Republican Frontrunners Win Big With Lies
By: Steve - October 31, 2015 - 11:00am



Trump And Carson Are Two Of The Biggest Liars In America
By: Steve - October 31, 2015 - 10:00am

Open your eyes America, these two right-wing stooges are lying to you over and over, and virtually nothing they say is true, so if you vote for them you are just stupid.

One of my biggest issues with the modern-day Republican party is how little facts seem to matter to conservatives. Anytime I talk to a conservative I am shocked at the nonsense they actually believe. They hate President Obama based on things that are not true. They truly and honestly believe he's a non-American, anti-American, anti-Christian Muslim who's trying to destroy the country, confiscate all their guns, and a dummy who has made the economy worse.

It;s this total disregard for the facts that has been personified in the rise of the top two GOP presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. While the two men could not be more different, they do have one thing in common, almost everything they say is a lie.

Taking a look at each candidate's scorecard on the non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact, paints a picture of two men who have built campaigns based almost entirely on lies. For those of you who might not be aware, Politifact fact-checks statements that politicians or pundits make, then ranks them on a six-step scale: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire.

So let's take a look at the two leading GOP candidates. Of the 48 comments Politifact has investigated relating to Trump, only 10 percent (5 of 48) have been considered honest with 90 percent (43 of 48) being considered dishonest.

Think about that folks, 90% of what Trump says is a lie. And notice one more thing, Bill O'Reilly does not tell you any of this, or ever discuss any of the lies Trump is telling, even though he is a regular guest on the Factor. O'Reilly ignores all the Trump lies, and never once has he mentioned the Politifact numbers. Because Trump is a friend who he goes to Yankees games with, and a Republican just like him.

And it gets even worse when you look at Ben Carson. While he doesn't have nearly the profile as Trump, of the 12 comments Politifact has investigated, absolutely none of them were rated true or honest, zero, zip, nada. So he is lying 100% of the time, yes 100% of the time. O'Reilly never report on that either, and Carson is also a regular guest on the Factor, talk about bias, that is 100% bias by O'Reilly.

In all my dealings in politics I have found that the more conservative someone is the less they seem to care about facts or reality. And in today's Republican party, where the far-right have clearly taken over, the truth is only going to matter less and less.

Which is exactly how you get Donald Trump and Ben Carson, two of the most dishonest people in America running for president, as the GOP frontrunners who are loved by the majority of the Republicans, even though they are proven liars and have never held a political office.

Wake Up Republicans You Are Being Scammed By The GOP
By: Steve - October 31, 2015 - 9:00am

The GOP stands for Greedy Old Party. They are literally taking your money and then not doing a thing for you, they use it to get elected then give the Corporations and the wealthy all your money in tax breaks etc. while doing nothing for you, they are scamming you.

Conservative politics has become less about governing and presenting ideas, and has become a scam designed to take money from their base. As someone who has written about conservative politics for 14 years, I have watched it become more and more about money.

And I am not the only one who has noticed it. Erin Nanasi wrote an article about it. Vox's Matthew Yglesias also made this same point about Ben Carson's presidential campaign last week.

Carson is currently in second place in national polls and leading in Iowa. His campaign is raising tons of money from small donors and is spending most of that money on fundraising.

Think about that, he is not spending your money on his campaign, as you thought he would, he is spending it on fundraising.

People are giving Carson money so that he will have the money to ask more people for money. It's a pyramid scheme. There is no actual field operation, policy staff, or any kind of campaign apparatus that could result in victory.

And it's not just Ben Carson, conservative politics is full of marketing scams. Whether it's groups claiming to be associated with the Tea Party or pages like Being Conservative, there's a ton of money to be made in partisan bickering.

The best example of all of this is represented by none other than Donald Trump. Although he has now slipped into second place in the Iowa polls behind fellow conservative snake oil salesman Ben Carson, the success of both candidates shows that conservative politics has become a laughing stock since the Tea Party took over in 2010.

Not only has the Republican Party run so far to the far-right that Ronald Reagan would be considered a liberal by today's standards, but it also resembles reality TV where outrageous behavior gets you talked about, and nobody does it better than Donald Trump.

Even when conservative politicians are in Washington, they are usually busy running political hit jobs like the Benghazi hearings which end up blowing up in their faces. However, to their most loyal supporters and donors, they're still seen as winning.

While the most right-wing members of the House stabbed Speaker Boehner in the back politically and then torpedoed his replacement, throwing their own party into turmoil, they were using the opportunity to pull the GOP even more to the far-right.

This dysfunction and firing of a senior party leader would be an embarrassment to most political parties, but their base loved it and claimed that Speaker Boehner was a poor leader, because he couldn't deliver on all the insane promises the GOP and the Tea Party wing of the Republican party have made since 2010.

One of the biggest promises Republican lawmakers have run on is repealing Obamacare, even though they have no chance of doing that as long as a Democrat is in the White House. These lawmakers know their countless repeal attempts won't work, but they also know that the people who voted for them are too gullible to know the difference.

Donald Trump is running to boost his public image, so he can make even more money, and Ben Carson is running to promote his book. Once they have sucked enough PR and money out of the base, they will drop out, blame the Republican establishment, and their supporters will never realize that they have been scammed once again.

And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly ignores all of it, because he does not want you to know the truth. You are fools if you donate a dime to any Republican, and you are a fool if you believe anything O'Reilly says, because he is a partisan with an agenda.

Bill O'Reilly Still Ignoring Officer Slam Abuse Story
By: Steve - October 30, 2015 - 11:00am

And not only has he ignored it, he has done segments defending cops and hammering people who complain about police abuse. Then after a school cop is fired for abuse, O'Reilly goes silent, as if it never happened.

He never said a word about it, nothing, not a word about the cops history, or the fact that the kids in the school call him officer slam, and that he has been sued twice before for abuse.

All of Fox News defended this cop before all the facts came out, which they say liberals should not do when it involves a Republican, then they do the very same thing when it involves the police. Then after the facts come out and it shows the cop is a serial abuser and he was fired, they go silent.

In the case of Bill O'Reilly, he is the worst of all. Because he is the first one to defend the cops no matter what they do, then after they are proven to be wrong (and get fired for it) he has a blackout on the story.

This is a perfect example of why Bill O'Reilly is not the impartial and independent journalist he claims to be, it shows that he is a biased right-wing hack who ignores all the facts, to only cherry picks parts of a story to make you see it his way.

Krauthammer Admits Every GOP-Led Congressional Investigation Has Failed
By: Steve - October 30, 2015 - 10:00am

And he admits it because he knows they are nothing but partisan witch hunts that go nowhere, the same thing O'Reilly slammed the Democrats for doing when Bush was in office, but ignores when the Republicans do it. They fail because they have no case, it's all nothing but partisan use and abuse of power, and a waste of taxpayer time and money.

Fox's Krauthammer Admits Every GOP-Led Congressional Investigation "Has Failed Or Backfired"

Charles Krauthammer: "Republicans Have Demonstrated ... That They Have No Ability To Conduct Successful Investigations Of This Administration"



Partial transcript:

KRAUTHAMMER: Look, this not going to end well. Republicans have demonstrated, if they ever demonstrated anything, Republicans in the Congress have shown that they have no ability to conduct successful investigations of this administration. Everything they have touched has failed or backfired.

