We should continue to do so." He added: "We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with the terrorists, but we can do that."

But since last week's Paris attacks, the GOP presidential candidate has been a fierce critic of the Obama administration's policy to permit some Syrian refugees into the United States.

"It is nothing less than lunacy,” Cruz said on Saturday, citing security concerns. "It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not. Those who are fleeing persecution should be resettled in the Middle East in majority Muslim countries."

The White House plans to accept 10,000 refugees from Syria over the next year, out of more than 4 million who are estimated to have fled the war-torn country.

Cruz, who is even the son of a refugee to the United States, on Wednesday introduced legislation that will ban virtually all refugees from Syria and Iraq from entering the country.

He also challenged President Obama to debate him on the issue. "Come back and insult me to my face," Cruz said.

Fox Contributor Says We Should Stop Worrying About People's Rights
By: Steve - November 22, 2015 - 10:00am

Ummm, let me see, no. Earth to Fox News idiot, we can not do that even if we want to, because it would be a violation of the constitution, you freaking moron.



Partial transcript:

BO DIETL: When you see what we saw Friday night -- I was on Charles show and Charles said Bo what would you do? You know I said right away, you've got to go in right away and save whatever hostages you can because they are -- one thing, there's no negotiating -- they're willing to die. We're dealing with crazy people that want to die. You've got to take head shots and take them out.

SEAN HANNITY: Our FBI, our national intelligence, they're all warning us, why our president won't listen -- they will infiltrate that community, and they'll come to -- well, they're here already.

HANNITY: They want to kill us.

DIETL: We broke so many, so many plots by eavesdropping on these radical Mosques. We've got to do it again. And let's stop worrying about people's rights.

O'Reilly Factor Fill-In Host Says We Should Carpet Bomb Syria
By: Steve - November 21, 2015 - 11:30am

Now think about this, Eric Bolling is the guy O'Reilly hand picked to fill in for him almost every Friday, on holidays, and when he takes vacations. After saying a million times he is not a conservative, and laughingly claiming to be an Independent, O'Reilly picks one of the most far-right conservatives at Fox to be his fill-In host.

Bolling is as far-right as you can get, and someone a real non-partisan Independent would never allow to even be on his show, let alone host it.

This same guy now says we should just carpet bomb Syria and to hell with all the innocent civilians who would get killed, even though it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a Human Rights violation. The same kind of stuff we slam other countries for doing.

Imagine this, what do you think Bolling would say if a foreign country carpet bombed an American city, say New York? Can you imagine what Bolling would say to that, and yet, he is calling for us to carpet bomb Syria.

Quote: Fox's Eric Bolling: "Go Carpet Bomb The Place And If You're A Civilian And You're Dumb Enough To Be Next To ISIS You Will Not Survive"



Partial Transcript:

ERIC BOLLING: We've been talking about this for the better part of two years and I've been saying absolutely, patently level Raqqa, go carpet bomb the place and if you're a civilian and you're dumb enough to be next to ISIS you will not survive that one either. I've been saying this long before Trump came into the race. So that is the answer.

O'Reilly has said a million times you are linked to what people say that work for you, or with you, or are your friends, etc. He said Obama was linked to what Pastor Wright said when he said God Damn to America during a church speech that Obama used to go to. So if we use the same argument for O'Reilly, he is linked to what Bolling said, and if he keeps having him host his show, he is supporting what Bolling said.

100% Proof Bill O'Reilly Is Biased In Favor Of Republicans
By: Steve - November 21, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly said this on March 19th of 2004:

O'REILLY: "If al Qaeda attacks here, President Bush is re-elected in a heartbeat."

On the morning of March 11, 2004, one year after American-led forces invaded Iraq, ten bombs located on four different commuter trains exploded in Spain's capital of Madrid, killing more than 190 people and wounding nearly 2,000. The attack was seen as revenge against Spain for being an ally with Bush in the Iraq invasion.

An al-Qaeda terror cell claimed credit for the attack against Spain, and the assault marked the deadliest terror attack in Europe since the 1980s.

The event was quickly labeled "Spain's 9/11," just like the Paris massacre last week is being referred to as "France's 9/11." The similarities extend beyond the death tolls and the European locations.

Both countries were seen as key American allies in the war on terror. And both deadly attacks took place against the backdrop of an American election season. In March 2004, President George W. Bush was readying his re-election campaign against Democrat John Kerry. Today, Republicans and Democrats are approaching the presidential primary season.

What's different now, about the similar attacks is how Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and the conservative media covered the attack, and the blame games they did and did not try to play.

Looking back at the Fox coverage from 2004, President Bush was a minor player in the story and his name was barely ever mentioned. For Fox viewers, Bush was not targeted for any of the blame following the Madrid attack.

By contrast, some at Fox today, including "news" anchors, can barely contain their contempt for Obama in the wake of the Paris killings. (Not to mention their open hatred for Islam.)

What's even more startling was the claims from the Fox talking heads in 2004 that, politically, a terror attack on America in 2004 would be good news for Bush; that it would seal his re-election bid because voters would overwhelmingly rally around the president.

For anyone who's been watching the Fox News coverage since Friday and seen the almost non-stop smear campaign against Obama (it's been part of the larger, right-wing media freakout), it's almost unimaginable what the Fox commentary would sound like if ISIS killed hundreds in America during next year's campaign.

I would bet the farm the calls for impeachment from O'Reilly and Fox would come very fast.

Fox and other right-wing outlets are already condemning Obama for a terror attack that happened overseas, that he had nothing to do with.

Fox contributor Michael Goodwin insisted Obama resign "for the good of humanity" if he "cannot rise to the challenge of leadership" after the Paris killings.

Fox's Ralph Peters claimed the "only president on the American continent who has done more damage" to America than Obama, "was actually Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America."

And Bill Hemmer suggested terror victims "pay the price for the lack of security" fostered by Obama's anti-ISIS strategy.

None of that partisan hack nonsense was said following the historic Madrid attack when Bush was President and in charge of the so-called war on terror. When Fox did cover the breaking story, there was little attention paid to Bush.

For instance, on the night of the Madrid attack under Bush, Sean Hannity hosted former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and there was no finger-pointing about the bombing. But when Hannity recently hosted Giuliani to address the Paris attack, the former mayor not only denounced Obama's leadership, he claimed, "ISIS is an Obama creation." (Even though It is not.)

Fox hosts and guests even denied the attack had anything to do with Bush. Later that month Sean Hannity announced he was fed up with the "shrill rhetoric" from liberals, especially ones who suggested Bush "was responsible for the attacks in Madrid."

This is the same Sean Hannity who in recent days has emptied the tank in terms of shrill rhetoric and has claimed Obama is responsible for the Paris attack.

By the way, in March 2004, the New York Times detailed how Democrats, including primary frontrunner John Kerry, were specifically not politicizing the Madrid attack or criticizing the Bush administration:
''We're all sick to our stomachs that Al Qaeda seems to have scored a victory,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''After a real tragedy happens, you don't want to talk about it right away.''
The new attack at Fox is that Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to use the phrase "radical Islam" when condemning the acts of terror in Paris. It's become a cardinal sin on Fox News.

While ignoring the fact that following the Madrid massacre, Bush also did not condemn "radical Islam," a move that was met with mostly silence from the conservative media. So in 2004, Bush did not do what conservatives now demand Obama must do, and in 2004 Fox News led the way in not caring.

And then there was the 2004 conservative spin that if America were hit by another jihadist assault, Bush would be the political benefactor.

"If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" asked the conservative David Brooks in March 2004.

Eight days later, Bill O'Reilly said this, while interviewing historian Andrew Apostolou:
O'REILLY: If al Qaeda attacks here, President Bush is re-elected in a heartbeat, because Americans aren't...

APOSTOLOU: I agree, but they...

O'REILLY: ...won't surrender, they'll get angry.

APOSTOLOU: Yes, yes.

O'REILLLY: Unlike the Spanish. It's a different population.

APOSTOLOU: Exactly. Exactly.

O'REILLY: Yes. So if they're counting on that, Americans will come together...

APOSTOLOU: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: ...in any kind of attack on us. And we saw that after 9- 11. And I think they saw it, too, because now we're going to go to Pakistan right after Mr. Apostolou.
O'Reilly was certain: Americans will come together "in any kind of attack."

The exception of course being when there's a Democrat in the White House and you work for Fox News. This is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly and all of Fox News has a bias for Republicans and against Democrats.

When a terrorist attack happens in a foreign country under a Republican, Bush is not to blame at all, even though it was seen as revenge for the Iraq invasion, and it happened right after the Iraq war started. And O'Reilly claims an attack on American soil would be good for Bush and rally the people to support him.

But when a terrorist attack happens in a foreign country under a Democrat, O'Reilly and Fox instantly blame Obama and warn that if an attack happened in America they would call for him to be impeached. It's total 100% hypocrisy and bias from O'Reilly and Fox, and ridiculous.

Ben Carson Shows He Is Crazy In Fox News Interview
By: Steve - November 21, 2015 - 10:00am

Fox News Sunday tried to ask Ben Carson some policy questions about the terrorist attack in Paris, and the result was a dose of insanity that include a lecture on brain size, and Carson's support for a shooting war with Russia over a no-fly zone in Syria.

Carson was asked four times by host Chris Wallace what his response to the Paris attacks would be if he were president, and he did not answer, but the real crazy was yet to come.

In response to the question about whether the US should accept refugees from Syria, Carson went on a rant about the human brain:

WALLACE: The Obama administration has said before that it would accept up to 10,000 Syrian refugees as part of the humanitarian crisis. We now learn that one of these attackers had a Syrian passport that indicated he had been part of the refugee flood into Europe in October. Would you continue that policy?

CARSON: Well, you know, as I've said all along, bringing people into this country from that area of the world I think is a huge mistake. Because why wouldn't they infiltrate them with people who are ideologically opposed to us? It would be foolish for them not to do that.

So, we need to be very compassionate to understand that these people have been displaced and we should use our expertise and resources to help get them resettled over there, and to support them over there, but to bring them here under these circumstances is a suspension of intellect.

You know, the reason that the human brain has these big frontal lobes as opposed to other animals, because we can engage in rational thought processing, we can, you know, extract information from the past, the present, process it and project it into a plan. Animals, on the other hand, have big brain stems and rudimentary things, because they react. We don’t have to just react, we can think.

Carson then took crazy to another level when he suggested we get into a shooting war with Russia in Syria:

WALLACE: Dr. Carson what happens if the Russians respond to that by shooting down one of our planes?

CARSON: I would do that in conjunction with the Turkish forces along the Syrian/Turkish border where a huge number of those refugees located. It's a humanitarian thing to try to provide them a safe haven for now.

WALLACE: But sir, if I may press my...

CARSON: And I would make sure that the Russians understood that we are going to do that.

WALLACE: If I may press my point, what do you do if -- after we shoot down a Russian plane, they shoot down one of ours?

CARSON: If they violate it, we will, in fact, enforce it. And, you know, we'll see what happened. You know, too, for us to always be backing down because we are afraid of a conflict, that's not how we became a great nation, Chris.

WALLACE: But you're talking about getting potentially into a shooting war with Russia over Syria?

CARSON: Well, if we established a no-fly zone and we make clear the rules, if they violate it, that's why you have a no-fly zone. That's the very definition of a no-fly zone. You can't fly there.

Carson was asked policy questions about an unexpected crisis that all presidents might have to deal with, and he showed that he is completely unfit to be the President.

Insane rambling about the size of the human brain is not an answer to a question about continuing the policy of accepting Syrian refugees. And the idea that the United States could get into a shooting war with Russia to protect a no-fly zone in Syria is flat out crazy talk.

Over the weekend, some top Republicans privately admitted that they viewed both Carson and Trump as unfit to be Commander In Chief.

A lot of the Republicans are terrified that Trump or Carson could win their party's nomination and lead the party to a crushing defeat. After Carson's appearance on Fox News, he appears to be even less sane than Donald Trump.

Now here is the scary part, Ben Carson's success as a presidential candidate shows just how far-right and crazy Republican voters have become. Because you have to be nuts to support Carson or Trump, neither one of them are qualified to be the President.

Insane Republican Congressman Says God Sent Ted Cruz To Save America
By: Steve - November 20, 2015 - 11:30am

Wow! Insanity alert!

As Donald Trump continues to lead in the Republican polls and the air starts to go out of the Ben Carson campaign, GOP primary voters have started to look at other candidates who have been waiting for their turn in the spotlight.

The contender with the best financial and ideological standing to make a deep run at the nomination is Ted Cruz, and according to Iowa congressman Steve King, Ted Cruz was sent by god to save the "soul of America."

Ted Cruz has picked up the endorsement of Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who is not only an influential political force in the first-in-the-nation caucus state but also a prominent face of the anti-gay and anti-immigration movements.

"For almost a year now, my regular prayer has been that God would raise up a leader whom he will use to restore the soul of America," King said in a video message, asking Iowans to "do your duty for God and country, come to caucus, and support Ted Cruz for president of the United States."

Given that this endorsement is from an Iowa congressman where the first GOP voters go to the polls in less than two months, this is huge for Ted Cruz. It's also devastating for contenders like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum who desperately need the support of evangelical conservatives in order to make any sort of showing in the caucuses.

Politico reports that Ted Cruz's shot at winning the nomination is looking better than ever, considering that he has plenty of cash on hand and is well-organized across the country. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio come across as more moderate, but only the more rigidly and severely conservative will do for Republican voters in 2016.

Once Ben Carson sells enough of his books, he'll drop out and blame establishment Republicans and the liberal media for his failure. Donald Trump could lose a couple of primaries and then re-enter the race as a third-party candidate, just to make sure that the GOP's chance of winning the White House is totally eliminated.

This is where Ted Cruz comes in to pick up the ex-supporters of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, both of whom he has been very careful not to anger so far.

Ted Cruz knows just the way to the hearts of Republican primary voters. Cruz also understands the perfect formula of blind faith and unwavering acceptance of conservative doctrine that will appeal to religious conservatives in Iowa and beyond. We all know that god didn't tell Cruz or any other candidate to run for president, but you can't convince his supporters of that, because they are as crazy as he is.

Paul Krugman Calls Out Conservatives Reaction To Terror Attacks
By: Steve - November 20, 2015 - 10:30am

Krugman: "The Same People Now Hyping The Terrorist Danger" Of Syrian Refugees In Right-Wing Media Also Hyped The "Greatly Exaggerated" Ebola Scare Of 2014. Including Bill O'Reilly, who says the exact same things they do, while claiming to not be a conservative.

Paul Krugman called out Bill O'Reilly and the right-wing media's baseless anxiety about Syrian refugees and "exaggerated" panic over the threat of a terrorist attack as the latest example of the "apocalyptic mind-set that has developed among Republicans during the Obama years."

In a November 20th column, Krugman observed that Fox News contributor Erick Erickson's "bizarre" threat not to "see the new 'Star Wars' movie on opening day, because 'there are no metal detectors at American theaters'" is "part of a larger pattern" of right-wing panic.

Right-wing media reacted to the November 13th ISIS-led attacks on Paris and elsewhere with sweeping and unfounded claims that President Obama's anti-terror response is endangering U.S national security, with some on Fox even claiming that he has "Islamic sympathies." Others vilified Syrian refugees and defended calls for religious litmus tests, only accepting Christian refugees, on the basis that "Muslims might blow us up."

Krugman noted that among conservatives "these days, panic attacks after something bad happens are the rule rather than the exception." He attributed this epidemic to the "apocalyptic mind-set that has developed among Republicans during the Obama years": "Think about it. From the day Mr. Obama took office, his political foes have warned about imminent catastrophe. Fiscal crisis! Hyperinflation! Economic collapse, brought on by the scourge of health insurance!"

Krugman recalled the right-wing media's "great Ebola scare of 2014," which featured assertions that President Obama would expose American troops to Ebola to "atone for colonialism." While the "threat of pandemic, like the threat of a terrorist attack, was real," he wrote, "it was greatly exaggerated, thanks in large part to hype from the same people now hyping the terrorist danger." All of this overblown fearmongering is, Krugman concludes, "what the right is all about.

Erick Erickson, the editor in chief of the website RedState.com, is a serious power in right-wing circles. Speechifying at RedState's annual gathering is a rite of passage for aspiring Republican politicians, and Mr. Erickson made headlines this year when he disinvited Donald Trump from the festivities.

So it's worth paying attention to what Mr. Erickson says. And as you might guess, he doesn't think highly of President Obama's antiterrorism policies.

Still, his response to the attack in Paris was a bit startling. The French themselves are making a point of staying calm, indeed of going out to cafesto show that they refuse to be intimidated. But Mr. Erickson declared on his website that he won't be going to see the new "Star Wars" movie on opening day, because "there are no metal detectors at American theaters."

It's a bizarre reaction -- but when you think about it, it's part of a larger pattern. These days, panic attacks after something bad happens are the rule rather than the exception, at least on one side of the political divide.

But we shouldn't really be surprised, because we've seen this movie before (unless we were too scared to go to the theater). Remember the great Ebola scare of 2014? The threat of a pandemic, like the threat of a terrorist attack, was real. But it was greatly exaggerated, thanks in large part to hype from the same people now hyping the terrorist danger.

What's more, the supposed "solutions" were similar, too, in their combination of cruelty and stupidity. Does anyone remember Mr. Trump declaring that "the plague will start and spread" in America unless we immediately stopped all plane flights from infected countries? Or the fact that Mitt Romney took a similar position? As it turned out, public health officials knew what they were doing, and Ebola quickly came under control -- but it's unlikely that anyone on the right learned from the experience.

What explains the modern right's propensity for panic? Part of it, no doubt, is the familiar point that many bullies are also cowards. But I think it's also linked to the apocalyptic mind-set that has developed among Republicans during the Obama years.

From the day President Obama took office, his political foes have warned about imminent catastrophe. Fiscal crisis! Hyperinflation! Economic collapse, brought on by the scourge of health insurance! And nobody on the right dares point out the failure of the promised disasters to materialize, or suggest a more nuanced approach.

The context also explains why Beltway insiders were so foolish when they imagined that the Paris attacks would deflate Donald Trump's candidacy, that Republican voters would turn to establishment candidates who are serious about national security. Who, exactly, are these serious candidates? And why would the establishment, which has spent years encouraging the base to indulge its fears and reject nuance, now expect that base to understand the difference between tough talk and actual effectiveness?

Bill O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Hack Who Hates Obama
By: Steve - November 19, 2015 - 11:30am

After the Paris terror attacks, Bill O'Reilly claimed that if the United States were to be attacked by ISIS while President Obama was still in office, he would go "down as the worst president in U.S. history."

By contrast, some at Fox today, including "news" anchors, can barely contain their contempt for Obama in the wake of the Paris killings. (Not to mention their open disdain for Islam.)

What's even more startling was the contention among Fox talkers in 2004 that, politically, a terror attack on America in 2004 would be good news for Bush; that it would seal his re-election bid because voters would overwhelmingly rally around the president.

For anyone who's been watching the Fox News coverage since Friday and seen the almost non-stop smear campaign against Obama, it's almost unimaginable what the Fox commentary would sound like if ISIS killed hundreds in America during next year's presidential campaign. (Calls for impeachment would come quickly.)

In 2004, O'Reilly argued that if al Qaeda struck America during President George W. Bush's watch, he would be "reelected in a heartbeat."

And btw, after the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, etc. O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends supported and defended Bush. Even after we found out Bush had a PDB memo saying Bin Laden was going to attack in the USA, before the attacks, O'Reilly and the Republicans still supported Bush and never called for his impeachment, or slammed him for the attacks.

Bush even kept that PDB memo secret for years, until it was finally leaked out, and O'Reilly still supported and defended Bush. But if it had happened under a Democrat, O'Reilly would have screamed bloody murder and called for his impeachment. Basically, a Republican can do anything and O'Reilly still defends and supports him.

On the November 18th edition of his show, O'Reilly criticized Obama for not attacking ISIS calling him "arrogant" and "passive." O'Reilly claimed that Obama's lack of action will go down as an "unbelievable disaster," and added that if America were to be attacked on his watch "he goes down as the worst president in U.S. history"



And O'Reilly is lying when he says Obama was not attacking ISIS, because he was, in 2014 Obama authorized air strikes and drone strikes against ISIS. O'Reilly knows this, and yet he lies anyway that Obama was not attacking them, when he clearly was.

Here are some quotes from a September 2014 article on it:
Barack Obama announced a bombing campaign against Islamic State militants on Wednesday that will extend into Syria for the first time.

In a speech on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Obama announced an aggressive offensive to combat Isis, which has been responsible for the beheading of two American citizens in the past month and captured a swath of territory in northern parts of Iraq and Syria.

He compared the campaign to those waged against al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia, where US drones, cruise missiles and special-operations raids have battered local affiliates.

Obama said the air strikes were a necessary counter-terrorism measure to prevent the group, also known as Isil, from becoming a future threat to the US and therefore did not require fresh congressional approval.

"We will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists," said Obama. "I will not hesitate to take action against Isil in Syria, as well as Iraq," he added.
Quote from O'Reilly, 11-18-15:

BILL O'REILLY: He's arrogant. He doesn't think this is - this rises to any kind of a crisis. It's the way he believes. You know what's interesting about President Obama -- and Henry did cover the president for a few years for us -- he's not leaving any CYA room Henry. We get hit, he goes down as the worst president in U.S. history. No doubt.

O'REILLY: If we get hit, we have a passive president who believes progress is being made and no one else believes that that I can see.

In 2004, O'Reilly asserted that another terrorist attack on American soil by al Qaeda would all but ensure a re-election for George W. Bush during an interview with historian Andrew Apostolou:

O'REILLY: If al-Qaeda attacks here, President Bush is re-elected in a heartbeat, because Americans aren't...

APOSTOLOU: I agree, but they...

O'REILLY: ...won't surrender, they'll get angry.

APOSTOLOU: Yes, yes.

O'REILLLY: Unlike the Spanish. It's a different population.

APOSTOLOU: Exactly. Exactly.

O'REILLY: Yes. So if they're counting on that, Americans will come together...

APOSTOLOU: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: ...in any kind of attack on us. And we saw that after 9- 11. And I think they saw it, too, because now we're going to go to Pakistan right after Mr. Apostolou.

------------------------------

Back in 2004 O'Reilly was certain: Americans will come together "in any kind of attack." The exception being when there's a Democrat in the White House and you work for Fox News.

What else is the right-wing media phony-outraging about today? Obama (and Hillary Clinton) won't use the phrase "radical Islam" when condemning the acts of terror. It's become a cardinal sin on Fox News.

Of course, following the Madrid massacre, Bush also did not condemn "radical Islam," a move that was met with mostly silence from O'Reilly and the conservative media. So in 2004, Bush did not do what conservatives now demand Obama must do, and in 2004 Fox News led the way in not caring.

And then there was the 2004 conservative spin that if America were hit by another jihadist assault, Bush would be the political benefactor. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" asked the New York Times' David Brooks in March 2004.

Eight days later, Bill O'Reilly weighed in: "If al Qaeda attacks here, President Bush is re-elected in a heartbeat." Bill O'Reilly, March 19, 2004.

So there it is folks, 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a biased Obama hating right-wing hack.

Here is how it works. We did get hit under Bush on 9-11, does O'Reilly call him the worst President ever and call for him to be impeached? Hell no, he supported Bush and defended him, even though he was warned about Bin Laden attacking the USA and did nothing.

Now with a Democratic President, who is attacking ISIS with air strikes and drone strikes, O'Reilly lies about it and says Obama is not doing anything, and that if we are hit under Obama he goes down as the worst President ever.

And btw, ISIS was formed after Bush illegally invaded Iraq based on lies about WMD's, that were not there and never found. They invaded Iraq and removed Saddam, then disbanded the Iraqi military, and then ISIS was created, because Saddam was not there to stop it. But the insane O'Reilly acts like it was all Obama's fault, when he had nothing to do with it, and he voted against the Iraq war. Bush did it, and O'Reilly blames Obama.

O'Reilly should just shut down his show and admit he is a total Republican hack, because this proves he is a lying, biased, right-wing idiot who is just as bad as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or the Republicans in Congress. They all hate Obama and will do anything to make him look bad.

Reality Check On Republicans Tax Lies
By: Steve - November 19, 2015 - 11:00am

Here are the facts about taxes in America, not the propaganda and lies the Republicans want you to believe.

One of the biggest lies for many Republicans when talking about the economy is to trash the tax code. Now they are right about one thing, it is an insanely complicated mess that even many in the tax industry struggle to understand. For decades, "simplifying the tax code" has been a talking point pushed by almost every Republican in this country, especially those running for president.

The mess is all the loopholes and deductions the Republicans have added for the wealthy and the corporations over the years, if we got rid of them it would not be so much of a mess and not so complicated.

Like with everything else tax-related, whenever Republicans talk about taxes you can always bet that their plans benefit the rich the most. Sure, under many of these flat tax proposals the average American might see their tax rate drop 5-10 percent (if that).

While, the rich would see their tax rates cut (in many cases) by more than 20 percent. Ben Carson's ridiculous tax plan actually increases taxes on the poor because it would require nearly everyone to pay at least 10 percent of their income. That's the catch with a flat tax, basically all deductions are eliminated for everyone.

So, while many people with incomes below a certain level are almost never required to pay any income tax (often getting a refund) under Carson's plan that would no longer be the case for millions. His excuse, he believes that when people pay into something, it provides them with more self-worth.

Really? I want to see him tell that to someone struggling to get by who would see 10 percent of their income go away under his plan. Even Fox News Chris Wallace called out how disastrous Carson's plan would be for poor and middle class Americans.

To say nothing about the $1 trillion annual deficit it would create. A flat tax is nothing more than a scam to give the rich a huge tax break while shifting the burden to the poor and middle class, and that is a proven fact.

To make up for it, either local taxes will need to be raised or vital programs middle class and poor Americans rely upon every day will experience massive cuts to compensate for the loss of tax revenue from these flat tax proposals.

The truth is, all this propaganda about our tax code coming from Republicans is a lie. Sure, our tax code is really complicated, but that's not because of tax rates. Here is the real truth: We have a progressive tax system based on seven, yes, just seven tax brackets:

10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6% That's it.

What makes our tax code so long and complicated is the lobbying that's gone on for decades, adding deductions, loopholes and other accounting tricks (by the rich) to avoid paying taxes.

Do you want to simplify our tax code to just a couple of sheets of paper? Get rid of the loopholes and deductions that the rich and the corporations use to avoid paying what they're supposed to pay in taxes.

Republicans stand on the debate stage and claim it's unfair that big corporations and the rich have the resources to hire teams of lawyers and accountants to avoid paying taxes, which is why a flat tax makes sense. Which is 100% BS.

They don't have teams of lawyers and accountants spending all year trying to figure out their tax bracket. They are paid to manipulate the deductions and loopholes that exist in our tax code. There's nothing overly complicated about our tax brackets. What complicates it are all the accounting tricks people and businesses try to get away with to hide income.

Get rid of those and you instantly simplify our tax system. That's not why Republicans want a flat tax, and they know it. This is about masking a massive tax cut for the rich under the guise of the evil and overly complicated IRS is out to hurt hardworking Americans with page after page of tax forms.

You can fix all of that nonsense without doing a single thing to our tax rates. All they would have to do is pass legislation that strips away nearly all of these loopholes and accounting tricks rich people and businesses use to hide income. Then again, this has nothing to do with simplifying our taxes, because they can do that right now without touching a single tax rate.

When Republicans talk about income inequality being an issue (which it is) they're admitting that trickle-down economics is a scam. We're still dealing with historically low tax rates, yet for the past 40 years (GOP candidate Carly Fiorina's own timeline) wages have become stagnant.

If tax cuts created economic prosperity, the last thing we should be dealing with right now is rampant income inequality. Meanwhile, that's exactly what we have thanks to the con of trickle-down economics. As I said before, you are nuts if you trust a group of rich people who tell you that the path to economic prosperity is based upon giving the rich more massive tax cuts.

Republicans Have Become The Party Of Hatred Racism And Fear
By: Steve - November 19, 2015 - 10:00am

While Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are running campaigns on a message of moving America forward, Republicans are preaching a message of taking this country back to the days of white Christian conservatism. Even as America becomes increasingly diverse and secular, frontrunners like Donald Trump and Ben Carson are talking about bringing back a bigoted, conservative course for America.

The younger, more progressive generation has realized that gay rights is not a threat to heterosexuals and that the separation of church and state isn't a threat to religious freedom. We have rejected the idea that trickle-down economics works, or that immigrants are a mortal danger to the American Dream.

Some of us are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet, but Republicans are telling us that we aren't working hard enough -- or that we should blame our economic situation on immigrants.

Recently David Brooks wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times that the GOP is at a crossroads on the immigration issue, and that they have to decide whether or not to play this for short-term gain or abandon the issue to remain viable as a political party.
BROOKS: It's no exaggeration to say that the next six months will determine the viability of the Republican Party. The demographics of this country are changing. This will be the last presidential election cycle in which the G.O.P., in its current form, has even a shot at winning the White House.

And so the large question Republicans must ask themselves is: Are we as a party willing to champion the new America that is inexorably rising around us, or are we the receding roar of an old America that is never coming back?
The problem for Republicans is that despite the few bogus minority figureheads they prop up to pretend they're a diverse party -- the GOP is absolutely not a party that has the best interests of a changing America at heart. Rather than present us with solutions for the future, Republicans are telling us that we should blame liberals, immigrants and even ourselves for the fact that the rich are getting richer, while the poor keep getting poorer.

When it is the Republicans who are mostly to blame for the big divide (thet gets worse every year) between the rich and the middle class and the poor, by supporting everything the wealthy and the corporations want. While opposing jobs plans, unions, and raising the minimum wage.

The only reason why they continue to consolidate power in state governments and in Congress is the fact that Democrats do not get out to vote in every election. Most Democrats only vote for president every four years, and that is not enough, that lack of political understanding is what has allowed Tea Party Republicans to roll back worker's rights in state after state across the country.

We can not believe in the bogus claims of voter fraud when people simply can't be bothered to take an hour or two out of an entire year to stand in line to vote. When Democrats show up to vote, they win almost every time, which is exactly why shadow groups promote the message that your vote doesn't matter, why Republicans try to pass un-needed voter fraud bills, or that both parties are the same.

The older, more conservative generation is beginning to fade away and die off. If we want a better country, you need to get off your couch and vote in every election, there's no other way to take America forward the way it should be, that benefits all the people, not just the wealthy and the corporations.

This is a wake up call, if the Democrats, liberals, and the progressives do not start voting in every election, this country will be two classes, the rich and the poor, and the middle class will go away forever.

Crazy O'Reilly Blames President Obama For Syrian Refugee Crisis
By: Steve - November 18, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly: "The President Of The United States Has Lost Control Of The War On Terror"

O'Reilly also said Obama is delusional. But when Democrats said that kind of thing about Bush, O'Reilly went nuts and called them America haters and un-American. So now it's suddenly ok for him to do the same thing, and this is from the guy who once said we should all support our president and show him respect.

But of course that was when a Republican was the President, now that a Democrat is in office all that goes out the window for O'Reilly.

O'Reilly even said they were on the edge of treason when they slammed Bush, even doing a segment with a conservative constitutional law professor, asking if they could be put on trial for treason, when the professor said no, O'Reilly asked if they could be put on trial for sedition, and the professor also said no to that.



Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: Finally, it was quite clear in the president's press conference today that he is very concerned about the refugees fleeing Syria, and he should be concerned because it's his fault. When Syrian dictator Assad used poison gas, President Obama threatened the man. You may remember he did not carry out his threat which he could have easily done by destroying the Syrian air force on the ground which was delivering some of the gas.

The president's retreat from Syria has caused the massive refugee problem, and remember, one of the ISIS killers in Paris apparently posed as a refugee to enter France. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama is quite confident that no terrorists will be among the 10,000 refugees he wants to resettle in America.

That of course, is another delusion. And at least 15 states right now have already said they will not accept any refugees at all. Expect that number to grow as more and more Americans finally realize, finally, that the President of the United States has lost control of the war on terror. And that's the memo.

Top Carson Advisor Admits Ben Carson Is Clueless About Foreign Policy
By: Steve - November 18, 2015 - 9:00am

Now imagine what O'Reilly and Fox would say about that if he were a Democrat, they would rip him to pieces 24/7, and say with the terrorism and the turmoil in the world today Carson is not qualified to be President. But since he is a Republican they are silent about it.

Remember this? During the 4th GOP presidential debate Ben Carson gave an incoherent answer concerning the Middle East where he suggested that the Chinese were conducting military operations in Syria. Following his statements the media pressed the presidential candidate about his comment and how someone who has absolutely no access to high-level national security intelligence could obtain information that even the CIA, NSA and the Obama administration didn't have.

"I have several sources that I've gotten material from. I'm surprised my sources are better than theirs," Carson said in response to reporters pointing out to him that the president had denied any Chinese military involvement in Syria.

That same day one of Carson's top advisers, Armstrong Williams, told MSNBC that the candidate had been told by reliable "sources on the ground" that the Chinese are in Syria. He also went on to make a remark about the mainstream media, suggesting that just because the press doesn't know about the Chinese doesn't mean information wouldn't come out in a few days confirming Carson's comments.

Then later that same day his campaign issued another statement saying that, no, Carson does not believe that the Chinese are involved militarily in Syria, but pointed out that they do have a diplomatic relationship with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

So, to summarize, in a matter of a few days Carson went from stating he had intelligence better than the president, and that told him the Chinese were involved militarily in Syria; an adviser to his campaign essentially mocked the press for suggesting that Carson was just making it up; then, finally, his campaigned admitted that this "so-called intel" he was boasting about was not true.

And it gets worse. On Tuesday, a top foreign policy adviser to Carson, Duane R. Clarridge, basically said that the presidential frontrunner isn't very smart when it comes to foreign policy.

From The New York Times: "Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East," said Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security. He also said Mr. Carson needed weekly conference calls briefing him on foreign policy so "we can make him smart."

And of course, Carson's campaign responded to this story by slamming The New York Times by attacking Clarridge's age and suggesting that they took advantage of an elderly man. While ignoring the fact that Clarridge was quoted word for word and does not deny he said it.

"He is coming to the end of a long career of serving our country," Carson communications director Doug Watts said. "For The New York Times to take advantage of an elderly gentleman and use him as their foil in this story is an affront to good journalistic practices."

In other words, how dare you quote one of Carsons top foreign policy advisors and report what he said. Now here is my question, if the guy is old and senile why the hell is he one of Carsons top foreign policy advisors?

So, we've gone from Ben Carson suggesting that the Chinese military is on the ground in Syria; to the candidate mocking the Obama administration's intelligence; to finally admitting that he has no intelligence confirming that China's military is there; to his campaign attacking the mental competency of one of his own foreign policy advisers.

It's stunning that there are millions of conservatives who think this guy is fit to be president. Ben Carson has absolutely no business even running for president, let alone being a leading candidate for one of our nation's two largest political parties.

And Carson's lie could not have come at a worse time considering tension is extremely high right now following the Paris attack. It really exemplifies the fact that he clearly has no clue what's even going on in the Middle East, let alone how to go about understanding international terrorism or foreign affairs.

I think it is now clear that there is a lot of internal tension brewing as they scramble to try and coverup Carson's incompetence on anything but brain surgery.

Ex-CIA Director: Bush White House Ignored Months Of Warnings About 9/11
By: Steve - November 17, 2015 - 10:00am

And where is the so-called (Great) journalist Bill O'Reilly on this blockbuster story, silent, and hiding under his desk. He is too busy with partisan attacks on Obama and blaming him for terrorist attacks in foreign countries, that he had nothing to do with. O'Reilly has totally ignored the story because he is a Republican who supported George W. Bush and Dick Cheney 100 percent.