Even Benghazi, where they had prima facie evidence of new data showing that Hillary Clinton had said to the Egyptian ambassador, a day after the incident, it had nothing to do with the video and then spent the next week or two telling that to the country and to the father of one of those who fell.

The most damning evidence I can imagine, it's something you would have started a hearing with and would have had tremendous impact, and they didn't succeed.

They ended up, the image is the way it's been received is she had a triumph. If you can't score on that you're not going to score on this. George admits it's not going to pass in the Senate. This is a waste of energy.

If the intent is, as Chaffetz says, to restore confidence in the IRS, you know how you do that? You win the White House, you appoint a new IRS commissioner, and then you get an uncompromised DOJ to go in and to prosecute Lois Lerner.

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

And what Krauthammer fails to mention is that sources were saying the video was a partial cause of the attack, nobody denies it, but partisan Republicans who can not admit the facts. And he also ignores the DOJ investigation that found the IRS did nothing wrong, because both liberal and conservative groups were looked at, Krauthammer ignores those facts, just as O'reilly does.

Insane CNN Analyst Blames Student For Disturbing Police Abuse
By: Steve - October 30, 2015 - 9:00am

This analyst should be fired and never used again, even if the girl refused to do what the cop told her to, it does not justify abuse, which is why his own boss said it was disturbing,said he would never work a school again, and put him on unpaid leave. But the ridiculous CNN analyst ignores all that to blame the police abuse on the girl, it's insane, and I bet if she was his daughter he would have a whole different opinion.

The CNN analyst said this:

HARRY HOUCK: Here's the problem. This is a failure to comply again. Like in all these cases here, people don't listen to the police when they're giving them a command. You must comply. And then Marc's -- Marc's giving people the impression that you don't have to comply to police officers.

And that's why we're having a lot of incidents. You're giving that impression, Marc, every time I speak to you. You always have a problem, you know, talking about an officer's use of force. And I'm telling you, it's as a result of a failure to comply. If that girl got out of the car -- got out of the seat when she was told, there'd be no problem.

But apparently she had no respect for the school, no respect for her teacher, probably has no respect at home or on the street, and that's why she acted the way she did.

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

And now the facts: Feds Open Civil Rights Investigation

"The Columbia FBI Field Office, the Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina have opened a civil rights investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arrest of a student at Spring Valley High School," FBI Special Agent in Charge David Thomas said in a statement Tuesday.

The decision comes hours after Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott had requested they get involved. Lott stated that his agency will fully cooperate with federal agencies in the probe, and he wants to make sure there's no question in the community about a conflict of interest.

Lott said late Monday night that Deputy Ben Fields, the officer involved in the incident, will not be back at any school, and is not currently working for the department, pending the results of an investigation.

Lott said he was disturbed by what he saw, and said he cut short his trip, and is returning to Columbia to get answers.

"It's very disturbing what happened. It's something I have to deal with and that's what we're going to be doing," Lott said.

A video began spreading on social media sites Monday afternoon of the incident that happened at Spring Valley High School in northeast Richland County. In the recording, a female student can be seen sitting in her chair in a classroom where several other students are present.

An officer can be seen grabbing the student out of her desk, causing the chair to flip over. Once the student is on the ground, the officer can be seen grabbing the student and dragging her for several feet.

Late Monday night, News19 obtained a second video of the incident. It's a longer clip than the initial one, and some extra conversation can be heard.

"I've never seen anything so nasty looking, so sick to the point that you know, other students are turning away, don't know what to do, and are just scared for their lives," said Tony Robinson Jr., who made the recording "That's supposed to be somebody that's going to protect us. Not somebody that we need to be scare off, or afraid."

Niya Kenny, 18, identified herself as the other student who was charged. She said she was standing up for her classmate.

"I had never seen nothing like that in my life, a man use that much force on a little girl. A big man, like 300 pounds of full muscle. I was like 'no way, no way.' You can't do nothing like that to a little girl. I'm talking about she's like 5'6."

Now here is something very important the CNN analyst never mentioned:

Lott said officer Fields had been sued before, but that juries in those cases found in his favor. He was also named in a lawsuit over the expulsion of a student, but Lott said that did not involve a claim of excessive force.

Hamm also said that pending the results of an investigation with the sheriff's department, the district has directed that the officer never return to any school in the district.

Here is Hamm's full statement:

"Our District is deeply concerned about an incident that occurred at Spring Valley High School today. The incident took place between a school resource officer employed by the Richland County Sheriff's Department and a student. Video of the incident is circulating on social media.

Student safety is and always will be the District's top priority. The District will not tolerate any actions that jeopardize the safety of our students.

Upon learning of the incident, school and district administrators began an investigation. We are working closely and in full cooperation with the Richland County Sheriff's Department to conduct a thorough and complete investigation.

Pending the outcome of the investigation, the District has directed that the school resource officer not return to any school in the District."

Later in the evening, Richland Board Chairman Jim Manning issued a statement of his own.

"I have watched the video several times and there is no doubt that the video is extremely disturbing. The amount of force used on a female student by a male officer appears to me to be excessive and unnecessary. As the parent of a daughter in Richland School District I can assure you that we are taking this matter very seriously.

The district superintendent has been in constant contact with the Richland County Sheriff to express our concern over this matter and the district has banned the deputy in question from all District Two property. The Sheriff has assured us that a full investigation is under way and that he wants the same questions answered that we all have about this matter.

At this time, I will reserve further comment and judgement until the full investigation has been completed. However, I want to assure you that the Richland Two Board and District staff are committed to the safety of all of our students and are taking immediate steps to ensure that our students are treated with the full respect and dignity that they deserve while in our care."

The CNN analyst never mentions any of the above information, he acts like what the cop did was ok and nobody cares about it. When all hell broke loose and the cop will never work in a school again. This is the same thing Bill O'Reilly does with stories like this, he cherry picks the facts and only reports one side of the story, the cops side.

Ten Things Ben Carson Said That Should Disqualify Him From Being President
By: Steve - October 29, 2015 - 10:00am

Ben Carson has become an unlikely frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, leading recent polls in Iowa and surpassing all of the other Republican candidates recent fundraising totals. Though he has never held political office, his short time in the spotlight has given him plenty of opportunity to make controversial and often factually incorrect statements.

In the past six months, Carson has come up with even more crazy remarks and comparisons, which seem to only help his campaign with the right-wing nuts that support him. Carson is a pro-life far-right extreme former doctor who has no business in the White House, and has never held a public office.

Here are ten things Carson said that are either wrong, un-American, crazy, racist, or all four.

1) Women who get abortions are like slaveholders

2) Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery

3) Hitler could happen in the U.S. today

4) Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had guns

5) Anarchy could cancel the 2016 election

6) Congress should be able to remove judges for voting for marriage equality

7) Obama is depressing the economy to keep people on welfare

8) There's no such thing as a war crime

9) Being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay

10) College campuses should be monitored for liberal political speech

Now if after you know that he said those insane things, you still support and vote for him, there is something wrong with you and you should not be allowed to vote.