In an explosive revelation during an interview with Politico, the former CIA director during President George W. Bush's administration claims his department informed White house officials over impending Al Qaeda attacks months before the president received the infamous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." presidential Daily briefing.

Beginning in May of 2001, Tenet and Black launched an initiative called "the Blue Sky paper" and pitched it to Bush's national security team. The CIA called for a joint CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat by "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan."

According to ex-CIA head George Tenet and Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA's counterterrorism center, they called an emergency meeting with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10 of 2001 saying they had evidence that an attack on the U.S. was imminent and that it would be "spectacular."

According to Tenet, the Bush administration said they wanted to back-burner the plan.

"And the word back," claims Tenet, "'was 'we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking,'" meaning they didn't want a paper trail.

According to Black, Bush's national security team was living in the past.

"I think they were mentally stuck back eight years before. They were used to terrorists being Euro-lefties, they drink champagne by night, blow things up during the day, how bad can this be? And it was a very difficult sell to communicate the urgency to this," he explained.

Steve Doocy Thinks Ads Promoting Date Rape Are Fine
By: Steve - November 17, 2015 - 9:00am

Referring to backlash against a controversial Bloomingdale's ad that is suggesting date rape, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy asked, "Remember back in the old days when people used to make jokes?"

The ad, which read "Spike your best friend's eggnog when they're not looking" and featured an image of a man staring at an away-turned woman, drew swift condemnation that prompted the company to issue a formal apology.

Most of the media criticized the ad, with some describing this "pretty horrifying" incident as "the unfortunate result of a society that doesn't talk openly about sexual assault and date rape."

Doocy's ridiculous reaction is in keeping with the Fox network's consistent efforts to minimize the issue of sexual violence, and Fox & Friends has a long history of blatant sexism. From the November 13th Fox & Friends.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Always a chance to apologize. Forgiveness is there. But what do you think of that ad? Should it have been there in the first place?

STEVE DOOCY: Or are you okay with it, you think it's just a joke? Remember back in the old days when people used to make jokes?

CLAYTON MORRIS: When people had a sense of humor. When was that?

DOOCY: Back in the old days.

MORRIS: The early 80s.

HASSELBECK: That one I would draw the line on myself. But let us know what you think. We'll stand by.

-----------------------------------------------

Only on Fox would some jerk say that he wishes we could go back to the old days when ads promoting date rape were ok. How these people are even on tv is beyond me, Doocy and that entire crew on Fox & Friends should be working at a Burger King, not on tv, they are clueless idiots.

Jennifer Lawrence Slammed For Saying GOP Doesn't Support Women's Rights
By: Steve - November 16, 2015 - 10:00am

Actress Jennifer Lawrence says she has trouble staying true to her Republican upbringing because of the GOP's treatment of women.

"I was raised a Republican but I just can't imagine supporting a party that doesn't support women's basic rights," she told Vogue in an interview published Wednesday.

"It's 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we've come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don't want to stay quiet about that stuff."

The "Hunger Games" star slammed presidential front-runner Donald Trump, saying he will be a problem for Republicans.

"My view on the election is pretty cut-and-dried," she said. "If Donald Trump is president of the United States, it will be the end of the world. And he's also the best thing to happen to the Democrats ever."

Lawrence also took aim at a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses earlier this year.

"Kim Davis? Don't even say her name in this house,' she said.

"She is a lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky. All those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they're fighting the good fight," the actress added.

"I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are."

Davis, a born-again Christian, was briefly jailed in September for refusing a court order to issue the licenses.

The issue split the GOP's crowded 2016 field, with some arguing the government should protect religious liberty and others charging that its officials must obey the law.

Trump, for his part, admitted that Davis must obey federal law while expressing sympathy for her position.

"I hate to see her put in jail," he said in September. "But the Supreme Court has ruled. That's the law of the land."

Lawrence had previously criticized Trump's legitimacy as a presidential candidate.

"I genuinely believe that reality television has reached the ultimate place where now even things like this might just be for entertainment," she said last month of his 2016 run.

Now you can imagine how this went over at Fox News, they are all slamming her as a know nothing Hollywood liberal who should just shut up, even though she admits she is a Republican. And even though it's the same thing they slam liberals for, saying they try to silence conservatives, then they do the very same thing.

They want her to just shut up, because they claim they know she is just another dumb Hollywood liberal who is clueless. When in fact, they do not have a clue what she knows, they are just slamming her because they do not like what she is saying.

Fox News Has Some Serious Protest Bias And Hypocrisy
By: Steve - November 16, 2015 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News support the right to protest, even sometimes calling protesters patriotic Americans, unless the protesters are black students who are shining a spotlight on racism in their schools.

Protests against racial discrimination on college campuses across the country are garnering national media attention with students criticizing administration responses to incidents at University of Missouri, Yale, U.C.L.A, University of Oklahoma and other institutions.

Fox News responded to the student protests with anger and attempts to belittle the protesters arguments. The so-called (non-partisan hard news only) Megyn Kelly called the protesters in Missouri "angry black students," while Bill O'Reilly compared them to fascism.

When Juan Williams attempted to explain why students of color may feel marginalized on campuses, Fox host Eric Bolling diminished the students complaints, suggesting they were only upset "because of two incidences."

On the November 12th edition of Fox & Friends, the hosts repeatedly called the country-wide university protests anarchy. In one instance, Fox displayed an on-screen graphic characterizing the protests as "anarchy in the making."

Even though in the real world, some student protesters at the University of Missouri have been threatened with violence, and two suspects have been arrested for threatening black students.

Fox's coverage of protests has looked drastically different when those protesting have aligned with the network's conservative agenda.

For example, when conservative Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy faced off with the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over his refusal to pay grazing fees for his cattle's use of public lands in April 2014; he threatened violence and incited protests -- which included armed militia supporters -- to resist BLM efforts to collect on his debt.

Fox News rocketed Bundy to conservative hero status, lauding the rancher with the network's support even as numerous media reports described Bundy supporters pointing guns at federal law enforcement. BLM was even forced to suspend its operations when protesters -- some of them armed -- marched toward where BLM had impounded Bundy's cattle.

Fox personalities praised Bundy supporters as "good, hardworking Americans," "law-abiding American citizens," and "patriotic Americans," and one Fox host, Clayton Morris, sanitized the interactions between Bundy supporters and law enforcement, claiming, "Suddenly people are there protesting peacefully, arguing against government intervention here, and all of these police and folks roll in with guns and sniper rifles pointing at them."

The man was violating federal laws, and since he was a conservative, O'Reilly and Fox supported him. But when some black students protest about racism at a school, Fox slams them and calls them un-American.

And when hundreds of protesters gathered in Murrieta, California in July 2014 to oppose the planned housing of immigrant mothers and children at the federal Border Patrol station in the city, Fox championed the protests.

These protests contained such vitriol that immigration officials were forced to reroute the buses transporting immigrants from overcrowded, unsanitary facilities in Texas for fear of the immigrants' and federal officers' safety. Despite the virulent nature of the protests, Kimberly Guilfoyle, co-host of The Five, applauded the protesters for being "able to get out there, and voice their opinion," saying "I love it, because you can do that in America."

Her fellow co-host Eric Bolling commented that "finally, citizens are standing up and saying enough is enough." Host Greta Van Susteren emphasized that the protesters were just "exercising their First Amendment right," and Bill O'Reilly told Murrieta Mayor Alan Long "you should be very proud of your town," for keeping the protesters safe.

Just this year Fox News celebrated when Duke University decided to cancel planned weekly broadcasts of Muslim calls to prayer from the campus chapel in response to "numerous verified instances of credible threats" against members of the university community.

Host Steve Doocy applauded the outcome, attributing it to Fox viewers, saying "A lot of you made your opinion known, a lot of people contacted Duke, and they have done a 180." Martha MacCallum quipped, "Community outcry prompted this change. They got some word from donors as well, from what I hear. That helped them expedite that decision."

Only on Fox News are armed militia members protesting federal law "patriotic," while black university students and faculty speaking out against racism are labeled as anarchists.

Dick Cheney Considered Using Nuclear Bombs On Iraq
By: Steve - November 15, 2015 - 11:00am

It turns out that Dick Cheney was even worse than we thought, which is scary.

George Herbert Walker Bush Reveals Cheney Considered Using Nuclear Weapons Against Iraq

George Bush Sr. book reveals a more dangerous Dick Cheney than anyone knew

Destiny and Power shows a VP with more authority than almost all his predecessors, making plain Bush Jr's administration could have been even worse

This unilateralist inclination was clearly the younger Bush's choice. It was how he intended from the outset to make his foreign policy distinctive from his father's. And it was this characteristic that made for such a dangerously volatile and over-reaching US response when the 9/11 attacks came.

There is no doubt that Cheney and Rumsfeld were given more license and authority than almost all their predecessors once the "war on terror" began. Cheney was certainly the most powerful vice-president of modern times, with a large and assertive staff, something that Bush Sr. draws particular attention to.

Cheney and Rumsfeld used their enhanced power to poison the flow of information to the president's desk about Iraq and its supposed weapons of mass destruction.

The vice-president even made repeated trips to CIA headquarters in Langley to bully analysts into producing more hawkish reports, while Rumsfeld's Pentagon sucked up highly dubious "evidence" from Iraqi exiles and ideological freelancers.

But, as even as the ever-forgiving father admits in Meacham's book, it was President Bush who allowed Cheney to grow his own empire.

Perhaps the most alarming revelation to emerge from the new Bush biography is the elder man's recollection that while Cheney had been his defense secretary, he had commissioned a study on how many tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to eliminate a division of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.

The answer was 17, though a more profound conclusion is that Cheney was a more dangerous figure than anyone knew.

It adds weight to reporting by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker that Cheney also contemplated the use of low-yield nuclear bunker-busters against Iran's underground uranium enrichment facilities. The more we hear about the George W Bush administration, the clearer it becomes that the global damage it wrought could have been even worse.

George Will Slams O'Reilly Once Again Over His New Book
By: Steve - November 15, 2015 - 10:00am

Here is a copy of an op-ed by George Will, he shows once again that you can not believe what O'Reilly says, in his books, or on his tv show. And think about this, O'Reilly's excuse over the years for when people say he lies has been, they are liberals who hate him. So they are lying, and you can not believe them because they are biased against him.

Now we have not only a well respected conservative thinker, he is a colleague of O'Reilly who also works for Fox News. He even has an office in the same building as O'Reilly, so he could just pick up a phone and punch in an extension number and talk to him. But he did not talk to O'Reilly, and has written two negative op-ed articles slamming O'Reilly for his lies.

So this time O'Reilly can not claim it's just a biased liberal who hates him, because it is a conservative, and a colleague, who you would think supports him, but he does not.

Here is the current op-ed from Will:

Were the lungs the seat of wisdom, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly would be wise, but they are not and he is not. So it is not astonishing that he is doubling down on his wager that the truth cannot catch up with him. It has, however, already done so.

The prolific O'Reilly has, with his collaborator Martin Dugard, produced five history books in five years: "Killing Lincoln," "Killing Kennedy," "Killing Jesus," "Killing Patton" and now the best-selling "Killing Reagan." Because no one actually killed Reagan, O'Reilly keeps his lucrative series going by postulating that the bullet that struck Reagan in March 1981 kind of, sort of killed him, although he lived 23 more years.

O'Reilly "reports" that the trauma of the assassination attempt was somehow causally related to the "fact" that Reagan was frequently so mentally incompetent that senior aides contemplated using the Constitution's 25th Amendment to remove him from office. But neither O'Reilly nor Dugard spoke with any of those aides -- not with Ed Meese, Jim Baker, George Shultz or any of the scores of others who could, and would, have demolished O'Reilly's theory.

O'Reilly now airily dismisses them because they "have skin in the game." His is an interesting approach to writing history: Never talk to anyone with firsthand knowledge of your subject.

Instead, O'Reilly made the book's "centerpiece" a memo he has never seen and never tried to see until 27 days after the book was published. Then Dugard asked the Reagan Presidential Library to find it.

Recently on Fox News, O'Reilly put this on the screen from Sue Janzen of Yorba Linda, Calif.: "We went to the Reagan Library, and were told they do not sell Killing Reagan because it's not factual." Then O'Reilly said: "You were deceived, Sue. The Reagan Library is angry at Martin Dugard and me because we're seeking" the Cannon memo. He added: "The memo's disappeared. But Dugard and I are on the case and the library is not happy about it."

"Disappeared"? His crude intimation was that the allegedly deceptive library is hiding the memo. The library, however, has never had it because when James Cannon wrote it, he was not a member of the White House staff, hence the memo was not a "presidential record."

O'Reilly recently canceled an interview with Meese, who says O'Reilly told him he was "vetting" the memo. (How does one vet a memo one does not possess?) O'Reilly says he canceled the interview because Meese set "conditions." Meese, who was eager to be interviewed, waived any conditions.

The "centerpiece" memo was written by Cannon at the request of former senator Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) when Baker was about to replace the fired Don Regan as Reagan's chief of staff. The memo assessing White House conditions apparently included disparagements of Reagan from some unhappy Regan staffers.

The memo was presented to Baker at a meeting at Baker's home attended by A.B. Culvahouse, who the next day would become counsel to the president. Culvahouse remembers the normally mild-mannered Baker brusquely dismissing the memo: "That's not the Reagan I met with two days ago."

Neither Baker nor Culvahouse considered the memo important enough to save. Meeting with Reagan the next day, Baker and others found no reason to question his competence.

O'Reilly impales himself on a contradiction: He says his book is "laudatory" about Reagan -- and that it is being attacked by Reagan "guardians" and "loyalists." How odd. Liberals, who have long recognized that to discredit conservatism they must devalue Reagan's presidency, surely are delighted with O'Reilly's assistance. The diaspora of Reagan administration alumni, and the conservative movement, now recognize O'Reilly as an opportunistic interloper.

He began his profitable paltering with America's past with "Killing Lincoln." Historians advising the National Park Service, which administers Ford's Theatre, found a multitude of errors in the first, uncorrected version, in which, for example, O'Reilly repeatedly places Lincoln in the Oval Office, which was built in 1909.

The Theatre bookstore still does not sell "Killing Lincoln." The Theatre gift shop, a commercial rather than educational entity, does. Four "histories" later, O'Reilly remains slipshod.

In "The Great Gatsby," F. Scott Fitzgerald writes of Tom and Daisy Buchanan, who "smashed up things" and then "retreated back into their vast carelessness and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

Tidying up after O'Reilly could be a full-time job but usually is not worth the trouble. When, however, O'Reilly's vast carelessness pollutes history and debases the historian's craft, the mess is, unlike O'Reilly, to be taken seriously.

-------------------------------------------------

And now, I would like to dispute something George Will keeps saying, he said this: "Liberals, who have long recognized that to discredit conservatism they must devalue Reagan's presidency, surely are delighted with O'Reilly's assistance."

I am a liberal and I do not know one liberal who thinks that way, I could care less what Reagan did, or did not do as president. I do not know any liberals who think that to discredit conservatism they must devalue Reagan's presidency. That is just ridiculous, because liberals use what conservatives are doing today to discredit conservatism, we do not use Reagan.

In fact, I never even mention Reagan in my blog postings, because I do not care what he did 30 years ago. I talk about the conservatives we have in politics and the media now, not what some old right-wing fool did in the past. It is other conservatives who constantly mention Reagan, nobody else cares.

George Will acts like every liberal in America is constantly trying to discredit conservatism by devaluing Reagan's presidency, which is just a total lie. We discredit conservatism by showing all their recent lies, and the crazy far-right positions and things they say. It has nothing to do with Reagan, and I could care less about discrediting Reagan.

GOP Establishment Worried Carson Or Trump Might Actually Win
By: Steve - November 14, 2015 - 10:00am

Less than three months before the Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety (bordering on panic) among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.

Party leaders and donors fear that nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands.

The party establishment is paralyzed. Big money is still on the sidelines. No consensus alternative to the outsiders has emerged from the pack of governors and senators running, and there is disagreement about how to prosecute the case against them. Recent focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire commissioned by rival campaigns revealed no silver bullet.

In normal times, the way forward would be obvious. The wannabes would launch concerted campaigns, including television attack ads, against the ­front-runners. But even if the other candidates had a sense of what might work this year, it is unclear whether it would ultimately accrue to their benefit. Trump's counterpunches have been withering, while Carson's appeal to the base is spiritual, not merely political. If someone was able to do significant damage to them, there's no telling to whom their supporters would turn, if anyone.

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" asked Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump when speaking of rival Ben Carson's popularity in the GOP race. "The rest of the field is still wishing upon a star that Trump and Carson are going to ­self-destruct," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a former adviser to 2012 nominee Mitt Romney. But, he said, "they have to be made to self-destruct. Nothing has happened at this point to dislodge Trump or Carson."

Fehrnstrom pointed out that the fourth debate passed this week without any candidate landing a blow against Trump or Carson. "We're about to step into the holiday time accelerator," he said. "You have Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, then Iowa and a week later, New Hampshire, and it's going to be over in the blink of an eye."

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking about drafting Romney -- despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates.

None of that happened, of course, leaving establishment figures disoriented. Consider Thomas H. Kean Sr., a former New Jersey governor who for most of his 80 years has been a pillar of his party. His phone is ringing daily, bringing a stream of exasperation and confusion from fellow GOP power brokers.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, herself an outsider who rode the tea party wave into office five years ago, explained the phenomenon.

"You have a lot of people who were told that if we got a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate, then life was gonna be great," she said in an interview Thursday. "What you're seeing is that people are angry. Where's the change? Why aren't there bills on the president's desk every day for him to veto? They're saying, 'Look, what you said would happen didn't happen, so we're going to go with anyone who hasn't been elected.'"

Before Tuesday's debate in Milwaukee, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had a reception at the Pfister Hotel with party leaders, donors and operatives. There was little appetite for putting a political knife in the back of either Trump or Carson, according to one person there. Rather, attendees simply hoped both outsiders would go away.

There are similar concerns about Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is gaining steam and is loathed by party elites, but they are more muted, at least for now.

Charlie Black, who has advised presidential campaigns since the 1970s, said he believes the 2016 contest "will eventually fall into the normal pattern of one outsider and one insider, and historically the insider always wins."

Black said he was briefed on the findings of two recent private focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire that showed these voters knew little about his policy views beyond immigration. "Things like universal health care and other more liberal positions he's taken in the past will all get out before people vote in New Hampshire," he said.

One well-funded outside group, the Club for Growth, has aired ads attacking Trump in Iowa and more recently came out against Carson as well. "Donald Trump and Doctor Ben Carson are in over their heads," said Club for Growth President David McIntosh, labeling both candidates as "pretenders."

Still, the party establishment's greatest weapon -- big money -- is partly on the shelf. Kenneth G. Langone, a founder of Home Depot and a billionaire supporter of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, said he is troubled that many associates in the New York financial community have so far refused to invest in a campaign due to the race's volatility.

George Voinovich, a retired career politician who rose from county auditor to mayor of Cleveland to governor of Ohio to U.S. senator, said this cycle has been vexing.

"This business has turned into show business," said Voinovich, who is backing Ohio Gov. John Kasich. "We can't afford to have somebody sitting in the White House who doesn't have governing experience and the gravitas to move this country ahead."

Fox & The GOP Promoting Lie That Real Unemployment Is 40%
By: Steve - November 14, 2015 - 9:00am

Fox Business Maria Bartiromo Pushes Myth That "Almost 40 Percent Of Americans Are Without A Job"

Exaggerated Unemployment Figure Includes Children, Retirees, College Students, And Stay-At-Home Parents

And she is not alone, Trump recently lied that 42% of Americans Are Unemployed.

This is a 100% lie, and they know it. In an interview with Time magazine, Donald Trump, made the following claim about the U.S. economy:
"We have a real unemployment rate that's probably 21%. It's not 6. It's not 5.2 and 5.5. Our real unemployment rate--in fact, I saw a chart the other day, our real unemployment--because you have ninety million people that aren't working. Ninety-three million to be exact. If you start adding it up, our real unemployment rate is 42%."
The official unemployment rate was 5.3% in July, but Trump is talking about something different. The official unemployment rate only classifies people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work, which is the way it has always been done, even under Republican presidents.

Trump is right about one thing: A little under 93 million people in America do not have jobs.

Because most of them do not want to work, or can not work because of their age. About 59% of Americans have jobs and 62% are considered to be "in the labor force."

And now the facts Trump and Fox News does not tell you. Many people without jobs are teenagers and retirees.

The Labor Department does not consider these people unemployed for a reason: Your kid brother who is a high school junior and my grandma who just turned 88?

They are not considered unemployed, for a very good and very obvious reason! The reason 42% of Americans don't have job is that the U.S. has 46 million people age 60 and over and another 10 million teenagers.

In their prime working years, close to 80% of Americans have jobs. Men are more likely to work than women. And there's an obvious reason for this: Many women choose to stay home to take care of their children. So Trump's 93 million unemployed numbers include not only your grandparents and teenage cousins, but also any stay-at-home moms you know.

So Bartiromo, Trump, and Fox are lying to you. They are counting kids, senior citizens who are retired, etc. The 40% unemployment rate is a 100% right-wing lie, it is dishonest to say and they know it, and yet, they still make the dishonest claims, it's ridiculous.

They are counting people (over 65) who worked their entire life, then retired, as unemployed.

There are 319 million Americans, and they say 93 million Americans are not working, so that means 40% are unemployed. But 74 million of them are under age 18. And 45 million of them are over 65 and retired. And 13 million of them are fulltime college students. And 11 million of them are disabled. And 5 million are stay at home parents who choose not to work.

Not to mention this, 9.6 million of them are worth more than $1 million dollars and they are also not working, because they do not need to. But Trump and the right claim all of them are unemployed in their ridiculous and dishonest 40% unemployed lies.

It is a massive and proven lie, and anyone who claims the unemployment rate in America is 40%, should be banned from ever getting into the White House, or holding any political office. It is one of the biggest lies any politician has ever told.

Leader Of GOP Woman's Group Says Women To Blame For Rape
By: Steve - November 13, 2015 - 11:00am

Can you say stupid, because this woman is about as stupid as you can get.

The executive director of the Independent Women's Forum, Republican Sabrina Schaeffer, recently sat for a round-table discussion on PBS's To The Contrary, in which she blames over-sexualization of women for male on female violence.

Schaeffer referred to something feminist Gloria Steinem said and then added: "I would add to that the over-sexualization of women. We often talk about it as male violence against women, but it's also sort of the way that we encourage young girls to be over-sexualized in a way that I think should run counter to the third wave feminism."

So what this total idiot is saying is that because pop-culture and society endorse women as sexual beings, women should expect for men to rape them.

This is the kind of logic we usually see from older White Republican men, not a young conservative female, but Schaeffer is conservative and just stupid.

Gloria Steinem said this about victim-shaming in a 2012 article:

"But blaming females has a double impact: invading female bodies sexually and then de-valuing them as spoiled and ruined--all because female bodies are the means of reproduction that are 'owned' by one male so he can 'own' children.

Women's rights are human rights, and we must shift the blame from women who suffer sexualized violence to men who inflict it; from women who are raped to men who rape; from battered women to battering men; from sexually abused children to adults who sexually abuse.

Right now, the victim still may be punished more than the criminal, men may assault females to punish other men, and victimized females are often punished more than the males who victimized them.
"

I think this Schaeffer idiot is confused.

In my opinion, even if a woman was walking down the street completely naked, it does not give anyone a right to reach out and put their hands on her, or rape her.

Men should be held accountable for their actions, not coddled like emotion-driven children unable to control themselves.

It's the same as saying this: she's wearing too much make-up, her neckline is too low, her skirt is too short, her clothes are too tight.

Reality Check: The Rest Of The World See Republicans As Far-Right Loons
By: Steve - November 13, 2015 - 10:00am

It has always been a curiosity that most Americans understand far less about America's government, its society, and its flaws than most citizens of foreign nations. It is not that foreigners have better access to news coming out of America, they just pay attention to what is happening to a country they at one time thought of as exceptional and at least rational despite its history of war for entertainment and corporate profits.

It is also no secret that the world's opinion of America changed drastically after the nation started invading and occupying Muslim countries under George W. Bush, but the world's opinion began shifting with the election of Barack Obama.

Obviously President Obama has elevated America's status and reputation around the world as he attempted, and still continues, to clean up eight years of Bush Administration abominations that drove international disdain for America. But after the past two midterm elections, and the extremist field of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, people around the world are increasingly convinced that the greatest threat to America is the Republican Party.

It is important to note at the start that although the rest of the world specifically cites Republican politicians by name, they certainly comprehend that those Republicans threatening America are as much the religious and racist base as the politicians serving their interests. This little fact eludes many, many Americans who focus on a personality and not who puts them in the spotlight and position of power and influence; the voters.

An opinion piece in a New Zealand newspaper a few months ago gave particular attention to the extremism being displayed by the GOP presidential candidates and actually cited the support they have from voters. The authors wrote that Republicans "are now essentially a party of religious fundamentalism" in citing Ted Cruz's typically Republican mindset that America's darkest day was not 9/11, Pearl Harbor, presidential assassinations, or the Civil War.

No, according to Cruz and no small number of Republican voters "America's darkest day was when the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage."

A citizen of Uganda and regular commuter to the United States recently noted that, "The U.S. Constitution says the government's responsibility is to provide welfare, security and safety to its population allowing every person the opportunity to live in a dignified manner; Republicans believe otherwise and have created a system that has become a rich man's plaything."

A resident of an EU nation said this:

"I am completely flabbergasted by what has become of America. In the Republican Party stupidity is admired and encouraged, intelligence and education are viewed as 'elitist', money is their God and fear is their motivator. If more people outside the US continue to speak very loudly about this situation, it might help them turn things around. The hate and fear that Fox (NOT news) promotes helped the Republican Party create and fuel the atmosphere threatening America.

"The takeover of American conservatism by evangelical Christians, Fox News and a handful of shady billionaires transformed Republicans into the party of willful ignorance where doctrinal purity is more valued than intelligence, tolerance has been supplanted by persecutory moralizing, and paranoia has replaced realism."


After living through the Bush years, and well over a decade of wars against Muslims, people around the world are astonished, and rightly alarmed, that Republicans and their bloodthirsty base are openly "signaling a frightening abandonment of diplomacy as a means of defusing tension, avoiding conflict and managing international affairs. Instead they remain disposed towards armed intervention despite it has accelerated, not suppressed, Islamic militancy.

Something which shouldn't come as a surprise since persisting with policies that achieve the exact opposite of what was intended is something of an American speciality."

Citizens of communist China "compared the United States to lawless Somalia" and in Britain a leading newspaper cited the "racism the Republicans promote" as fueling the level and frequency of gun violence. Claire Taylor of Gun Free South Africa said, "The USA is completely out of step with the rest of the world" in promoting the proliferation of guns in an angry, racist, and religiously extreme population.

Closer to home, a Mexico City newspaper wrote that "the U.S. has become a structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences. Such a phenomenon reflects the feeling of extensive sectors about the supposed legitimacy of violent methods."

Americans on the left tend to reserve all their outrage and criticism for whichever extremist Republican made the latest outrageous, racist, or offensive statement during an interview or stump speech.

However, just the fact that Republican voters are comfortable with "monumentally unqualified extremists in the Oval Office" demonstrates the how twisted the party has become; that and that alone is the real existential threat to the nation.

It is simple to single out any one, or all, of the GOP presidential candidates as who is most unqualified, most extreme, or most offensive, but that misses the point that it is the base that is inherently extreme, offensive, and unqualified to be regarded as anything other than a serious threat to other Americans and the nation’s well-being.

Any and everything a Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, or Bush might say or support is precisely what the base demands they say and support. There are some Americans who understand that the Republican Party and its base are an existential threat to America and they are joined by a substantial number of people from around the world.

An Australian opinion writer made an assumption a couple of weeks ago that was only partly correct in saying that "Donald Trump personifies everything the rest of the world despises about America; racism, crass materialism, relentless self-aggrandizement, vulgarity on an epic scale. He is the Ugly American."

Actually, the Republican base is the Ugly American and the Republican presidential candidates and politicians are simply acting, doing, and saying exactly what the base demands and they are, without question, the greatest threat to America.

The Media Has Been 100% Fair To Ben Carson
By: Steve - November 13, 2015 - 9:00am

Do not believe this right-wing garbage that Carson and the right-wing media has been saying, they claim the media is unfairly attacking Ben Carson. Which is a total joke, because they have been attacking Hillary Clinton for years, and they attacked Obama for everything, from the birthers to Pastor Wright to he's a muslim to he is destroying the economy, it has been endless.

The people at the conservative National Review have published something so ridiculous that I have no choice but to report on it. Last time it was their pathetic attempt to link Bernie Sanders to Nazis, ignoring the fact that Germany was under fascism and National Socialism, which is nothing like Democratic Socialism.

This time it is their writer David French claiming that the media is trying to destroy Ben Carson for digging into his past and fact-checking the outrageous claims that he's made. David French makes Ben Carson out to be some conservative Messiah, who must drag his cross through the political streets while he's mocked and figuratively flogged by the so-called liberal media.

Here's an excerpt of his dishonest diatribe against the media:
Hovering over the feeding frenzy is the absurd media spectacle of mainstream reporters claiming they're merely "doing their job" by diving into 50-year-old details of Ben Carson's childhood. The same reporters who were not just incurious about the details of Barack Obama’s background in 2008 but actively hostile to those who asked reasonable questions about his relationship with admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his years of religious instruction from Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.

At the end of the day, what are we left with? An admirable though imperfect man who rose from abject poverty to the pinnacle of one of the most challenging professions in the nation -- all while never forgetting his roots, maintaining grace and humility even as he earned riches and honors. In fact, his life story -- and his character -- would make him one of the most inspiring Americans ever to occupy the Oval Office.

But he's a direct threat not just to leftist narratives regarding race and class but also to the leftist stranglehold on the black vote. And for that reason alone he must be destroyed.
Now for starters, all that is a lie. Obama was raked over the coals for months on end, and slammed a million times for just knowing Bill Ayers when he was younger. I guess the write for the National Review just forgot about all that, yeah right!

Even Ben Carson himself has claimed that the media's examination of his past is unfair, because close scrutiny of someone who allegedly isn't just on a book promotion tour and is 100% legitimately running for the most powerful office in the world is apparently a liberal plot.

I'm sure David French already knows this, but asking tough questions about someone who disputes science and has some crazy ideas on the origins of the pyramids isn't a leftist smear job -- and it most certainly isn't about race.

Ignoring his glaring inconsistencies when it comes to Ben Carson's past would be irresponsible and unethical journalism, the very things David French is accusing writers of. Besides, why would the mainstream media want to destroy Ben Carson? He's good for ratings and traffic, so destroying him would mean that the media would have to find another story, and everyone is tired of hearing about Donald Trump.

Not to mention this, everyone knows that if you run for president they are going to dig up everything they can on you, they all go through it, and if someone can not handle questions from the media, they sure as hell are not qualified to be the president. Obama went through it, Bush went through it, they all go through it.

Ben Carson is the latest in the Republican primary silly season before they ultimately settle down and pick a more serious candidate like Marco Rubio or John Kasich. Remember this time four years ago? Herman Cain was the Republican frontrunner after Michele Bachmann had slumped in the polls, and he was out of the race weeks later.

Like Herman Cain, Ben Carson's downfall is of his own making -- all the media is doing is pointing out valid reasons why he's not qualified or fit to be president.

David French also forgets that Fox News and the conservative media has been after President Obama since he was a candidate. Yet, despite all of their efforts, he not only won the 2008 election, but also won a second term.

Not once through all of these years has the conservative media managed to prove a single impeachable allegation as they often claimed they had evidence of, so scrutiny of Ben Carson certainly couldn't hurt him -- if he is a legitimate candidate as he claims.

Besides, don't conservatives shun the idea of people being victims and believe in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, regardless of how hopeless your situation is? If Ben Carson could become a famous brain surgeon after an allegedly troubled and violent childhood, he can certainly stand up to a little media scrutiny for the next month or so that he will remain in the race.

Off Topic: If You Play At Fanduel You Are Getting Robbed
By: Steve - November 12, 2015 - 11:30am

For anyone that may not know it, the average member at fanduel is called a minnow, and you are losing your money to the sharks.

I just read a big article about it and it's not good, it turns out there are what they call sharks who submit 300 to 500 entries a day, yes I said a day. They are full time professional gamblers who do it for a living.

The biggest one is a guy named SUD, rotogrinders.com even keeps stats on him, he spends up to 15 hours a day running a software program and using a data analysis program to pick his lineups. Then he spends up to $150,000 dollars a day, yes I said $150,000 dollars a day on entry fees.

And on average he wins 8% more a day than he spends, so he is making $10 to $15 thousand dollars a day in profits. While the average member is barely winning anything, if not losing. It turns out that 1% of the members are winning 90% of the money.

I would not call it a scam, I would say it is rigged, for the guys at the top. Just like the stock market is, the big money guys win all the money, and the rest are just suckers.

They could make it fair and limit each player to 1 entry per person, per contest, but they do not do that, and they do not tell new members that there are people submitting 500 entries a day.

I played it in $1 and $2 contests and never won more than $12.50, and my highest point total was 151, while every week the big winners were always at 200 or more points, so they won the big money. That is because they are doing 4 or 5 hundred entries a day using software programs to pick their entries and to monitor them, even telling them about weather and injuries.

It is deceptive to not tell new members what is happening, and they know that, they need the suckers to join to keep feeding the sharks. The bonus money is also a joke, they ration it out so slow it would take years to get it all with just a few $1 or $2 entries. On a $1 entry you get a 4 cent bonus, yes I said 4 cents.

So in closing, if you are not one of the sharks at fanduel, you are one of the suckers who are fedding the sharks, and now you are informed. So if you are playing fanduel, you are most likely getting ripped off, you would be better off spending that money on lottery tickets or going on your local riverboat.

Even O'Reilly Understands Trump Deportation Plan Will Not Work
By: Steve - November 12, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly challenged Donald Trump about the presidential candidate's hardline immigration stance on Wednesday night.

Trump has promised to deport every undocumented immigrant and build a massive wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. O'Reilly pointed out that the Eisenhower-era program Trump cited during the debate as proof that his plan would work was extremely flawed.

The controversial policy, known as "Operation Wetback," sent at least 1 million people -- including U.S. citizens -- to Mexico in deplorable ways. Many even died after being dropped off at the border.

"That was brutal what they did to those people to kick them back," O'Reilly said. "The stuff they did was really brutal, it could never happen today."

"We would do it in a very humane way," Trump said.

"I back you on the wall," O'Reilly said. "But I also don't think you could deport these people because the federal courts would stop you... each person has to have due process... you know that!"

O'Reilly has challenged the former reality TV star on his immigration plan before, but that criticism continues to fall on deaf ears.

Let's get real, the Trump plan would never work, mostly because you could never find 11 million illegals, let alone have the manpower to deport them all. It would take hundreds of thousands of new government agents, and cost trillions, which would be trillions we do not have. Trump is just saying this crazy stuff to get votes from the far-right of the Republican party in the primary, and even he knows his plan will never work.

Christie Vetoes Election Reform Bill In New Jersey
By: Steve - November 12, 2015 - 10:00am

He killed a bill that passed, because Republicans do not want more people to vote, they know the more people who vote the more they lose, so they do everything they can to stop more people from voting.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed legislation Monday that would have added 1.6 million new voters to the state's rolls and made New Jersey the third state in the country to adopt automatic voter registration.