Republicans Cry Because Boehner Worked With Obama On A Budget Deal
By: Steve - October 29, 2015 - 9:00am

Which is his job, the speaker should work with the President to get a budget deal, that is what he is paid to do. But the partisan and un-American Republicans do not care about working deals, they would rather shut down the government to try and make Obama look bad, then do the people's business.

Senate and House Republicans are throwing a fit and claiming that Speaker of the House John Boehner gave President Obama everything he wanted in the new two-year budget deal.

Politico talked to some very unhappy Republicans, who said this:

Asked about the tentative agreement after the briefing, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions replied: "My knees quiver at the sound."

In an interview, Sessions expressed frustration that outgoing Speaker John Boehner was hammering out the deal just days before he plans to give up the gavel for good. "What does Boehner got to do with it?" said an exasperated Sessions, the former top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

"I'm worried about how fast it's moving. I see no reason for that. Based on what I know now, it appears the president got whatever he wanted."

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said this: "I don't think you'll hear anybody popping any champagne corks."

The discontent over the preliminary fiscal agreement also extended to the House on Monday night, where Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) focused his anger over how leadership was handling the budget process.

"We're not just here to take commands. We're really tired of the top-down, micromanagement where you have just a few people, or in this case just the speaker and his team, determining the outcome," Amash said. "This is a fair reason to vote against the bill."

And now the truth, the real reason Republicans are mad is because this deal would take away their ability to hold the country hostage by creating a crisis over the budget and the debt ceiling for two years.

The far right will be really mad, because they do not want any Republican making any deals with Obama, especially one who is quitting.

This deal is not perfect, but Democrats can check many more boxes off of their side of the wish list than Republicans can.

Compared to what the Democrats got in return, no more sequester, more spending, no increase in Medicare premiums, and no 20% cut to the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, Republicans got next to nothing.

President Obama has finally done it. He has broken the cycle of Republican crisis politics. There will be no more calls for government shutdowns, or Republicans pushing the economy to the brink of catastrophe by refusing to raise the debt limit.

Obama won, and Republicans can do nothing but blame Boehner and cry in defeat.

Officer That Fox & CNN Defended Was Fired
By: Steve - October 28, 2015 - 11:00am

Update #2: It's now Thursday and O'Reilly has still not said one word about the school cop getting fired. And he does not plan to say anything on the Thursday show either, I have seen the topics and none of them are about the cop getting fired. O'Reilly has ignored it, even though his entire network defended the cop, and he did a generic segment defending cops and saying they are under attack by the BLM group.

Update: On the Wednesday Factor show, O'Reilly did not say a word about the cop being fired.

This is the cop almost everyone at Fox defended, and a couple people at CNN defended.

The police officer caught on video slamming a teenage girl out of her desk in South Carolina will be relieved of duty, according to NBC News. Richland County Senior Deputy Ben Fields, 34, was suspended without pay Monday as the sheriff's department and federal officials carry out investigations of the incident.

The video exploded on social media this week. Students say the girl in question was quietly playing on her phone when the school resource officer was called in. Another girl who says she was just standing up for her classmate was also arrested.

In a press conference at noon, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott stressed that the incident started with a very disruptive student who was refusing to let the teacher continue the class. Nevertheless, he said Fields displayed unacceptable behavior that violated his training and department police when he threw the student across the room.

"That is not a proper technique and should not be used by law enforcement," he told reporters.

But of course the corrupt stooges at Fox News all defended it.

Lott previously pledged to complete the investigation within 24 hours and will announce his findings at noon. He told reporters that after watching the video, "I wanted to throw up. This makes you sick to your stomach when you see that initial video. But that's just a snapshot."

Lott claims that a third video shows the girl flailing her arms at the officer as he flips her desk over. The other student who was arrested, on the other hand, says her classmate only started fighting back because the officer put his arm around her neck.

Students say Fields had a reputation for violence and was known as "Officer Slam" at Spring Valley High. Fields was previously sued for using excessive force during a noise complaint investigation in 2005. The plaintiff alleged Fields "slammed him to the ground, cuffed him, began kicking him, and chemically maced him until his clothing was drenched and the contents of the can of mace was depleted."

His wife even took pictures of the encounter but Fields had her cell phone confiscated. Then a pro-police jury ruled in favor of Fields on parts of the lawsuit.

Lott said he welcomed videos taken by students and emphasized the speed with which his department responded to the controversy. He also took a dig at other jurisdictions where he felt they take unnecessary time to release the findings of investigations.

And the great (haha) journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, while doing generic segments on how great all the cops are, as if none of them ever do anything wrong.

Roland Martin Says Coward O'Reilly Is Lying About Black Lives Matter
By: Steve - October 28, 2015 - 10:00am

Roland Martin: 'Despicable Coward' Bill O'Reilly Is Lying About Black Lives Matter

"They do not want their audience to be exposed to the truth."

In an interview with The Wrap published Monday, the TV One host Roland Martin expressed disgust for Fox News coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Martin reserved special criticism for Bill O'Reilly, who he labeled a "despicable coward."

"They are lying to their audience and painting a picture that is shameful and despicable," Martin said, lamenting the fact that Fox News is willing to make absurd comparisons between Black Lives Matter and Nazis or the KKK, but refuses to interview or debate the movement's leaders.

He added that O'Reilly has declined repeated requests to debate him or any of the activists who started Black Lives Matter. Martin has even called the Fox News host out on Twitter for his unwillingness to engage.

12:48 PM - 26 Oct 2015 -- rolandsmartin @rolandsmartin

I dare @oreillyfactor @seanhannity to debate #BlackLivesMatter activists @TamikaDMallory @msladyjustice1 @lsarsour @deray @aliciagarza

"I will challenge Bill O'Reilly anytime, any day. I will come to his studio, I will wait, I will take my show off and debate him on this," Martin told The Wrap.

"They do not want their audience to be exposed to the truth."

O'Reilly did have Keith Boykin, a Black Lives Matter supporter on his show last week to discuss it. But after Boykin disputed O'Reilly's generalization that the movement's goal is "we want dead cops," He cut off his microphone. Even though he has said he never cuts the mic of any guest, he did.

And btw folks, O'Reilly says the BLM movement wants dead cops, even though that is based on what some unknown person said at a protest, not anything the actual people who started the BLM movement said. So he is dishonest to claim the BLM wants cops dead.

Not to mention this, a new report released Monday found that the number of police officers charged in fatal shootings is at the highest level in a decade. It remains to be seen whether that's a temporary blip driven by public attention to the very deaths that spurred the growth of the movement, or part of a broader trend toward greater police scrutiny.

Something O'Reilly never reports, he just ignores it.

Trump Caught Lying About Ford Plant Staying In The USA
By: Steve - October 28, 2015 - 9:00am

When looking at the factors leading up to Donald Trump's rise in the Republican presidential primary, nothing beats the fact that his supporters don't seem to care that almost everything he says is a lie.