After sitting on the "Democracy Act" for almost five months, the governor and Republican presidential candidate vetoed his second voting rights-related bill in three years, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Christie has previously said that he does not support making it easier for residents of his state to vote.

"In New Jersey, we have early voting that are available to people," he said in June. "I don't want to expand it and increase the opportunities for fraud."

Proponents of automatic registration have rejected Christie's fraud argument, saying that such methods have the potential to clean up the state's voter rolls by reducing data entry errors from paper forms. Democratic lawmakers in 17 states and the District of Columbia have introduced their own automatic registration laws, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

"Automatic registration is good for the country, and good for New Jersey," said Myrna Perez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center.

"The Democracy Act would have made our registration lists more accurate and up to date, and voting more flexible and convenient. We are extremely disappointed Governor Christie chose to veto a bill with these kinds of proven benefits. Instead of passing laws that make it harder for Americans to vote, lawmakers must work to modernize our voting system for the 21st century."

Analilia Mejia, the director of New Jersey Working Families, which spearheaded the initiative to have lawmakers introduce the legislation, said earlier this year that the bill would not be reinventing the wheel.

"Most of these things have been moved and adopted in other states successfully," she said. "It's just mind-bending that a governor of a state would be against every single one of his citizens having full ease and access to participate in the voting process."

The Democracy Act aimed to implement automatic voter registration when voters apply for driver's licenses. (Eligible voters have the option to opt out before they are automatically registered with Department of Motor Vehicles information.)

The bill also included provisions creating two weeks of in-person early voting and enacting online voter registration. Voting rights advocates say such measures would help boost turnout, which was 30.4 percent in last year's midterm elections, ranking among the worst in the country. Roughly 1.6 million eligible New Jersey residents are not registered to vote.

Even O'Reilly Is Telling Republicans That Foolish Statements Are Fair Game
By: Steve - November 12, 2015 - 9:00am

Ben Carson had a reputation as a soft-spoken candidate, the exact opposite of Donald Trump. He should have been even more soft-spoken, to the point where nobody could hear him. Because now that he is talking, he can't seem to stop saying stupid things that even some Republicans laugh at.

Bill O'Reilly even joined the chorus, calling Carson's statements dumb and advising that "Carson and all the other political candidates should understand that any, any foolish statement they make will become a headline."

Bill should know. And the warning from O'Reilly to Republicans is that the big bad liberal media will attack you for what you say, so he is telling them to keep quiet with their far-right views if they want to win.

Of course, Carson was just exposed as a liar for the second time in as many days, this most recent being a claim about being offered a full scholarship to West Point. A Carson spokesman on Friday insisted Politico was telling an outright lie by saying it never happened. But in fact, Carson's campaign has been forced -- in the face of the facts -- to admit Carson didn't meet Westmoreland like he said he did and in fact, never even applied to West Point.

Bill O’Reilly, who has invented more than a few facts of his own, had this to say.
BILL O’REILLY: Scrutinizing Ben Carson, that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. Dr. Carson having some trouble. Today his campaign admitted that a story he told about being offered an appointment to West Point is not true. Also CNN reporting Dr. Carson's biography, where he describes himself as an angry boy who was close to committing violent acts, may be suspect as well. Network trying to corroborate Carson's story that at age 14, he tried to stab a boy related to him.

Now, Dr. Carson is smart to hit the controversy head on. When I was attacked earlier this year I did the same thing. Let the folks see and hear your side ,and then they will make their determination. Talking points has no idea about Ben Carson’s childhood.

But, as a presidential candidate, it is proper for the press to vet what he has put out there. And now that the West Point thing has been established as false, the doctor is on the defensive. Add to that some dumb statements Ben Carson has made. Back in 1998 he said the Egyptian pyramids were for grain storage.

Now, Dr. Carson was speaking at a school associated with his religion, Seventh Day Adventists, a fundamental Christian church. The doctor is obviously no historian. The pyramids were built in honor of the dead Egyptian royalty, period.

Carson and all the other political candidates should understand that any, any foolish statement they make will become a headline. Especially if they are Republican. And there is no statute of limitations on that. Whatever demeaning stuff the media can dig up, it will use. However, all the candidates do have an obligation to speak the truth. Period. Again.
Carson has been on a roll like no other Republican, even Trump. First he promises to not stab people, which is the most bizarre presidential campaign promise ever made, only to have it proven by CNN that he never tried to stab anybody before, which brought about an even more bizarre tableau: a candidate insisting yes he did try to stab people and even clobber his mother and why is the media lying about it, which lead directly to Donald Trump's vote for me, I never tried to hit my mother on the head with a hammer moment.

As Donald Trump tweeted, the only thing worse than lying about all this is it actually being all true.

Of course, to this we can add the West Point story O'Reilly is talking about here, and a class Carson said he took at Yale that Yale says never existed. Carson's book Gifted Hands should be re-titled Lying Tongue.

How did Republican hopes for 2016 devolve into an absolutely riotous Monty Python skit? Well, that's a bigger problem than we can analyze here. Suffice it to say Carson and other Republicans (including O'Reilly) are reaping what they have sown.

Carson's lies even prompted ultimate GOP apologist Morning Joe Scarborough to tweet, "Ben Carson flat out lied." If Morning Joe calls you out, you've got problems.

And all they can do now is whine. Look at Carson's reaction to being caught out in his lies. It's just more lies to add to the lies he's already told:

CARSON: "My prediction is that all you guys trying to pile on is actually going to help me." Oh dear. His supporters, he insisted, "understand that this is a witch-hunt."

More of a fact-check-o-rama in response to your spin-o-rama, you liar. It's Newton's Third Law being acted out for all the world to see.

"I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama," Carson whined.

Seriously? When has this level of scrutiny for Obama ceased for even one second in the seven years of his presidency? Just the other day Morning Joe tweeted that Obama was the "Manti T'eo of American politics."

You're the tough guy who is going to take on Vladimir Putin head on? Right. Sarah Palin can see Putin clapping his hands in glee from Alaska.

Every Single Republican Candidate Opposes Raising the Minimum Wage
By: Steve - November 11, 2015 - 10:00am

Which just goes to show they do not give a damn what the people think, they are running to represent the people, who support raising the minimum wage, but they are so far in the back pocket of the corporations and the wealthy, every single one of them is opposed to raising the minimum wage. And that alone should disqualify all of them from being the president.

Here are the stats:

Poll From October 2015:

-- 75 percent support a $15 minimum wage and a union

-- 72 percent approve of labor unions

-- 69 percent say it should be easier for workers like themselves to join together and form a union

-- 72 percent believe unions can make a real difference in whether or not workers like themselves get raises

-- 66 percent say they would have a better chance of making $15 an hour and being able to support their families if they could join a union

-- Support for $15 and a union is particularly strong in the South: 77 percent of Southern respondents expressed support

-- 69 percent of unregistered respondents say they would register to vote if there were a presidential candidate who supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and making it easier for workers to join a union

-- 65 percent of registered voters say they are more likely to vote if a candidate supports $15 and a union for all workers

-- 69 percent of respondents favor raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour

Every single Republican in the main Republican debate tonight said they oppose raising the minimum wage.

They have no good reason for opposing raising the wage and while this is popular with their far-right primary base, it will not fly when it comes to the general election.

They are basically handing this election to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Senator Bernie Sanders. In fact, the Clinton campaign immediately sent out a memo reminding everyone what the Republican presidential candidates said and have said in the past on the issue of raising the minimum wage.

Given that Democrats are running on raising the minimum wage, something President Obama has been working on doing state by state since this Congress refuses to act, this is a pretty stupid hill for Republicans to die on.

Their excuses for not raising the wage were all debunked nonsense, with Dr. Ben Carson falling for the old Republican canard that raising the wage will kill jobs.

Hillary Clinton called out the Republican hypocrisy of claiming that "big government" shouldn't raise the wage, yet they want to make women's health decisions for them.

Hillary Clinton -- @HillaryClinton These candidates don't seem to mind a "big government" when it's politicians interfering in women's personal health decisions. #GOPdebate

Republicans are speaking crazy to their base but this is the age of the internet and video. All of these statements will be used by the Democrat in the general election and the Republican primary winner will have to explain to non-conservatives why they are against raising the minimum wage.

Republicans Constant Crying About The Media Is A Joke
By: Steve - November 11, 2015 - 9:00am

The truth is they just can not handle the media calling them out on their lies, they are used to O'Reilly and Fox News giving them softball questions and friendly interviewa, so when they get in front of the real media they cry about it because they do not have any answers, and they get mad when they get called out on all their lies.

Since the third GOP presidential debate, some Republicans have had a hissy fit about the media. This is nothing new from conservatives; whining about the so-called liberal media is as big a part of the GOP as their version of Christianity, guns, or supporting tax cuts for the rich. Republicans crying about gotcha questions or bias in the news has pretty much been a weekly fixture in this country for years now.

Just look at Sarah Palin, she was simply asked what newspapers she reads, and she could not answer the question, because she did not read any papers. So she went on TV and cried that the liberal biased media asked her gotcha questions, when they were valid questions. She was just stupid and had no answers, so she covered it up by using the ridiculous media bias excuse.

Here is a reality check for Republicans: There is not much of a liberal media bias. Except for MSNBC, which clearly has a liberal slant. No sane person will deny that. But other than that, there is no big liberal bias at CBS, CNN, ABC, or NBC.

What Republicans mean when they complain about liberal bias or gotcha questions is that they're upset that their lies are being called out publicly. That's why these GOP presidential candidates threw such a fit during the third debate. It wasn't because the questions were bad (a couple were), it was because they weren't being allowed to stand there on live television and spew their right-wing lies out.

Someone like Ben Carson, much like the loon Sarah Palin, has become a huge critic of the media and gotcha questions. Ben Carson seems to think that any question or comment that exposes his idiocy, or mentions something crazy he has said in the past, is a gotcha question. When in fact, to listen to Carson talk, every time the media confronts him about one of his ridiculous quotes they're always taking it out of context - even when they quote him word for word.

He just does not want to admit he said all that crazy stuff, so when they media calls him out on it he cries media bias and says they took him out of context, which is just ridiculous, and the exact same thing O'Reilly does when he is called out for lies and being wrong. It's what Republicans do, when caught in a lie, or being wrong, or saying something crazy, just scream media bias and hope they forget it and move on to another topic.

Ted Cruz has probably been the biggest cry baby about the media. Cruz is nothing more than an opportunist, constantly pandering to the ignorance of the far-right voter. He actually said that he believes GOP debates should be hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and other members of the conservative media.

It's clear he does not want a debate, he wants a 2 to 3 hour GOP propaganda event. But this is how conspiracy theorists work. If you're trying to sell some sort of propaganda, the most effective way to get people to never doubt you is by insisting that anyone who exposes your nonsense is all a part of the conspiracy.

I can not count how many times a conservative has said something to me that was a total lie, only to tell me the evidence I used to debunk their lies is worthless because it came from ABC, NBC, CBS, Politifact, or some other source that isn't right-wing approved.

The kicker to all of this is the news source they watch most, Fox News, is easily the most biased news channel on TV. But they have no problem with the bias at Fox, and even deny it, because they are one of them.

Let's look at some of their biggest shows:

Fox & Friends (Hosts: Steve Doocy, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Brian Kilmeade - all conservatives)
The Five (Always four conservatives and one liberal)
Outnumbered (Conservative female hosts such as Andrea Tantaros and Stacey Dash)
The O'Reilly Factor (Claims he's not a conservative - even though he's definitely a conservative)
Hannity (It's Hannity, Enough said.)
The Kelly File (Might not be as far-right as O'Reilly or Hannity, but she clearly leans right).

While not every aspect of the network is conservative all the time (Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith have called out conservatives a few times and still have their jobs, but just barely), so no rational person can say with a straight face that Fox News is not clearly a conservative news source.

But you never see O'Reilly or any Republicans complain about their bias. In fact, I see them boast about the fairness they receive from the people at Fox. It makes sense that Fox News is the one network where they feel safest - because it's essentially nothing but the news division of the RNC.

This is why conservatives are so misinformed. They are indoctrinated by their politicians that any and all non-conservative media sources are biased. Meanwhile, those conservative sources rarely ever tell them the truth. And here's another fun fact: The reason why there seems to be less gotcha moments with Democrats is because most Democrats aren't crazy.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aren't calling Mexican immigrants (who simply come here to work) criminals and rapists; or saying they're going to call down fire from God over same-sex marriage; or stating their belief that the Egyptian pyramids were biblical grain storages; or telling stories of trying to stab a family member or hit their mother with a hammer when they were younger; or lying about the debt ceiling by telling voters that it's a blank check for President Obama to spend whatever he wants.

The reason why Republicans are hit with more questions about the crazy things they said is because they lie and say crazy things a hell of a lot more than Democrats. Now I am sure Republicans will refuse to believe that, but it's 100% true. I could even prove it, but it's pointless because my proof doesn't come from a right-wing source so they would not believe it anyway.

Which is why I stopped discussing politics with Republicans about 10 years ago, it's a massive waste of time and energy to argue with someone who ignores facts and stats over propaganda from Fox and other right-wing media outlets. In fact, the only reason the Republicans started their own media sources (Mostly Fox) is because they did not like the rest of the media calling them out on their lies, so they created their own media to counter the truth about them with propaganda.

This non-stop whining about the media has done something most people didn't think was possible in any situation other than hurricane relief; it put President Obama and Chris Christie on the same side of an issue. As both men said, if these Republicans like Trump, Carson and Cruz can't handle a few tough questions from reporters without throwing a public temper tantrum, then they sure as hell are not going to be able to handle the Russians, Iranians or the Chinese.

Eric Bolling Caught Lying That Violence Against Police Is Increasing
By: Steve - November 10, 2015 - 10:00am

Fox's Eric Bolling Inaccurately Claims Violence Against Police Officers Is Increasing Due To Black Lives Matter.

Fox News co-host Eric Bolling wrongly claimed violence against police officers has been increasing, and attributed the bogus increase to the Black Lives Matter movement and criticism of police.

On the November 5th Fox News The Five, the show's hosts discussed recent comments from film director Quentin Tarantino regarding police officers and Drug Enforcement Administration head Chuck Rosenberg speculating that the "Ferguson effect" -- the idea that increased scrutiny and criticism of police brutality is leading to increased violence, especially against police officers against police officers -- was real and recent criticism of the police was leading to more violence.

Bolling claimed "Violence to police officers is going up as well based on" criticism of police and Black Lives Matter has "blue blood on their hands":
ERIC BOLLING: That's when the ... downside of Quentin Tarantino making a comment like that, that cops are murderers, he walks it back. In the meantime it feeds into the narrative. "What do we want, we want them dead, cops, dead cops," walking through the corridors here of Manhattan.

Calling for dead cops and violence against cops rise. Remember the two guys who were executed over here in Brooklyn? In days after that, that protest. People, as Dana points out, people look up to Quentin Tarantino. They look up to Hollywood actors and directors, and it feeds into that narrative.

Cop violence is going up. Your point, Juan, violence at the end of a police officer is going up. Violence to police officers is going up as well based on this. Black Lives Matter has blood on their hands, they have blue blood on their hands.
There is one problem with that, recent data show that both killings and assaults of police officers have been trending downward. Data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund comparing police officer fatalities between January 1 through November 5, 2015 and January 1 through November 5, 2014 found firearms-related fatalities were down 23 percent from 2014.

Furthermore, as Radley Balko of The Washington Post noted in September, 2015 "is on pace" to "end with the second lowest number of murdered cops in decades," and "assaults on police officers are in decline as well."

So far, 2015 is on pace to see 35 felonious killings of police officers. If that pace holds, this year would end with the second lowest number of murdered cops in decades.

As you can see, 2015 is shaping up to be the second safest year for police ever, after 2013.

And assaults on police officers are in decline as well. That is, not only are fewer people killing police officers, fewer people are trying to harm them.

Fox News has run a continuous campaign to hype up the "Ferguson effect" and demonize the Black Lives Matter movement. Numerous experts and mainstream outlets have debunked the theory, noting there's no evidence at this time to support it.

Obama Slams GOP For Not Being Able To Deal With Debate Moderators
By: Steve - November 10, 2015 - 9:00am

Obama in New York: Forget Putin. GOP candidates 'can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators.'

NEW YORK -- President Obama on Monday mocked the Republican presidential candidates who have called him weak on the world stage, suggesting the would-be tough guys "can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators."

"Let me tell you, if you can't handle those guys then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about it," Obama said during a Democratic fundraiser at the Richard Rodgers Theater in Manhattan, drawing laughter and applause from a crowd of more than 1,300 supporters.

In some of his toughest comments to date about the 2016 race, Obama appeared to relish poking fun at his rivals over their performance last week during a GOP debate broadcast on the cable network. Several of the candidates complained about the questions posed by the moderators and have demanded that the Republican National Committee and networks abide by a set of changes to debate rules in the future.

Obama arrived at the theater after a performance of the musical "Hamilton," loosely based on the life of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Though he bemoaned not be able to see the show again -- noting that he and first lady Michelle Obama love the musical -- Obama delivered a version of his campaign stump speech with a particularly showy flourish.

Making the case that Americans are better off by virtually every measure than they were when he took office in 2009, Obama said this:

"I don't know if the Republicans running for office know any of these things. Because they occupy a different reality it seems. According to them, everything was really good in 2008 when we were going through the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, when we were hopelessly addicted to foreign oil, and when Osama bin Laden was still running loose."

He added: "This, apparently, was the golden age I messed up."

Carson Caught Lying Again: About Our Founding Fathers
By: Steve - November 9, 2015 - 11:00am

Folks, if you vote for this lying idiot you have something wrong with you. He is a crazy far-right liar who could not tell the truth if you paid him.