And I'm not exaggerating; his scorecard on the non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact is terrible. Of the 57 comments they fact-checked, 75 percent have been rated a lie.

The worst part is, his supporters simply do not care. So it doesn't matter how much evidence you produce proving that nearly everything he is saying is a total lie, it has absolutely no impact on how they feel about him.

In fact, I could argue that the more he lies, the more they like him. Well, once again proving that his arrogance knows no bounds, Trump tried to take credit for Ford moving 1,000 jobs from Mexico back to Ohio, saying this:

Donald J. Trump - @realDonaldTrump

"Word is that Ford Motor, because of my constant badgering at packed events, is going to cancel their deal to go to Mexico and stay in U.S."

Of course, his supporters won't know the truth because Trump had absolutely nothing to do with it. You see, the story itself is actually two months old; furthermore, the deal that eventually brought the plant back to Ohio was brokered in 2011 by a fellow GOP presidential candidate, Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Yes, Trump actually thought that, despite having absolutely no political power at all in this country, his ridiculous rhetoric is the reason why Ford brought these jobs back to the U.S. from Mexico.

I'm sure that even when confronted with the facts of this story, it won't deter Trump supporters from believing that he's the reason why these jobs were sent back to Ohio. Because the truth is, if Donald Trump supporters actually cared about the truth, they wouldn't be Donald Trump supporters in the first place.

And now the facts: After consistently berating Ford Motors for their decision to build an auto plant in Mexico in his campaign speeches, he is now attempting to take credit for their decision to move the plant back to Ohio -- except that decision was made four years ago, in 2011.

Ford put out a statement: "Ford has not spoken with Mr. Trump, nor have we made any changes to our plans. We decided to move the F-650 and F-750 medium-duty trucks to Ohio Assembly in 2011, long before any candidates announced their intention to run for U.S. president" said a spokesman.

While Trump has promised to bring jobs back to America, he has not practiced what he preaches in his business practices.

"For Trump to operate, outsource and invest globally while criticizing companies like Ford for doing the same is the ultimate hypocrisy. To be fair to Ford, Trump should either agree to impose a 35% tax on Trump Collection clothing and agree to stop investing overseas, or he should stop his threats against Ford for operating as a global carmaker" slammed economics professor Mark Perry.

For the record, the Trump clothing line (including his ties) is made in Mexico and China. So while slamming other companies for doing business with China and Mexico, he is doing the very same thing. Then he takes credit for something he had nothing to do with. And his braindead supporters still love him, even though he is a liar and he has his clothing line made outside the USA.

And btw, Trump was not even referring to the right deal. The return of the truck production he is attempting to take credit for was actually arranged by Ohio Governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich, who "negotiated with Ford for the jobs and secured $15 million in tax breaks for the automaker over 15 years, to entice Ford into keeping the jobs in Avon Lake."

The deal that Trump is referring to involves $2.5 billion in new engine and transmission plants in Chihuahua and Guanajuato, creating 3,800 jobs and taking advantage of lax Mexican labor laws and low trade tariffs.

Trump's career in economics and business, the only qualification he can offer, was started by a loan given to him by his father -- for the meager sum of a million dollars. Since then, he has filed for bankruptcy four times after inheriting hundreds of millions from his father after he passed away.

He may have risen to the top of the Republican field on the back of his lies and delusional fabrications, but they will only take him so far, a fact manifesting itself as you read, as he slips in the polls to the soft-voiced but just as dangerously misinformed Ben Carson, who has made a name for himself saying equally atrocious things.

It really goes to show just how little substance the Republican Party has to offer, and why they don't deserve a place in our political discourse.

Trump Slams Bush For Meeting With Mommy & Daddy Over Campaign
By: Steve - October 27, 2015 - 10:00am

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump mocked Jeb Bush for "meeting with Mommy and Daddy" at an emergency Houston fundraiser meant to shock life into his struggling Presidential campaign.

"Bush has no money. He's meeting today with Mommy and Daddy, and they're working on his campaign. He's a guy who wants to run our country and he can't even run his own campaign. Think of it," Trump said at a Jacksonville, Florida, rally.

"You have all these people, what do you need these people for?" he said. "I put up less money than everyone else, and I'm number one."

Trump leads in Florida with 22 percent support, while the State's former governor Jeb Bush comes in fourth with only nine percent.

Something O'Reilly has totally ignored, Bush is not even winning his own State. But when Al Gore ran and he was losing in his own State O'Reilly was all over it, slamming him almost every night saying if you can not win your own State you should not be the President. No such slam for Bush, because he is a Republican, just like O'Reilly.

Bush raised $13.3 million last quarter, while Trump, who has declared he is self-funding his campaign and has ordered superPACs supporting him to return money to donors, raised $3.9 million. Only seven percent of Bush's contributions come from small donors who gave less than $200. But small donors sent Trump millions; 72 percent of the billionaire's donations were under $200, and the average contribution to his campaign totaled $50.24.

Bush plans to retreat to Texas this weekend to meet with Bush bundlers and the big movers in the donor class. He also plans to slash payroll by 40 percent and downsize his Miami headquarters to half its original capacity during the final 100-day stretch before the Iowa caucus.

As of this week, Bush continues to stagnate at seven percent in the polls nationwide.

Only 12 percent of Republican voters expect him to win the nomination, the ABC News/Washington Post poll found. Trump maintained a double-digit lead at 32 percent, and 40 percent of respondents expected him to clinch the party's nomination.

Hypocrisy Alert: Rubio Wants People Fired For Not Doing Their Jobs
By: Steve - October 27, 2015 - 9:00am

When pressed during a CNN interview about why he thinks federal workers should be fired for not doing their jobs while he has missed the most votes in the Senate, Sen. Marco Rubio put his foot in his mouth and said that voting in the Senate is not important for a Senator.

In an interview that aired on CNN's State of the Union, Jamie Gangel pointed out to Rubio that other Senators running for president (Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders) have only missed ten votes while he has missed 59.

Rubio answered with this nonsense, "Well, I can tell you that in the history of presidential politics when they've been running for politics in the Senate, they've missed votes."

Ignoring one important difference, those Senators never called for other people to be fired for not doing their jobs, while he was not doing his, which is the main point that Rubio never talked about.

Sen. Rubio tried to explain away his absences by arguing that the Senate votes don't mean anything, "A lot of these votes don't mean anything. They're not going to pass, and even if they did, the President would veto them."

Gangel reminded Rubio of his comments on the Senate floor that federal workers who aren't performing should be fired, "Someone might say you're not showing up. You're not doing your job by voting."

Caught in his hypocrisy, Rubio tried to dig his way out with this, "Not true. Because voting is not the most important part of the job. The most important thing that a Senator does is constituent services."

Ignoring the fact that nobody else thinks that, even O'Reilly and others at Fox slam Democrats in the Congress who are running and miss votes.

Gangel stopped him, "Wait a minute. Votes aren't important. Intelligence Committee hearing aren't important."

Rubio was doomed by this point, "We do all the intelligence briefings. I was just there this Tuesday. I got fully briefed and caught up on everything that's happening in the world. I'm fully aware. We have a staffer that's assigned to intelligence who gets constant briefings. I think votes,of course, are important, but unfortunately, too many of them today are not meaningful."

The main purpose of a Senator is to represent the people of his/her state in the Senate. The people aren't represented if their Senator doesn't show up to vote. Taxpayers are not paying Rubio a six figure salary to have a staffer handle intelligence briefings.

Once Rubio realized what he had said, he tried to backtrack, but it was too late. Marco Rubio seems to be believe that he doesn't have to show up and do his job as a Senator because Republicans don't have a 60 vote majority in the Senate.

Rubio avoided the point about his not attending committee hearings by claiming that he gets briefings. Briefings are like skipping class and borrowing a friend's notes to get caught up on what you missed.

The Republican establishment loves Rubio's look and bio. No one in establishment politics can figure out why he is failing. Sen. Rubio's constant habit of self-destructing every time he opens his mouth is why his presidential campaign is going nowhere fast.

Rubio wants to be in the Senate so that he can run for president, but he appears to have no interest in doing his job as a Senator.

Marco Rubio's lack of commitment to the people who elected to serve him is the reason he doesn't deserve to be in the Senate, much less be considered a serious contender for the White House.

And btw, notice that O'Reilly has not slammed Rubio for missing more Senate votes than anyone, but when Democratic Senators ran for President, like John Kerry, and missed a lot of votes, O'Reilly was all over them for it. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a one sided biased right-wing hack.

O'Reilly Complains Benghazi Committee Did Not Listen To Him To Hurt Hillary
By: Steve - October 26, 2015 - 10:00am

This is 100% conclusive proof that Bill O'Reilly is a pure right-wing hack, he is mad that the bogus Benghazi committee did not listen to him, so it did not hurt Hillary. And he says if they would have done what he said they could have hurt her.



Here is a partial transcript:

O'REILLY: Do you think Secretary Clinton hurt or helped herself yesterday?

CHRIS CHRISTIE: She helped herself yesterday.

O'REILLY: You think so?

CHRISTIE: I do. Because, you know, they didn't uncover anything new. They allowed her get her talking points out over and over again. And they were falling over each other looking ineffective.

O'REILLY: All right, but her talking points --

CHRISTIE: This is why people don't like Congress, I mean, you know.

O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean look, her talking points were essentially this, though, and this is what I said last night. "I don't know anything about it. Because it's not my job. It's the security professional's job." So you got a hot spot. You're deeply involved in the Libyan situation because you wanted to remove Gadhafi. Your ambassador writes a cable to you, which you say you never saw, saying "we need more security, it's not provided." And he winds up dead. Do you really think the American people are going to buy "it's not my job to protect my people?"

CHRISTIE: Absolutely not.

O'REILLY: Well, then, how can you say it didn't hurt her?

CHRISTIE: Well, you said yesterday -- it's going to hurt her in the long-term, Bill.

O'REILLY: Right.

CHRISTIE: But you got to get somebody who can effectively question her and hold her to account. We didn't have anyone on that congressional committee ... who could do that.

O'REILLY: Why do you think that is? Because I told them what to do.

CHRISTIE: They didn't listen.

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

And now the truth, they did not hurt her because she told the truth, it was not her job to handle the security, that is the job of lower level people in the State Department, somehow O'Reilly just does not seem to understand that. She did not have talking points, she had the truth, the same truth she has always had.

They can not, and will not ever hurt her, because she did nothing wrong and it has been proven over and over. O'Reilly is just mad they did not hurt her, when it's impossible. And only a right-wing idiot would want to hurt her, let alone get mad because they did not do it.

O'Reilly Denies He Compared Black Lives Matter To Nazis
By: Steve - October 26, 2015 - 9:00am

Even though he did, and we have transcripts and video to prove it.

O'Reilly: I "Did Not Make That Comparison"



BILL O'REILLY: "Bill, I disagree with your comparison of Black Lives Matter to American Nazis." I did not make that comparison, Talli. Didn't make it. I asked if the Republican group -- if a Republican group -- embraced a radical group like Stormfront, would that be acceptable? In light of the Democrats not having a problem with Black Lives Matter? It's all about radicalism.

Now read this: Fox Guest Calls Out Bill O'Reilly For Equating Black Lives Matter Supporters To Nazis

Keith Boykin: "The Black Lives Matter Movement Is Not The Nazi Party. It's An Offensive Suggestion To Make That Comparison"

BILL O'REILLY: Look, would you be comfortable with the Republican Party bringing in the Stormfront -- the Nazi people -- and saying we would like our candidates to talk to you guys. Would you be comfortable with that -

DAVID GOODFRIEND: No.

O'REILLY: Mr. Goodfriend?

GOODFRIEND: No. No, I wouldn't.

O'REILLY: OK. But they are an extreme group, the Nazi Party. The Black Lives Matter is also an extreme group as you have heard.

KEITH BOYKIN: The Black Lives Matter movement is not the Nazi Party. It's an offensive suggestion to make that comparison, Bill. I'm outraged that you would say that.

Senate Democrats Demand RNC Pay Taxpayers Back For Benghazi Investigation
By: Steve - October 25, 2015 - 10:00am

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid announced that Senate Democrats have sent a letter to the Republican National Committee demanding that the RNC pay the taxpayers back for their Benghazi investigation.

Reid called the panel a hit job on Hillary Clinton, "Former First Lady, United States Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify before the so-called Benghazi Select Committee tomorrow. In recent weeks, it has become absolutely clear that this committee is nothing more than a political hit job on Hillary Clinton."

On the Senate floor, Democratic Senate Leader Sen. Harry Reid summed up what this investigation has accomplished:

-- Republicans have spent $4.7 million of taxpayer money to attack Secretary Clinton.

-- Republicans have done little to investigate the Benghazi attacks.

-- And what little work House Republicans actually did reconfirmed the basic findings of all of the previous investigations.

House Republicans have used the tragic deaths of four innocent Americans and turned it into an appalling political farce. The very notion that an official House Committee was used as a political tool is inexcusable. It is even more disgraceful that nearly $5 million taxpayer dollars were spent on this political hit job.

Senate Democrats will continue to fight to get this sham of a committee disbanded. Weeks ago we sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner urging him to bring this disgraceful committee to an end. Today, Senate Democrats have sent a second letter to the Republican National Committee, requesting that it reimburse the American people for the Benghazi Committee's expenses.

That seems only fair since the so-called committee is clearly a Republican political organization.

Senate Democrats aren't standing on the sidelines. They are demanding that the Republican National Committee pay the taxpayers back the millions of dollars that they have used for their political investigation of Clinton.

Getting the money back is not enough. The best thing that could happen would be for the political leaders to hear the calls of millions of Americans and launch an independent investigation into the illegal use of taxpayer funds for partisan political purposes by House Republicans.

I suspect that after Hillary Clinton knocks down the eight-hour spectacle of staged political theater that Republicans are planning, the House Select Committee on Benghazi will go off into a corner and die a slow political death.

Republicans need to be held accountable, and nothing less than a criminal investigation is enough. The House Republican abuse of power must stop.