I can not believe that Ben Carson has managed to become one of the two frontrunners for the GOP presidential nomination. I really don't get it. And what's worse is that his supporters make those backing Trump seem tame by comparison.

Ignoring the pathological nature in which he seems to go about recalling events from his past, the fact still remains this guy seems to be an total idiot when it comes to anything but brain surgery.

That might sound crazy, but it sure looks to be true. We have always been taught that brain surgeons are some of the most intelligent people on the planet. They may be, but that doesn't mean they can't be crazy in every other area of their life - which Ben Carson definitely seems to be.

Take for instance recent comments he posted on Facebook where he responded to critics who say he is unqualified to be president because he has absolutely no experience in politics:
CARSON: "You are absolutely right - I have no political experience. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience. What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King. They were willing to risk all they had, even their lives, to be free."
The post has since been updated to say "federal" experience, which makes it even worse considering the federal government didn't exist at the time. Ignoring for a moment how he tried to compare himself to our Founding Fathers (which is also crazy), the fact remains that he does not seem to know a damn thing about them.

According to Politifact, a minimum of 28 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence had political experience. They go on to state that the estimate is probably low, but they wanted to be conservative in who they counted. Though this isn't the first time Carson displayed complete ignorance about our Founding Fathers.

A few weeks ago he gave a speech where he tried to prove that this nation was founded on Christianity - by citing a whole lot of stuff that our Founding Fathers had nothing to do with.

And let's not forget about his ridiculous theory about the Egyptian pyramids. The bottom line is, this man has no business being our next president. The fact that he has become one of the two GOP frontrunners is an absolute joke and a statement on how absurd Republicans have become.

I'm still not sure what's worse, that he has managed to become a legitimate Republican candidate for president or that there are millions of Americans who actually believe that this man is mentally sound enough to be the president.

He is a complete joke and a laughing stock to all of America, except his supporters, and I would be shocked if he wins the Republican primary.

Critics Agree: Donald Trump Bombed As Host Of SNL
By: Steve - November 9, 2015 - 10:00am

I did not watch it, because I do not think any tv network should be using people running for president to get ratings, so here is what the critics said about Trump on SNL.

Yahoo TV's Ken Tucker delivered a painful blow by blow recap of Trump's appearance and concluded this: "Turns out, this really was just a craven move for ratings. There was no attempt by Lorne Michaels to use Trump as a critique of himself, no moment that did not feel vetted by the candidate."

Dennis Perkins of The A.V. Club was blunt in his review of the show as an unfunny and watered down platform for Trump, said this: "In the end, the episode was as inoffensive as the writers and Trump's advisors could make it, without being funny.

Viewers looking for a good episode of SNL didn't get one. Trump supporters can write off their disappointment in the quality of the show on cast and writers, but only the most blinkered could deny that the candidate came off as stilted, bland, and unprepared in the very little screen time he was given.

Someone calculated his total on-screen appearance at 12 minutes. I am trying to think of another host in SNL history who was so shielded during the course of their episode, and, given his bad timing and lack of commitment in the live sketches he did appear in, Trump lovers must have been relieved at how little he was given to do.

The Wrap's Daniel Holloway delivered a big picture view of how far the SNL franchise has fallen, saying this: "What Michaels got for his trouble was an episode that will probably end up being the most talked-about of this season, but for all the wrong reasons. Nobody who watched Trump host the show in 2004, or who knows good comedy, or who has two working eyes and basic motor skills, tuned into this episode because he or she expected it to be good.

And it was not. Every time Michaels does this, every time he invites someone onto SNL who the show would be better off skewering, every time he tones things down to accommodate a guest of significant power and significantly offensive worldview, he takes the show farther and farther away from its radical roots.

SNL worked with the Trump campaign to water down their show to accommodate Donald Trump, he even admitted he killed some skits they wanted to do. The concept itself is offensive to what SNL used to be. A program that used to be cutting edge pimped itself out for a cheap ratings grab.

I hope Lorne Michaels is happy with the few extra viewers that Trump brought in because he alienated millions of younger viewers by giving Trump's bigoted views a national platform or what is supposed to be a comedy show. And from what I hear, it turned out to be a terrible show.

So it looks like Donald Trump is not good at politics or comedy. Far-right racism and bigotry are not funny. Donald Trump is a media creation for ratings, so it should not be a surprise that SNL would pander to the billionaire.

I also talked to a few people that did watch it, and they all said Trump was terrible. They said he was not funny, and that you could clearly tell he was reading a teleprompter. They also said he did not read what they wrote for him very well, that he seemed to struggle with reading the words in the teleprompter.

Republicans Cry About Debate Rules Over Tough Questions
By: Steve - November 9, 2015 - 9:00am



George Will Dismantles Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - November 8, 2015 - 10:00am

Here is an op-ed by Peter Wehner, about the O'Reilly/Will dust up.

Bill O'Reilly made two mistakes. The first was writing Killing Reagan, and the second was inviting George Will on his program to discuss it.

Killing Reagan is Mr. O'Reilly's most recent book (co-authored with Martin Dugard). It has been eviscerated, first by Reagan historians and then by Mr. Will.

It was Will's column that most upset O'Reilly, and Will appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on Friday to discuss it. That is an invitation O'Reilly, on reflection, must surely wish he had rescinded.

For starters, O'Reilly used the first minute-and-a-half of the seven minute interview to complain that Will had an "obligation" as a journalist to call O'Reilly in advance of his column. Nonsense; and Mr. O'Reilly came across as petulant and self-indulgent in that particular exchange.

But that was only the start. It was followed by bullying and ad hominem attacks, with O'Reilly accusing Will of "lying" and referring to him as a "hack," which ranks among the sillier charges ever leveled against Will, who for decades has distinguished himself as one of America's finest and most independent-minded columnists.

Mr. Will handled himself quite well, when he was given a chance to talk, but to me the best moment was when Will asked O'Reilly why, given Killing Reagan's reliance on a discredited memo by James Cannon asserting that Reagan was "out of it" during his presidency (it was Cannon who eventually rejected the assessment), O'Reilly failed to talk to the people who worked most closely with Reagan in the White House. O'Reilly's explanation? Because those individuals had "skin in the game."

To which Will coolly replied, "You mean they had knowledge of the game."

It is astonishing that O'Reilly, in an effort to excuse the sloppy work by him and his co-author, asserts that "we do our own investigation" - which means, according to O'Reilly, not talking to anyone who is either laudatory or derogatory of Reagan.

Think about that for a moment. Mr. O'Reilly is asserting that in writing a book on Ronald Reagan, he and his co-author had a professional duty not to talk to the people who worked most closely with Reagan. This is a ludicrous way to write history. The more likely explanation is the one posited by Will - having those conversations would have refuted the flimsy thesis of Killing Reagan.

On Friday's The O'Reilly Factor, a bully debated an intellectual. The bully lost, badly. What was a bad day for Bill O'Reilly turned out to be a rather good day for historical truth.

CNN Commentator Slams NBC's Hypocrisy In Inviting Trump To Host SNL
By: Steve - November 8, 2015 - 9:00am

Maria Cardona: "For Ratings Expediency, Their Values And Their Principles Go Out The Window"

MICHAELA PEREIRA: Donald Trump hosting Saturday Night Live is likely to be a ratings bonanza. There's a lot at stake I'd say for both the candidate and NBC. The network, facing a bitter backlash from several Hispanic advocacy groups. I want to discuss it all with CNN contributor and author of The War For Late Night, Mr. Bill Carter who was up late last night watching late night TV.

And CNN political commentator and democratic strategist Maria Cardona. Good to have you guys both here. Maria, we've got to get your perspective on this.

Because we know that you work with a lot of these Latino leaders and advocacy groups. And we know that they've been pretty vocal, there have been demonstrations calling for him to not be on SNL this weekend. When he was asked about it, he said 'I think they should demonstrate, the ratings will go even higher.' Probably 'huge' is the word he wished to use. What's your take on it?

MARIA CARDONA: Well look, Latino leaders are absolutely upset about this, and I think rightly so. What they see in SNL giving this huge platform to Donald Trump is frankly a network and a program that is sanctioning bigotry, racism and hate speech.

And what is so curious about this, Michaela, is that back in June, NBC actually slashed ties with Donald Trump after he announced his candidacy and after he uttered those misguided words about hatred towards Mexican immigrants, calling them rapists, calling them criminals.

NBC putting out a statement saying that what Donald Trump said does not comport with the principles and the values of NBC. So, what happened in five months? Clearly they saw that he is, continues to be a ratings juggernaut, that he is at the top of the polls.

And so, for ratings expediency, their values and their principles go out the window.

--------------------------------------

Cardona is 100% correct, NBC only cares about ratings, and what NBC said about what Donald Trump said does not comport with the principles and the values of NBC, was total bull. They simply did it for public relations, then 5 months later they invite Trump to host SNL for ratings.

And I for one will not watch it. If they meant what they said they would not have invited Trump to host SNL, and they would not have him host it now. NBC is just like the political figures in America, they say what the people want to hear, then do whatever they can to get votes or ratings.

Bill O'Reilly And George Will Segment
By: Steve - November 7, 2015 - 11:50am

Here is what CNN Money wrote about the segment:

Conservative columnist George Will was a guest on the Factor Friday night, where he found himself trading attacks with O'Reilly during an extremely contentious interview on Fox News.

Will, who serves as a Fox News contributor, earned the invitation to the show after writing a scathing review of O'Reilly's latest bestselling book, "Killing Reagan."

O'Reilly began the interview by asserting that Will had broken a promise to Fox News Executive Vice President Michael Clemente.

"Fox News hard news chief Mike Clemente, who you know, told us that you told him that you would call me before the column was published," O'Reilly said.

Will claimed he never promised to make a call.

"You have my phone number and if you wanted to call me you would," he told O'Reilly.

O'Reilly pressed Will, asking if the guest was calling Clemente a liar.

"No, I'm not. I'm saying either you've got it wrong, it would not be the first time you got something wrong," Will said, before getting cut off by O'Reilly.

"I have it in writing," O'Reilly said. "I have it in writing from Mr. Clemente."

A Fox News spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

From there, O'Reilly shifted the discussion to what he has described as the "centerpiece" of the book: a memo saying that Ronald Reagan was eventually unable to perform the duties of the presidency and often spent his days watching soap operas.

In his column on Thursday, Will wrote that the memo "included slanderous assessments of the president from some disgruntled Regan staffers," and had been "refuted by minute-by-minute records in the Reagan Library." Will also wrote that O'Reilly and his co-author, Martin Dugard, had never used the Reagan Library's resources.

Will reiterated that point during his appearance on the "O'Reilly Factor."

"It's a memo that you have never seen. It's a memo that you didn't even ask to try to see from the Reagan Library until after the book was in print. It's a memo that the Reagan Library doesn't have and you should know it doesn't have because the author was not a member of the White House staff," Will said.

O'Reilly shot back by saying that the memo was backed by several other sources and that its author, James Cannon, only repudiated his findings "under heavy pressure" from the White House. That claim prompted Will to laugh.

"What are you laughing at, Will?" O'Reilly said. "You deny that he repudiated under heavy pressure? Do you deny that?"

"I deny that you know that he repudiated under heavy pressure," Will replied.

Later in the interview, O'Reilly accused Will of "actively misleading the American people" and "lying."

"You're something of an expert on actively misleading people," Will said.

But O'Reilly insisted that the book, is indeed "laudatory" to Reagan.

"It is not a laudatory book," Will said. "It is doing the work of the left, which knows in order to discredit conservatism it must destroy Reagan's reputation as the president. Your book does the work of the American left with its extreme recklessness."

When O'Reilly said that "Reagan loyalists" had tried to get the book killed, Will said the host was lying.

"That isn't a lie, and we can prove it. And you are a hack. Bye," O'Reilly said, bringing the interview to a close.

Jobs Increase Unemployment Goes Down & O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - November 7, 2015 - 11:30am

The jobs and unemployment report came out Friday morning and of course O'Reilly never said a word about it on his Friday night show. Because it kills the argument from him and his right-wing friends that Obama is a terrible president who is killing jobs with Obamacare and destroying the economy.

The facts show that O'Reilly is lying about Obama, jobs, unemployment, the debt, and the economy, and that he makes up those lies to hurt Obama politically, because he is a right-wing hack, the very same thing he called George Will.

Here is the news O'Reilly ignored:

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - U.S. job growth surged in October, with the unemployment rate hitting a 7-1/2-year low in a show of domestic strength that makes it almost likely the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates in December.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 271,000 last month, the largest rise since December 2014, the Labor Department said on Friday.

In addition, average hourly earnings increased 9 cents last month. The solid gains added to robust automobile sales in painting an upbeat picture of the economy at the start of the fourth quarter.

The unemployment rate fell to 5.0 percent, the lowest level since April 2008, from 5.1 percent the prior month. The jobless rate is now at a level many Fed officials see as consistent with full employment.

Payroll data for August and September were revised to show 12,000 more jobs created than previously reported.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast nonfarm payrolls increasing 180,000 last month and the unemployment rate unchanged at 5.1 percent.

Last month's rise in wages, which have been almost stagnant despite a tightening labor market, lifted the year-on-year reading to 2.5 percent. That was the biggest increase since July 2009 and could give Fed officials confidence that inflation will gradually move towards their 2 percent target.

Construction payrolls, increased 31,000 last month, the biggest gain since February. The services sector added 241,000 jobs last month, with large gains in retail, health and leisure. Government payrolls increased 3,000 last month.

Bill O'Reilly Thinks We Should Hang Non-Violent Drug Offenders
By: Steve - November 7, 2015 - 11:00am

Oops, I guess he forgot he claims to be opposed to the death penalty. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, if you hang someone until they die, you are giving them the death penalty.

What a dumbass, he must be getting so old and senile he forgot he has said a million times he is opposed to the death penalty.

Bill O'Reilly: "In Singapore They Have No Drug Problem. Why? They Hang Them. They Hang Them"



BILL O'REILLY: I'll remind you, in Singapore they have no [drug] problem. Why? They hang them. They hang them.

JESSICA TARLOV: OK, but we're obviously not suggesting that as the answer to --

O'REILLY: I don't know. I mean, look, Singapore at one time had the most pernicious opium problem you could possibly have, it destroyed their entire society. So they said, you know what, we're not going to have this anymore. And that's what they did, bingo, no drug problem.

Even Megyn Kelly From Fox Is Slamming The GOP Debate Demands
By: Steve - November 7, 2015 - 10:00am

I will give Megyn Kelly credit for being one of the few people on America's most watched conservative entertainment network to call out Republicans from time to time - even though she still does toe the company line 99% of the time.

That being said, she recently had some hilarious commentary concerning the ridiculous demands some Republicans have been pushing for following the third GOP presidential debate, where several of the candidates were exposed after the lies they were trying to push were fact-checked directly to their face on live television.

Kelly said this: "They want all the candidates to receive similarly-substantive questions. No so-called lightning round of questioning, and approval of any on-screen graphics aired during the debate. Oh yeah, that's gonna happen."

She also said this: "The networks should commit that they will not ask hand-raising questions, yes-or-no questions, allow candidate-to-candidate questions. Then, maybe, like a foot massage? Can you imagine having to submit our graphics for approval to the candidates? Good luck with that."

It is totally ridiculous. What Republicans are trying to do is have terms with these networks based on rules that turn presidential debates into nothing more than 2 to 3 hour infomercials for GOP presidential candidates. Ben Carson suggested not even televising the debates.

Are you kidding me?

They want to have a debate where the moderators are nothing more than right-wing propagandists who will lob them softball questions and let them spew nonsense, completely unchallenged.

And for the record, I would like to debunk this garbage that Anderson Cooper was easy on the Democratic candidates during the first debate. Here are the first questions he asked Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:

To Clinton: Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency. You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the gold standard. Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?

To Sanders: A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States? Cooper also went on to ask Clinton if she changes her political identity based on who she's talking to.

Those are not softball questions, Republicans just want you to believe Cooper was easy on the Democrats.

So this nonsense that started with Ted Cruz suggesting that Democrats were coddled during their debate is completely ridiculous. The very first questions asked of the top two candidates went after Clinton for sometimes seeming as if she's simply pandering to whatever she feels people want to hear, and Sanders for the most controversial aspect of his candidacy, the fact that he's a self-described democratic socialist.

As far as the Republicans, for once Kelly is right. Their demands are just laughable, and I am glad to see at least some Republicans are refusing to get onboard with this nonsense. Chris Christie might have said it best when he stated that if some of his fellow candidates can not handle a few tough debate questions, then they really have no business running for president.

Super Hack Bill O'Reilly Calls George Will A Hack
By: Steve - November 7, 2015 - 9:00am

Now this is funny, two dishonest right-wing hacks calling each other hacks, when in fact, they are both lying hacks. Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: Personal story segment tonight, an attack on my book, Killing Reagan. Syndicated columnist George Will who also works here at the Fox News Channel, wrote a column titled "Bill O'Reilly Slanders Ronald Reagan." After reading the column, I can say with certainty George Will libels Bill O'Reilly. Mr. Will joins us now from Washington. So you write that my book is a "no facts zone." Let's talk about the facts. Fox News, hard news chief, Mike Clemente who you know, told us that you told him you would call me, before the column was published. Did you call me?

GEORGE WILL: No. And I didn't promise to call you. You have my phone number and if you wanted to call me you could.

O'REILLY: I couldn't care less about it, I didn't know what you were doing. Now are you calling Mr. Clemente a liar?

WILL: No I'm not. I'm saying either you got it wrong, it wouldn't be the first time you got something wrong --

O'REILLY: OK I have it in writing from Mr. Clemente. So you are either saying Mr. Clemente -- I'm not saying anything. I'm saying that our hard news chief said that you told him that you would call me. Are you denying that tonight?

WILL: Do you want to talk about Bill O'Reilly, or Bill O'Reilly's book?

O'REILLY: OK, my name is O'Reilly. Do you want to deny that Clemente -- do you want to say that he is not telling the truth.