Iran-Contra Reporters: Benghazi Hearings A Partisan Attack On Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - October 25, 2015 - 9:00am

Journalists who covered the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings say the congressional investigations into Benghazi are totally partisan and more focused on damaging Hillary Clinton than finding the truth.

Last year, following extensive pressure from partisan Republicans and right-wing media outlets like Fox News, House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee. In recent weeks, the committee has faced widespread criticism after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy boasted to Sean Hannity that the committee had helped damage Clinton politically.

A second Republican congressman and a conservative former committee staffer have since also come out to say that the committee is focused on hurting Clinton, rather than seeking "answers" to questions that supposedly still remain about the 2012 terrorist attacks.

Clinton is scheduled to testify before the committee again Thursday, nearly three years since she first publicly testified about the attacks.

"Benghazi initially was about a limited problem of not properly organizing security for the American ambassador and his staff, [but] it's evolved into something completely different. It's turned into an attempt to sort of nail Hillary," said Fox Butterfield, a former New York Times reporter.

"A general attack on Hillary. If you are trying to find out what happened, you'd be doing something different."

Butterfield, who worked at the Times from 1969 to 2007, was part of the team that won the 1972 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for Pentagon Papers coverage. He is also among those who covered the 1987 Iran-Contra congressional hearings, which investigated the illegal selling of arms to Iran, with the profits from those sales used to arm Nicaraguan rebels.

Butterfield and others said the contrast between Benghazi and Iran-Contra is stark, both in the seriousness of the incidents and the fairness of the hearings.

"Those hearings didn't last nearly as long and they were a much larger issue than Benghazi is ostensibly about," Butterfield said, later saying of Iran-Contra, "the White House and its operatives set out to break the law, arming the Contras with weapons that we weren't supposed to have and we were dealing with the Iranians, the Republican White House was doing a backdoor deal with Iran."

Walter Pincus, who covered the Iran-Contra hearings for The Washington Post, agreed.

"I don't think there is a comparison," he said. "Iran-Contra was a misuse directed by the White House, the NSC [National Security Council], to engage in a policy of selling arms to get the release of hostages, totally opposite of American foreign policy."

Asked about Benghazi, he added, "to have seven investigations about something that apparently wasn't a violation of any law, wasn't a misuse of government property, and clearly had nothing to do with her [Clinton], somebody wants to make it into something bigger than it was and to keep it going as long as it has."

He added, "the misuse of [a congressional committee] for political purposes really just corrupts the system."

John Walcott covered the Iran-Contra hearings for The Wall Street Journal and said today's Benghazi hearings are "more about scoring points and unfortunately too many in the media have gone along with that."

He also said the issues of Iran-Contra were more serious: "Selling arms for hostages and arming the Contras were more serious policy issues than the murder of an ambassador and other Americans in an unstable country... Even if there are legitimate issues to be explored in the case of Benghazi, like everything else in the public space, this is much more partisan than Iran-Contra and it is a trend that has been going on for a long time."

Robert Parry, who reported on the Iran-Contra hearings for Newsweek, and previously covered the issue for the Associated Press, called comparisons with Benghazi "rather silly."

"It is a very limited, much smaller issue than Iran-Contra, which covered years of deceit and violations of U.S. law compared to one discreet incident," Parry said, saying that Benghazi "has been beaten into the ground by multiple investigations that have gone on endlessly.

Clearly, the Republicans have hammered [Benghazi] as far as they can for political reasons, there was a certain legitimate element, answer a few questions and be done with it. This has gone on far longer than the circumstances would warrant, there aren't that many layers to peel back in this one. In Iran-Contra, it was like an onion, the more layers you peeled back the more you found."

Stephen Engelberg, editor-in-chief of ProPublica.org, reported on the Iran-Contra hearings for The New York Times. He agreed the partisan element is much stronger with Benghazi.

"There was a sense of bipartisanship [during Iran-Contra] that is not present, at least according to what Kevin McCarthy said, in this thing," Engelberg said. "There are legitimate questions about whether or not the United States government did all it could to protect the safety of overseas diplomats. But there are clearly much narrower gauged questions than Iran-Contra -- it doesn't have the same heft."

Doyle McManus, a Tribune Media columnist and former Washington, D.C., bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, covered the Iran-Contra story for that paper. He also pointed to the overwhelmingly partisan approach with the Benghazi committee.

"The most glaring contrast between this investigation and Iran-Contra is that the Iran-Contra committees were bipartisan," he said, later adding, "This is clearly, as Kevin McCarthy said, a case of one party seeing the leading presidential candidate of another party in a vulnerable situation."

Clark Hoyt, the former Knight Ridder Washington, D.C., bureau chief during Iran-Contra, agreed: "I don't remember an investigation where the partisan divide was as great as this one."

O'Reilly Now Wants People Who Disagree With Him Arrested
By: Steve - October 24, 2015 - 10:00am

So now if you do not agree with O'Reilly he wants the Government to arrest you, but somehow, he has no problem with people who disagree with the employees at CNN or MSNBC. Sounds like the same thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany with the SS.

O'Reilly Argues The San Francisco Official Who Challenged Fox News On Immigration Policy Needs To Be Arrested.

O'Reilly: "If I Were The Attorney General Of The United States, I Would Immediately Place Her Under Arrest"



Here is a partial transcript:

O'REILLY: The supervisors voted to retain their sanctuary city policy and not cooperate with federal authorities when asked to detain criminals. And if you think that's outrageous, listen to this sound bite directed at Kate Steinle's family and supporters.

MALIA COHEN: We cannot allow one event to dictate 25 years -- 25 years of our city's policies towards undocumented immigrants in our city. And more importantly, more importantly, we cannot allow hateful conservative news stations to drive how we respond to incidents in our city. I'm not afraid of Fox News and they don't influence how I make my policy decisions here in San Francisco.

O'REILLY: So let me be very clear. That woman is a disgrace, and if I were the attorney general of the United States, I would immediately place her under arrest. I might not win the case, but I would send a message to all subversive office holders in this country, that if you do not obey federal law, you yourself will be prosecuted.

And now some reality, earth to Bill O'Reilly. The federal government is in charge of immigration, not the state governments. They do not have the money to enforce immigration laws, and it is even in the constitution. Get a grip man, just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they should be arrested. In fact, you should be arrested for being a communist idiot.

The Latest Benghazi Hearing Was A Disaster For Republicans
By: Steve - October 24, 2015 - 9:00am

Thursday’s Benghazi hearing and the questioning of Hillary Clinton was an absolute disaster for the GOP. This was not a hearing about Benghazi, it was nothing but a multimillion dollar attempted takedown of Hillary Clinton.

First, I would like to point out that almost everything asked and said during thursday's proceedings has been said and asked a hundred times before. While many Americans (especially conservatives) might not be aware, this is not the first investigation into Benghazi -- it's the eighth.

All of which have been led by Republicans. In fact, this time last year, many of the same people who are on this current committee were members of another Republican-led House investigation that debunked all the nonsense that's been pushed by O'Reilly, Fox News, and the right since 2012.

That's why they released the findings of that investigation just before Thanksgiving, when most of the country was obviously preoccupied with the holiday. I watched as much of this circus as I could and I was appalled at the disrespect many Republican members of the committee showed toward Hillary Clinton, even though we now know this committee is a sham. They have no honor or integrity.

These were not people looking for the truth, they were out there looking for a gotcha moment to hurt Clinton politically for the election next year.

And in my opinion, the best headline summary of what thursday was about came from The Onion of all places: Benghazi Committee Instructs Hillary Clinton To Limit Answers To 'I Failed The American People.'

Throughout the day, anytime Clinton would go into great detail on specifics that clearly debunked the lies Republicans have been desperately trying to convince the American people are real -- she was routinely cut off before she could complete her statement.

Whenever she answered questions based on the facts (many of the same facts from the previous seven investigations) Republicans clearly appeared annoyed that what she was saying was not confirming the lies that they've been pushing for years. In fact, one of the moments of the day came when Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) tried to accuse Clinton of lying about the YouTube video immediately following the attack.

"Why didn't you just speak plain to the American people?" Jordan asked. "I did," Clinton responded. "If you look at my statement as opposed to what I was saying to the Egyptian prime minister, I did state clearly and I said it again and in more detail the next morning. As did the president. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were."

It's still baffling how much of this so-called investigation centers around Gop propaganda talking points that are nothing but lies, and proven to be lies.

Republicans are literally obsessing over what the Obama administration and Clinton said within the first 24-48 hours following the attack. Even though the president used the word terror to describe the attack the very next day, they claim he did not say it, when the transcripts clearly show he did.

Not only that, but Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a suspect behind the attack, admitted that the video was used as a tool to motivate people prior to the attack.

Then there was Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) who also showed a complete lack of respect toward Clinton. He actually went as far as to accuse her of not sending more security to Benghazi because she was trying to bask in the glow of the "success in Libya" in some sort of attempt to cover-up the unrest that was still going on there.

Throughout her testimony as she tried to counter his pre-rehearsed GOP propaganda, he continually cut her off, often shouting over her as she tried to speak. It was clear from the start that he had an agenda to go after Clinton and that's exactly what he tried to do.

If someone is interested in the truth, common sense dictates that they would actually care about the answer to the question they were asking. But that's not what Republicans did. It was blatantly obvious they couldn't care less about what Clinton actually had to say, they were simply there to grandstand.

I lost count how many times Clinton tried to answer a question only to be cutoff by the Republican who asked the question. This was not about finding out facts, this was about Republicans putting together political theater. Not only were they hoping to get soundbites to use against Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president, but the GOP presidential candidates are raising money from Clinton's testimony today.

The sheer length of this entire spectacle should be mocked as well. Questioning that began in the morning and carried on well into the evening is completely ridiculous. And as the day went on, each question became more pointless, petty, and essentially devolved into the outright badgering of Clinton.

I believe that was part of their strategy. Clearly someone who's fatigued is much more likely to provide a gotcha line. Again, that's really what this entire show was all about -- getting soundbites to use against Clinton. Today's proceedings proved what an absolute sham this whole process has been. It's been obvious almost since the start that this whole sideshow is nothing but a partisan political attack meant to try to hurt Clinton's chances at becoming president.

O'Reilly even admitted it, but he still reports on these bogus hearings like they are valid, and not just a political witch hunt. Something he complains about when Democrats do it.

It's laughable that anyone would even try to argue otherwise. Hell, if you don't believe me, just ask Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The bottom line is, every American should be ashamed that the deaths of four Americans have been continually exploited by the Republican party all for the sake of petty partisan politics aimed at trying to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances next November.

They are using the four deaths for political gain, and if the Democrats were doing this O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for them to be voted out of office. It is shameful, and O'Reilly is as bad as they are for supporting them and helping them spread their right-wing lies.

I am ashamed that the Congress has allowed this sideshow to go on as long as it has. I really think it's time the question is asked: When do we investigate Republicans for wasting millions of the taxpayers dollars on what is clearly nothing more than a partisan political witch hunt?

And if Bill O'Reilly were a real non-partisan Independent journalist (as he claims to be) he would be calling for the Republicans to end this sham. Instead he helps them by reporting their lies almost every night, because he does not like Hillary and does not want to see her be the next President.

He is not fair or balanced, he is a partisan Republican who is doing everything in his power to hurt Hillary Clinton, and to help the Republicans like Trump and others be the next President, because he supports 99% of their political platform.

Remember When Bill O'Reilly Used To Slam Obama For The Deficit
By: Steve - October 23, 2015 - 10:00am

I sure do, almost every night O'Reilly used to slam Obama for the deficit and say Obama is going to destroy the country with his social programs debt. O'Reilly actually wrote a talking points memo about it in June of 2015 saying it is why we should all leave America, because Obama was going to destroy it.

Here is the actual headline of his TPM:

Perhaps the best reason we should all leave the United States right now

O'Reilly said this:
Here is the warning and I'm sorry to have to give it to you. The CBO says if Congress does not start balancing the budget the long-term economic situation will be dire. Taxes will go up on everyone -- they have to. Interest rates will go up because people around the world won't lend us any more money unless they get paid through the roof.

In other words, the American economy will be strangled and could very well crash and burn in 10 years. Taking the savings and welfare of all Americans with it.

Responsible politicians know this yet they continue to tell you, the voter, that they will rebuild the American military, stimulate the economy so everybody can have a good job, that they will provide health insurance for people who can't or won't pay for it.
Now think about this, it was all lies, none of it was true and he knew it. It was all right-wing propaganda and lies to make Obama look bad, the economy is doing great, Obamacare is doing great, gas is around $2.00 a gallon, not the $4.00 O'Reilly and the Republicans predicted, unemployment is down, jobs are at record highs, and the deficit that O'Reilly no longer talks about is way down under Obama, something O'Reilly never reports.

Remember, O'Reilly said the Obama debt and deficit would destroy the country so we should all leave, even though when some Democrats said something similar under Bush O'Reilly called them un-American traitors. Then he says the very same thing, but somehow he is not an un-American traitor?

Here are the facts:

When O'Reilly and his conservative friends want to scare people into thinking we can not afford basic social programs, there's one thing they love to harp on: the deficit. How can we guarantee healthcare to the people when we have so much debt?, they argue.

But while that reasoning may be compelling to those whose worldview is filtered through a biased Fox News lens, Obama's presidency has proven that bigger government does not mean bigger deficit -- although O'Reilly and no Republican will admit it, the public deficit has in fact went down by $1 trillion under President Obama, while at the same time programs like healthcare and education have expanded.

The Treasury Department reports that the fiscal year that ended September 30th witnessed the lowest deficit of Obama's presidency -- $439 billion, which is nine percent lower than last year, and over a trillion dollars lower than the $1.4 trillion that we saw the year Obama took office. These figures strike a death blow to the kind of austerity policies O'Reilly and the conservatives want to impose.

Despite this impressive achievement, it's startling how ignorant the Republicans are about the deficit. In 2013, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said this: "What I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year."