WILL: I'm saying there was a misunderstanding, I've said that Mr. Clemente is a tremendously honest man.

O'REILLY: Good, because I -- we have it in writing that you were supposed to call me, and did you not call me. And by writing a provocative column like this, you had an obligation as a journalist to do that. Alright, page 245 in "Killing Reagan" is what your real beef is about. It's a meeting on March 2, 1987, the meeting was called by Howard Baker, then the new chief of staff for Ronald Reagan. Before the meeting took place, Howard Baker asked his assistant, James Cannon to investigate Ronald Reagan, to investigate him. Are you denying any of that is true?

GEORGE WILL: Of course not. You say that that memo he wrote is the centerpiece of a book. It's a memo that you have never seen. It's a memo that you didn't even ask to try to see from the Reagan library, until after the book was in print. It's a memo that the Reagan library doesn't have, and you should know it doesn't have, because the author was not a member of the White House staff. The memo was presented to Howard Baker, Howard Baker took one look at it and said to the man who wrote it "This is not the Ronald Reagan that I know," and that was the end of influence the memo ever had.

O'REILLY: You are not telling the truth. You are actively misleading the American people, you are lying.

WILL: You're something of an expert on actively misleading people.

O'REILLY: You are lying and here is more proof. Edmund Morris, do you know who he is? Do you know who Edmund Morris is?

WILL: Go ahead.

O'REILLY: Okay. Here it is is Edwin Morris, quote: "During one unhappy period, when the Iran-Contra scandal coincided with prostrate problems for Mr. Reagan, the president was so withdrawn and confused that papers were surreptitiously drawn up, by staffers concerned he might have to be declared disoriented." Ok? Now that is from the guy who wrote the bio. You want L.A. Times, you want New York Times quotes on it? You want em, I got them, I can read them to you.

WILL: You who began this interview by saying I had a moral obligation to call you before writing about your book, wrote a book without feeling any obligation to talk to Ed Meese, George Schultz, Jim Baker, any of the other people that could have refuted the thesis.

O'REILLY: Then why didn't I talk to them?

WILL: Because they would have refuted the flimsy thesis you have.

O'REILLY: No, because they have skin in the game. We don't talk to people when we're writing our books, to --

WILL: You mean they have knowledge of the game.

O'REILLY: They have skin in the game, emotion in the game, spin in the game. We don't talk to anybody who was derogatory to the Reagans, or anybody who was laudatory. We do our own investigation. You want me to read more? I got more. This meeting absolutely took place on page 245. It was absolutely taken seriously by Mr. Baker and everybody else. And, the conclusion of the meeting was the president was fine. He was capable. And "Killing Reagan" is a laudatory book toward Ronald Reagan, and you didn't even mention that.

WILL: It is not a laudatory book.

O'REILLY: It is a laudatory book, or you can't read.

WILL: It is doing the work of the left it is doing the work of the left, which knows that in order to discredit conservatism, it must destroy Reagan's reputation as a president. And your book does the work of the American left, with its extreme recklessness.

O'REILLY: Recklessness.

WILL: And when you finally got around to the book's publication, to scheduling an interview with Ed Meese, you then cancelled it saying you were vetting the memo --

O'REILLY: We cancelled it because Ed Meese wanted to come on with conditions. Nobody comes on with conditions.

WILL: It's a memo you haven't even seen, so I do not understand how you vet a memo you've never seen.

O'REILLY: All right, look. Here's the deal, that memo was written. That meeting took place. All of what we write in Killing Reagan is true. You're a hack. You're in with the cabal of the Reagan loyalists who don't want the truth to be told. Killing Reagan is a laudatory book. It praises Ronald Reagan. Yet you didn't call me, when you said you would, that's a fact --

WILL: Why do -- Why don't Reagan loyalists don't want this laudatory book published?

O'REILLY: Because they wanted deification. They wanted a deification, they tried to get the book killed before it was even published. And you --

WILL: That, by the way is a lie. That by the way is a lie.

O'REILLY: That isn't a lie. And we can prove it, and you are a hack.

O'Reilly Attacks George Will For Daring To Slam His Book
By: Steve - November 6, 2015 - 11:00am

George Will: O'Reilly's Book "Should Come With A Warning: 'Caution -- You Are About To Enter A No-Facts Zone'"

Bill O'Reilly responded to criticism from Fox contributor George Will, who called O'Reilly's newest book Killing Reagan, a "nonsensical history and execrable citizenship." O'Reilly called criticism Will's commentary "libel" and questioned his courage to face him on his show.

In a November 5 opinion piece for The Washington Post, Will criticized the book for "distorting" the public's understanding of Reagan's presidency. Will writes that Killing Reagan has "two and a half pages of 'sources,'" which "unspecifically and implausibly" refer to the FBI, CIA, presidential libraries, and world travels.

However, Will reported that there is no record of either O'Reilly or Dugard using the Reagan presidential library for research. The piece noted that several of Reagan's advisers, including his Secretary of State George Shultz and Chief of Staff James Baker, were not interviewed for the book.

Will concluded that Killing Reagan's "perfunctory pieties about Reagan's greatness are inundated by its flood of regurgitated slanders about his supposed lassitude and manipulability. This book is nonsensical history and execrable citizenship, and should come with a warning: 'Caution -- you are about to enter a no-facts zone.'"

O'Reilly addressed Will's criticism during the final segment of his show, calling Will's column "libel" and challenging Will to appear on his show.

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: George Will wrote a column entitled "Bill O'Reilly Slander's Ronald Reagan." But it is his column that is the libel.

George Will regurgitates attacks on the book from Reagan loyalists who tried to get Killing Reagan spiked even before it was published, because they wanted a deification of the president, not an honest look at him.

Will never called me, even though it's not direct dial. I mean, he can just punch up a little extension and there I am, because he works at Fox News. But, even so, we harbor no ill will, pun intended, and invited George on the Factor tomorrow. We'll see if he has the courage factor.

------------------------------

Will is not the first to criticize O'Reilly's scholarship on Reagan. Past Reagan aides and biographers have called out O'Reilly's work in Killing Reagan, with one biographer calling the book "garbage, total B.S.," and a former Reagan national security advisor saying the book contains "plagiarism, simplicity and deception."

O'Reilly slams Will for not calling him and talking to him before writing the article, while O'Reilly did the very same thing in his book, by not talking to any of Reagan's advisers, including his Secretary of State George Shultz and Chief of Staff James Baker, who were not interviewed for the book.

Ingraham Admits GOP Supports Low-Wage/Low-Skill Illegal Workers
By: Steve - November 6, 2015 - 10:00am

Wow! Someone on the right finally admitted what we already know, that the Republicans are in bed with corporations and billionaires to keep the illegals coming into America so they can have a steady supply of low-wage and low-skill workers.

And yet, O'Reilly and the right claim it is the liberals who keep letting them in, when in fact, the Republicans are just as guilty, and take donations from the corporations and the wealthy to not pass immigration measures that would stop them from working in America.

We could stop it real quick, just fine every company who is caught with an illegal a million dollars each, and hire people to enforce it with random inspections at workplaces. That would stop them from hiring illegals, in a heartbeat. But they will never do that, because they get money to vote against that, and that is something O'Reilly never tells you.

Here is what Ingraham said:

LAURA INGRAHAM: Here's my second idea for the debates: just have the donors of the top three candidates debate Donald Trump. He's the only -- Trump and Carson, maybe. Because Carson's getting a lot of his money -- 60 percent plus -- from small donors. So, OK, let's have Carson and Trump on one side and the donors for Jeb [Bush] and Marco [Rubio] on the other side.

And then maybe we could have some one-on-ones as well. Wouldn't that be interesting? I actually think the debates should just be with the people who really count, the donors for the establishment, because they do get what they want. Speaking of donors of the establishment, Paul Singer is a GOP mega-donor, influential billionaire, has given a lot of money to Republican campaigns and efforts, some of them very good.

And he's 69 years old, he's the head honcho at this big hedge fund called Elliott Management. And so he's been described in various places, some of it unfairly, of course, as the typical vulture capitalist. And he invests in distressed entities, countries, companies, Delphi, Chrysler, places like Peru, even in the Congo, he's put an enormous amount of money -- been extremely successful.

And he has now been revealed to be one of Marco Rubio's top donors. So the biggest donor that Rubio has right now, looks like it's Paul Singer. Singer's going to give a lot to the Rubio PAC, etc., etc. So, does it bother you that Paul Singer is for liberalizing immigration law, for immigration amnesty? He convinced [Mitt] Romney not to focus on immigration-related issues, nice job. Something that actually would have gotten people out to vote for Romney.

And he's also for gay rights initiatives across the United States, he's been for that, including gay marriage. He's, along with George Soros, his idea has been to support Gang of Eight-like initiatives on immigration. Both Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, and other fellow Republican super-donors are essentially doing all they can to ensure a never-ending flow of foreign workers and low-wage, low-skill illegal immigrants into the country to keep their businesses humming with low-wage workers.

So whether it's Adelson or Singer, these guys just want the influx, they want that labor pool to be so fat with low-skilled foreign workers that they won't have to raise wages. That's what they demand, that's what they want. They don't want to deal with hiring Americans. Hiring Americans, that's just too much work. It's much easier to get these Koreans, these South Americans, Central Americans to come over here, the Mexicans to come here, they don't mind living 12 or 14 people in a house, they don't mind working 14 hours a day.

They don't ask for lots of raises and time off to spend with their families, they just work their fingers to the bone and then they'll send their money home, and that's it. Does that bother you that Paul Singer -- open borders, immigration amnesty, on the social issues extremely liberal -- does it bother you that he is the big backer of Marco Rubio? What does he want from Rubio? And what has Rubio, if anything, promised him?

Boehner: God Told Him Paul Ryan Should Run For House Speaker
By: Steve - November 6, 2015 - 9:00am

This is why Republicans should not have any political power.

WASHINGTON -- Former House Speaker John Boehner says he used "Catholic guilt" to persuade Paul Ryan to run for speaker.

On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday Boehner said he invoked God to persuade his fellow Catholic from refusing to run for speaker to agreeing to do so.

Boehner says he told Ryan: "This isn't about what you want to do. It's about what God wants you to do. And God has told me, he wants you to run for speaker."

Ryan did -- and won. The Wisconsin congressman has insisted that he will not give up time with his family or stop sleeping in his office in Washington. Boehner, meanwhile, stepped down, inspired by spending time with Pope Francis last month.

Earth to Republicans, do your religious stuff on your own time and keep it out of politics.

George H. W. Bush Slams Cheney And Rumsfeld In New Biography
By: Steve - November 5, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly will most likely ignore it, because according to him only liberals were against what Cheney and Rumsfeld did, for partisan reasons. In O'Reillyworld, only the liberals did not like what they did, because they hated Cheney and Rumsfeld, ignoring the fact that a lot of Republicans have also been critical of them.

Former President George H.W. Bush takes some shots at Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, key members of his son's administration, over their reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, in a new biography of the 41st president.

In the book, author Jon Meacham quotes Bush as saying that Cheney and Rumsfeld were too hawkish and that their harsh stance damaged the reputation of the United States.

Speaking of Cheney, who was vice president under President George W. Bush, the senior Bush said: "I don't know, he just became very hard-line and very different from the Dick Cheney I knew and worked with," according to the report.

Cheney served as defense secretary during George H.W. Bush's 1989-1993 presidency.

"The reaction (to Sept. 11), what to do about the Middle East. Just iron-ass. His seeming knuckling under to the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything, use force to get our way in the Middle East," Bush told Meacham in the book to be published next Tuesday.

Bush believes Cheney acted too independently of his son by creating a national security team in his own office, and may have been influenced to become more conservative by his wife and daughter, Lynne and Liz Cheney.

On Rumsfeld, secretary of defense for most of the two terms served by his son, Bush is even more critical. He is quoted as saying: "I don't like what he did, and I think it hurt the President," referring to his son.

"I've never been that close to him anyway. There's a lack of humility, a lack of seeing what the other guy thinks. He's more kick ass and take names, take numbers. I think he paid a price for that. Rumsfeld was an arrogant fellow," he was quoted as saying in the biography.

And btw, that is some of the same things liberals were saying about them at the time, and O'Reilly slammed them for it. So now you have Bush's Father saying the same things, and O'Reilly says nothing.

Cheney was quoted denying his family had influenced his views, saying: "It's his view, perhaps, of what happened, but my family was not conspiring to somehow turn me into a tougher, more hardnosed individual. I got there all by myself."

Cheney's spokesman refused to comment, and Rumsfeld also declined to comment on the book.

Hypocrite Paul Ryan Comes Out Opposed To Paid Family Leave
By: Steve - November 5, 2015 - 10:00am

Now think about this, Ryan is the very same guy who said he would not be the Speaker of the House, unless he could have paid leave time to spend with his family. So he gets paid family leave, but is opposed to everyone else having it, even though the U.S. is still the only developed country in the world without a paid family leave law.

Ryan is someone who constantly complains about entitlements, government programs and public spending despite the fact that practically his entire life has been supported by government programs and/or the taxpayers. He even used Social Security benefits he received following his father's death to help him pay for school.

The guy literally built his career out of opposing entitlement programs while using benefits from an entitlement program to help pay for his education. The hypocrisy is astounding. Ryan recently took his ridiculousness up a notch when he included as part of his demands requirements to replace John Boehner as House Speaker that he be given adequate time to spend with his family.

This is the sort of thing that O'Reilly, Fox News, and the rest of the conservative media would be losing their minds over had a Democrat made such a request -- yet because it was Paul Ryan, O'Reilly and the right pretty much completely ignored it.

So, during an interview Sunday morning on Fox News, Ryan was asked whether or not he would support legislation that provided paid family time to Americans who want the exact same thing he demanded before becoming Speaker of the House.

His answer was stunning:
I don't think people asked me to be Speaker so that I can take more money from hardworking taxpayers to create some new federal entitlement. But I think people want to have members of Congress who represent them, that are like them. Don't you want your member of Congress to be a citizen legislator who lives with you among you, who has your own kinds of concerns, who wants to spend time with his children on Saturdays and Sundays?

I'm going to keep living in Janesville, Wisconsin where I'm from, where I raise my family. I'm going to keep going back and forth to D.C. If you're asking me, because I want to spend... I want to continue being the best dad and husband and Speaker I can be, getting that work-life balance correct means I should sign up for new unfunded entitlement, that doesn't make any sense.
When I heard what he said I was speechless; the nerve of this guy is literally breathtaking. In one statement he defended himself for demanding that he have time to spend with his family, while at the same time arguing against any kind of legislation that would provide the same family time to every American.

Now I have seen politicians say some really crazy and stupid things before, but I'm not sure if I have ever seen one demand something for themselves while stating that they oppose giving every other American that same right - at the exact same time. Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House is a taxpayer-funded position paying $223,500 per year.

The total disregard Ryan shows for hardworking families is stunning, and shows how out of touch he is with the average working American who is struggling to get by on a modest wage. Millions of people miss out on family time because their wages are too low and their employers aren't required to give them any sort of paid leave from work.

In many instances, parents are forced to leave sick children in the care of someone else because they cannot afford to miss work. And if they do miss work, it's not uncommon for them to risk losing their job or face some sort of backlash from their employer for calling in. Trust me, I have seen it at just about every company I have worked for. Not to mention, going to work sick and making other people at work sick from you, they can not afford to take the time off.

But that's all okay with Ryan and the Republicans, because Mr. "I Oppose Government Spending" Paul Ryan is damn sure going to make sure he gets his family time along with his cushy, taxpayer-funded quarter of a million dollar salary -- with government benefits, including pension.

It's terrible that hardworking poor and middle class Americans vote for an absolute hypocrite like Paul Ryan, or any other Republican. Wake up America, stop voting for these right-wing idiots, they are screwing you and ruining your lives.

Florida Newspaper: Marco Rubio Should Show Up Or Resign
By: Steve - November 5, 2015 - 9:00am

First let's talk about media bias, when Democratic Senators (like John Kerry) ran for President and missed votes, O'Reilly slammed them and reported on it all the time. But when Rubio (the Republican) does it, O'Reilly says nothing. That is media bias, from Bill O'Reilly. So he has no right to complain about media bias from anyone, because he is as guilty of it as anyone else he is complaining about.

Now we get to the Republican Marco Rubio, he should resign from the U.S. Senate and stop "ripping off" the people of Florida, according to the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel newspaper editorial board.

"By choosing to stay in the Senate and get the publicity, perks and pay that go with the position -- without doing the work -- you are taking advantage of us," the paper wrote in an editorial published Tuesday.

"Your job is to represent Floridians in the Senate. Either do your job, Sen. Rubio, or resign it."

The Sun Sentinel said Rubio is being paid $174,000 a year in taxpayer money to do a job he is not doing -- while he is criticizing others for doing the same thing.

"Two weeks ago, you took to the Senate floor to excoriate federal workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to do their jobs. You said, 'there is really no other job in the country where if you don't do your job, you don't get fired.'"

The paper added. "With the exception of your job, right?"

10 Lies Bill O'Reilly & The Republicans Want You To Believe
By: Steve - November 4, 2015 - 10:00am

Here is a reality check, the entire Republican party platform is built on blatant misinformation and lies. And the worst part is, millions of Americans actually believe this garbage. And Bill O'Reilly (who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone) also spins out all these right-wing lies virtually every night.

1) President Obama's spending is out of control:

This is the biggest lie O'Reilly and the GOP put out. Because president Obama has actually reduced deficits by more than $1 trillion over the last 6 years. And they also do not mention the fact that the debt he added was a temporary measure to pull us out of the recession George W. Bush created.

O'Reilly and the GOP cite the debt numbers, as if Obama added it all, when that is a lie and they know it. A lot of the debt a new president has is a holdover from the policies of the past president. And when Obama leaves office some of his debt will be counted on the next president. They never mention that, they just say Obama did it, when in fact, a lot of that debt was from Bush.

Obama got us out of the Bush recession by adding temporary spending to jump start the economy with his stimulus bill, that btw, all the Republicans voted no on. And something every economist said he had to do, even the Republican economists. Then O'Reilly and the GOP blamed Obama for all the debt, and claimed it would bankrupt the country.

But they were wrong, and the Obama stimulus bill worked, jobs are back, unemployment is down, the stock market rebounded, etc. But O'Reilly and the GOP refuse to admit it, and keep telling you the country is in chaos, it's just wrong and a lie.

2) ISIS is the biggest threat the United States has ever faced:

Wrong! They are a threat that does need to be dealt with. But they're not the biggest threat the United States has ever dealt with. The over the top fear mongering being pushed by O'Reilly and the Republicans about this group is almost comical. I would say Nazi Germany and Russia were far more dangerous and larger threats to this country.

Homeland security has even said they are almost no threat to anyone here in the USA, the threat is mostly to Americans who are in foreign countries. In the 6 years under Obama there has been zero ISIS attacks in the USA, none.

3) Ebola:

O'Reilly and the GOP said we should beware of the terrifying outbreak - that's consisted of one health care worker who treated patients in West Africa; 2 nurses who took care of the first Ebola patient to be diagnosed in the United States; and a Liberian man, Thomas Duncan, who traveled here and unfortunately passed away due to the virus. Nobody outside of these three people and Thomas Duncan have been diagnosed with Ebola in the U.S.

4) Obama is going to take away your guns:

Wrong! After six years as president (with two left), nobody has taken your guns away, so when exactly does Obama plan this massive gun confiscation?

5) Obamacare will eliminate millions of jobs:

Wrong! Since the first year the Affordable Care Act came out, unemployment dropped below 6% and we've seen the best year for job growth since Bill Clinton was president.

This was a big lie for O'Reilly too, he said Obamacare would bankrupt the country and kill jobs, and he was 100% wrong. The exact opposite has happened, Obamacare has saved us money on health care and more jobs have been created than before it was passed. The only people who it cost any more money were the wealthy, who pay a little more to cover the poor, and they can afford it.

6) President Obama is destroying our freedoms:

Wrong! And anyone who actually believes this, tell me what freedoms have you lost these last 6 years? What are they, be specific. It's a load of BS, because nobody has lost any freedoms, in fact, you have gained freedoms, because now gay marriage is legal, so those people gained more freedom, and not one person has lost any freedoms.

7) The world has never seen the kind of chaos like we've these last 5+ years:

Not only is that wrong, it's a massive lie. What about WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Cold War, nuclear missiles in Cuba, the Iran/Iraq War, and on and on. The world has always been filled with problems. Now with the internet, social media and 24/7 hour news that's dependent on driving fear for ratings, we're hearing about it much more often now.

8) Voter fraud is rampant:

Wrong! In fact, even Republican-led investigations have concluded that actual voter fraud is so rare, the fact that this is even a topic being discussed in this country is comical. Actual voter fraud is less than 1%, it almost never happens.

And most elections are decided by such large margins that the few cases of actual voter fraud never decide those elections. It's not like millions of people are casting fraud votes, it's 3 or 4 an election, and that does not make one bit of a difference in the election.

9) Climate change is a massive liberal hoax:

Wrong! I am sure scientists from all over the world have come together in an extensively elaborate plot to perpetuate the lie of human-made climate change…not!

And I'm sure there's nothing at all suspicious about the fact that every single one of the Republican party's energy policies favors big oil; an industry that would lose hundreds of billions of dollars if we moved away from fossil fuels to greener forms of energy to try to combat climate change.

It's all about the money folks, the only people who deny climate change is real are oil companies, and the Republicans who get money from them. Their plan is to deny it is real so they can keep robbing the American people by selling them gas, so they can make insane profits off the backs of hard working Americans. The only scientists who deny it is real are also getting money from the oil companies.

10) President Obama's economy is destroying this country:

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! If that is true, why are there so many Republicans all across the country running for re-election citing the overwhelmingly positive economic numbers that have occurred within their states during the last 6 years?

I'll tell you why. When the numbers are positive, that's due to policies supported by Republicans. But when the numbers are negative, that's all Obama's fault. Pretty convenient, right?

Obama saved the economy, and if he were a Republican O'Reilly and the GOP would call him a hero. But since he is a Democrat they lie about it, claim he is destroying the country, and do not give him credit for the economic recovery, even though it happened under his watch.

Which is more proof O'Reilly and the Republican party are dishonest liars.

Reality Check: Republicans Are Mad Because CNBC Called Out Their Lies
By: Steve - November 4, 2015 - 9:00am

Since the terrible GOP presidential debate Wednesday night, Republicans have been whining almost non-stop about how they were treated by the CNBC moderators. Even during the debate itself, several candidates complained about the media and how they felt the questions they were being asked were unfair.

They even called it the liberal media, which is just laughable, because CNBC is a conservative business news network. Most of them are from the Wall Street Journal and they are conservatives. I refuse to watch it because they are so biased to the right, they are just like the Fox business network, but not as good.

Now there were a couple of questions that were pretty bad. The first one that comes to mind was the one directed at Donald Trump and whether or not he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign based on his unrealistic promises to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, deport 12 million people, and pass a tax policy that would add trillions to the national debt.

While the point of the question was valid, and it's mostly true, the way it was asked in a debate was not the right thing to do. I was actually impressed by the fact that overall, the CNBC moderators called out several of the lies that were told on stage that night.

And to be honest, that's what Republicans are really upset about. Take for instance the question asked by CNBC's Becky Quick of Sen. Marco Rubio: "Sen. Rubio, you yourself have said that you've had issues. You have a lack of bookkeeping skills. You accidentally inter-mingled campaign money with your personal money. You faced foreclosure on a second home that you bought. And just last year, you liquidated a $68,000 retirement fund. That's something that cost you thousands of dollars in taxes and penalties. In terms of all of that, it raises the question whether you have the wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?"

This was a valid question, and a guy who does that should not be running the country, but Rubio dismissed it as discredited propaganda by his opponents and absolutely not true.

The problem for Senator Rubio is that it is, in fact, true. Everything Becky Quick said is well-documented and factual, so I'm not sure what complaint the RNC would have about a moderator bringing up Rubio's past financial incompetency. Especially considering that Marco Rubio is trying to become the leader of the largest economy in the world.

Another moment some Republicans have complained about came when Quick asked Trump about a comment he made where he referred to Rubio as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's personal senator. Trump denied ever saying it, then tried to make Quick look incompetent for even bringing it up.

But Quick was 100 percent accurate with her question, and the quote came directly from Trump's own website. He lied, he denied saying something that was on his own damn website, and nobody called him out for it.

Maybe the most talked about moment of the evening came when Ben Carson was asked about his ties to a highly controversial supplement company called Mannatech. Carson got mad, disavowing any link to the company while claiming that anyone saying otherwise was spreading propaganda.

Like with Rubio and Trump, Carson was flat-out lying when he said that he's had no involvement with Mannatech. Not only did he admit during the debate that he uses their supplements, but he's appeared in several promotional videos, was featured on their website, and gave multiple paid speeches for the company between 2004-2014.

If that's not involvement with the company, what is?

So, while the RNC got mad over CNBC's handling of the debate, the truth is, they're not upset because their candidates were treated unfairly, they're mad because their candidates were not smart enough to handle their lies being called out to their face during a presidential debate.

Notice that O'Reilly and the stooges at Fox do not fact check the claims the Republicans made at the debate, and whether they said it, or did it, or not, all they do is scream media bias and complain the debate was unfair.

Can someone ask O'Reilly why he does not fact check what the Republicans say, when he does it for Democrats, anyone?

O'Reilly Says Reforming Drug Sentences Sends The Message That Drugs Aren't Dangerous
By: Steve - November 3, 2015 - 9:00am

Even though most drug sentences are unfair and send people to prison for years and years, for simply selling drugs, that is a non-violent offense. Not to mention this, the taxpayers have to pay for all these people in prison, because O'Reilly and his wealthy friends are sure not going to pay for it.

We have more people in prison (per every 100 people) than any country in the world, and our crime rates are higher than countries who put almost nobody in prison. It makes no sense, and cost us billions, for nothing, and yet O'Reilly wants every person who ever sells any drugs locked up for life, but he does not want to pay for it, he wants me and you to pay for it.

So we are paying for a policy we do not support, which is what O'Reilly complains about when he says he has to pay taxes to pay for medicare, medicaid, etc. that are policies he does not support. Making him a massive hypocrite and a fool, who does not care about what your money is wasted on.



BILL O'REILLY: Now, Talking Points knows the real reasons the president and other liberal Americans do not want harsh punishment for drug-involved individuals. Reason number one, the left firmly believes that police target African-Americans more than whites in the narcotics trade. Therefore, thinking goes, the criminal justice system is racist.

Reason number two, many liberals want to legalize all drugs. They believe it's a personal choice and should not be punished by society. Also President Obama apparently thinks diverting drug-involved individuals into rehab is a better solution than incarceration. The problem is, rehab never works unless the individual wants to get off drugs or alcohol, and many offenders, perhaps most, do not.

Thus the whole exercise will accomplish little in the way of public safety. Some convicts will inevitably return to the drug life and they will cause a tremendous amount of damage. But here is the worst part of President Obama's foolish policy; it sends a message to young people, drug dealers, to drug users that society doesn't believe this is a dangerous and immoral situation.

Mr. I'm An Independent Endorses Glenn Beck As A GOP Debate Moderator
By: Steve - November 3, 2015 - 9:00am

O'Reilly Tells Beck: "I Hope You Get It... I Hope They Do It"



GLENN BECK: Bill, we wrote a letter from The Blaze today offering to do the ninth debate in February. We'd like to do it in a very, very different way. First of all, we are all -- almost all digital, and so this is would be one that would appeal to the millennials.

It would go all -- you know, all digital, all online. We also have the network, radio, and television that we could cover. But I want to -- what I want to do is, I want to bring people -- and I say like because I haven't asked him -- but people like Peter Thiel or Elon Musk to ask questions about the future of the economy.

BILL O'REILLY: All right, so you would bring in some people, but you, Glenn Beck, would moderate it --

BECK: Correct.

O'REILLY: And I hope you get it. I hope -- I hope they do it.

The 3rd Republican Debate Was A Total Joke
By: Steve - November 2, 2015 - 10:00am

They never answered any of the questions, and all they did was claim media bias and talk about something else. Which is their strategy, to control the debate. It is a planned strategy to avoid answering any of the tough questions with specific answers. So that is why none of them should ever be the president, if you can not answer the tough questions, you are not qualified to be the president.

And btw, they will not answer the questions because they have no answers.

The last Republican presidential debate was another circus, and it was a stark contrast from the Democratic debate many of us watched a couple of weeks ago.

As I expected, it was more of the same of what we've seen during the first two GOP debates. It was especially pivotal with Donald Trump slipping behind Ben Carson in some polls; Jeb Bush's campaign teetering on a full-on collapse; Carly Fiorina desperate to reclaim the momentum she found following the second debate; and several other candidates grasping at straws to continue to justify why they are still in this race.

This debate was setup to be a mess from the very beginning when, a little over a week ago, both Trump and Carson threatened to boycott the event unless CNBC agreed to their demands that the debate not last more than two hours. It made sense considering longer debates tend to lean more toward substance and neither candidate seems to be versed in anything other than spouting off ridiculous talking points based almost entirely on fiction.

If only one thing is taken from the 3rd GOP presidential debate it will be this: Republicans spent much of the night playing to their friendly audience and whining about bias in the media. Sure, a couple of the questions were bad. In any debate there are always going to be bad questions. If you want to address those issues, do it after the debate.

But when Ted Cruz whined about how Democrats were coddled during their debate, I couldn't help but wonder what debate he was watching. The first two questions during that debate targeted Hillary Clinton on Benghazi and Bernie Sanders on socialism. Anderson Cooper didn't pull any punches at all. The biggest difference was, the Democratic candidates spoke about the issues instead of spending half the night bashing one another like children.

And btw, the only reason the Republicans all slammed the media is because their far-right base loves it, so they were pandering to them to get their support. The media has been fair to everyone, they have spent weeks slamming Hillary over the e-mail scandal, if they were biased they would not have done that.

The GOP plan was essentially whenever one of the CNBC moderators called out a candidate for either lying, having a plan that doesn't make sense or pointing out a ridiculous statement they have made prior to the debate, avoid answering it, claim media bias and talk about something else.

When they called out Carson's ridiculous 10 percent flat tax, he denied saying that was his plan. He's full of it; because that's exactly what he said during an interview with Fox News Chris Wallace. He then went on to say he wants all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, to be treated fairly in this country.

Even though he once said that he gets irritated when he sees gay Americans claiming they deserve civil rights. Essentially what Carson does is he says something racist, scary, or just dumb, then when he's called out on it later he denies saying it, claims that's propaganda and says something else.

Trump even denied saying a quote about Marco Rubio that was quoted directly from his own website. This debate was one of the most difficult to watch. Not because it was a bigger circus than the first two, but because there's too many candidates on stage.

Like the first two, the candidates complained about both the time they were given and the questions they were being asked, and they frequently refused to answer the questions. Half the time they would give a 5 second excuse for an answer and then talk for a minute or two about something entirely unrelated to the actual question.

CNBC's moderators did a good job of calling out each candidate's unrealistic and ridiculous so-called plans, comments and blatant lies. That's why so many of them whined about the questions they were asked or the responses from the moderators. It's also why the audience brought out the boos early on, because the truth is ugly and inconvenient to hear.

If I had to pick a winner I would say Ben Carson, only because he stayed the course. His numbers are on the rise and he didn't particularly do anything that's going to cause conservative voters to turn against him. Even if his tax plan did get called out, I’m sure that won't matter to most Republicans watching.

Rubio and Cruz will also rise in the eyes of conservatives, but nobody else, and I would not say either were run-away winners. They had their moments, but they didn't say anything that they had not said in previous debates.

If I had to pick the losers, I would say Trump and Bush. When it comes to Trump, it's the same rhetoric he's been using for months. I think his shtick is wearing off and with each debate it seems like his campaign is simply running out of steam. As for Bush, he was the clear overall loser and I think it's over for the former Florida governor. He's just not a very good candidate.

When Bush sort of answers questions he seems unsure of what he's saying and almost disgusted that more people aren't taking him seriously. Bush comes off as not a very smart guy, just like his brother, even though he is supposed to be the smart one, he sure does not show it.

Unless something major happens over the next few weeks, I would not be surprised to see him drop out. As for the rest of the candidates, I don't look for any of them to make any major moves up or down. Maybe a percentage point here or there, but that's about it.

What this debate did was prove once again how out of touch the Republican party is with the average American. This is a group of people who seem more concerned with becoming the darling of the far-right and the conservative media than actually offering rational plans to help most Americans.

It was just another debate filled with petty attacks, worn out propaganda and many of the same failed recycled ideas Republicans have been pushing for the last 30 years, and they should be ashamed if they consider themselves serious candidates.

Fact-Checkers Say Carly Fiorina For Lying About President Obama's Record
By: Steve - November 1, 2015 - 10:00am

"92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama's first term belonged to women," Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina charged last night during the third Republican presidential debate. The fact-checkers at PolitiFact gave this stale, already debunked charge a big old fat "False" today.

Bear with me for a minute, because you'll need to once again get out your right wing conspiracy chalkboards for this one. Now imagine a world in which a false charge made against President Obama is then used to demonize former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for no reason.

Earth to the insane and dishonest Carly Fiorina, even if your bogus stat was true, which it's not. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with it, except that she was in the Obama administration at the time. It's like saying a guy who works for Trump as a construction worker, is to blame for Trump filing bankruptcy a few years ago, it's just crazy.

So Carly Fiorina, who was fired by the Hewlett-Packard board and has been deployed by the clever boys running the Republican Party to freely attack Hillary Clinton without worries of being called sexist (because, she's a woman and women can't be sexist, see Sarah Palin), leveled this debunked false charge at President Obama in order to smear Hillary Clinton.

So somehow Hillary Clinton is the same as Barack Obama. No need for distinctions here. We might as well go around accusing every Republican of messing things up with those weapons of mass destruction and how about that Katrina response.

Here are some facts: President Obama has overseen record setting private sector job growth, signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and passed Obamacare.

PolitiFact pointed out how stale Fiorina's already debunked claim is, "Her 92-percent claim dates back to the 2012 presidential race when it was used by the Republican National Committee and GOP nominee Mitt Romney. At the time, March 2012, the claim was cherry-picked and flawed. We rated it Mostly False."

Why not dig through the dirty, failed laundry of 2012 in order to hit Hillary Clinton? I mean, the Benghazi probes aren't working.

PolitiFact broke it down:

The government data show an increase of 416,000 working women between January 2009 and January 2013. Total employment also rose by 1.3 million.

So more women actually were working at the end of Obama's first term compared with the day he first took office.

We used the January 2009 to January 2013 timeframe to be consistent with the original Republican framing of the critique of Obama's economic policies.

Our ruling:

Fiorina said 92 percent of the jobs lost during Obama's first term belonged to women. By January 2013, the jobs numbers don't back it up at all. The number of women with jobs increased by 416,000 during Obama's first term.

We rate this claim False.

And I am going to go give it a double false because Fiorina was trying to hit Hillary Clinton with this bomb, and instead she fizzled out like Romney, and didn't even hit President Obama.

The stage was set for Fiorina to do her duty as female attack dog to go after Hillary Clinton last night and all she could come up with was a years old, already-debunked, stale Mitt Romney lie aimed at President Barack Obama.

The takeaway here is that the only position any Republican on stage was clear about last night is that they hate Hillary Clinton, and they will do or say pretty much anything in hopes of bringing her down.

Maybe if they could keep the lies to things that she might have done herself, it would help their aim. Also, if it helps Republicans, Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.





To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com