So what's wrong with that Paul statement? He is lying, because the deficit in 2013 was already well below $1 trillion a year. Not to mention, a lot of that deficit was put in place by Bush, it carried over to the Obama years, but they never tell you that, that just blame it all on Obama even though some of it was from Bush.

The Tea Party even rose to power by stoking the public's fears about a ballooning deficit, and they continue to ring the alarm despite the fact that this balloon is quickly running out of air. And O'Reilly helped them, by using their propaganda every other night about the deficit, the very same deficit Dick Cheney said does not matter when Bush was in power, and the deficit O'Reilly never once mentioned in the 8 years under Bush.

In March 2015, teaparty.org published an article claiming that "spending and deficits are back on upward trajectories," being driven by "soaring entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."

Not only is it ridiculous to think of healthcare and basic retirement insurance as entitlements (people pay in to social security folks), the article reinforces the idea that the only way to way to keep the country afloat is by cutting all services to poor people, sick people, and the middle class. While supporting Billions in tax breaks for oil companies who makes trillions in profits, and who gouge the American people every day with inflated gas prices.

O'Reilly and the Republicans have been having a field day with the spending proposals of Democratic presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

During the debate, which focused on income inequality and education rather than xenophobia and fear-mongering, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee tweeted the hilarious remark: "I trust @BernieSanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with my labrador!"

But while the Democrats are fully prepared to compensate for their spending by forcing the super wealthy and the rich corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, it's actually the Republicans, with their massive tax cuts to the wealthy, who stand to drive the deficit up to untold heights.

And O'Reilly never reports any of this, because he wants you to believe his lies that Obama is racking up debt like a crazy man, when in fact, he has lowered it and saved the economy and jobs while giving millions more people affordable health care.

Donald Trump Destroys The Fox News Benghazi Propaganda
By: Steve - October 23, 2015 - 9:00am

Returning to Congress this week to testify about Benghazi more than 30 months after she first testified about the Libyan terror attack, Hillary Clinton is being summoned to answer yet more Republican questions, many of which seem to revolve around wild conspiracies.

As the Benghazi Select Committee's reputation continues to take on water for incompetence and run-away partisanship, new jousting among Republican candidates is also denting the entire Benghazi pursuit; a chase that's been sponsored by Fox News for years.

The latest sparring features Donald Trump and Jeb Bush arguing over President George W. Bush's responsibility for the terror attack of 9/11. "When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time," Trump said last week.

Bush's brother lashed back out at Trump, calling his claim "pathetic," while other Republicans rushed to Bush's side. "I think Donald Trump is totally wrong there," Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said on Fox Radio. "That sounds like a Michael Moore talking point" said King, referencing the liberal filmmaker who documented George W. Bush's failings. (Fox News did its best to help Jeb, too.)

"Blaming 9/11 on Mr. Bush is taboo for Republicans and has largely been off-limits for Democrats," noted The New York Times. But by ignoring those Beltway protocols, Trump threw a spotlight onto the questions of accountability, George Bush's inability to protect Americans from terror attacks on U.S. soil, and why Jeb Bush today routinely stresses that his brother kept America safe after thousands were killed on 9/11.

Trump's attack has also drawn back the curtain on the sweeping double standard conservatives use for holding Republican presidents accountable for terrorist attacks, and the much higher standard they use for holding President Obama and Hillary Clinton accountable for Benghazi.

In other words, O'Reilly and the right are total hypocrites. They say, if it happened under Bush it's not his fault and he kept us safe, but when it happens under Clinton and Obama, it is their fault and they did not keep those Americans safe. Which is a complete double standard and total hypocrisy.

CNN's Jake Tapper raised the issue of hypocrisy with Jeb Bush on Sunday's State of the Union, pressing the candidate to explain why if his brother wasn't responsible for the 3,000 American deaths on 9/11, somehow Obama and Clinton are to blame for the four U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

But the issue is larger than Benghazi vs. 9/11. It also extends back to President Ronald Reagan and the series of terror attacks in Beirut on American outposts that killed more 300 people over 18 months.

By raising questions about President Bush and 9/11, Trump has effectively demolished Fox News long-running Benghazi storyline.

Why? Because listening to Fox News for the last three years viewers have been led to believe the Benghazi tragedy stands as the biggest failure in American foreign policy and easily represents the darkest day in U.S. history, even though scores of attacks have claimed more Americans lives.

It's worse than Watergate, a bigger story than Hurricane Sandy. And most of all, Obama and Clinton must be held accountable for not doing more to combat Islamic terrorism in the region.

According to Republicans, Benghazi remains a burning issue because they claim there are unanswered questions about accountability, and Clinton sits at the center of those questions. Never mind that Clinton has already accepted responsibility for the attack and report after report has found no evidence of administration malpractice.

Conservatives insist there's more territory to mine because Democrats must be held accountable for the deaths of four Americans -- over and over again.

Obviously, many of the same, far-right forces chasing Clinton today were much less interested in holding Jeb Bush's brother accountable for the security failings of 9/11. (In fact, they tried to blame Bill Clinton.)

Following that historic attack, there weren't years worth of partisan blame games played like with Benghazi today. Instead, a single joint Congressional inquiry into the intelligence failures was formed.

In addition, a bipartisan 9/11 commission was created over the objections of the Bush White House. The commission was routinely stonewalled by the White House and denounced by conservative commentators who remained unfazed by unanswered questions.

In April 2004, Sean Hannity, who is obsessed with Benghazi, claimed the 9/11 commission had "been politicized." Days later he doubled down: "I don't have any faith in this commission. I think it's become politicized. I think it's a farce."

And then there was Reagan and Beirut. Here's how that American nightmare played out.

On April 18, 1983, Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. As PBS explains, "Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, including chief Middle East analyst Robert C. Ames and station chief Kenneth Haas."

Five months later local terrorists struck again. During a lengthy air assault from nearby artillerymen, two Marines stationed at the Beirut airport were killed.

Then on October 23, the Marines Beirut barracks cratered after a 5-ton truck driven by a suicide bomber and carrying the equivalent of 12,000 pounds of TNT exploded killing 241 Americans, marking the deadliest single attack on U.S. citizens overseas since the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.

One year later on September 20, 1984, came the bombing of a U.S. Embassy annex. Located in Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.

So, in less than 18 months under Reagan, several hundred Americans were killed by four separate terrorist attacks in and around Beirut targeting American outposts. And note that after the fourth attack, which killed two Americans, Reagan refused to curtail his re-election campaign for even one day, even though he enjoyed an insurmountable lead in the polls.

What was the Congressional response after the terror attack that killed 241 U.S. servicemen? With the House controlled by Democrats, did they demand years and years of redundant, finger-pointing investigations?

No.

Congress created a single fact-finding commission. Two months after the barracks attack, the commission finished its work and concluded there had been "serious command and intelligence failures and said that the mission was not prepared to deal with the terrorist threat at the time due to a lack of training, staff, organization, and support."

Recommendations were made and then implemented. "Rather than trying to blame the Reagan administration, the Democrats in both houses worked with their Republican colleagues to fix the problem," wrote Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

Yet today, Fox News and Republicans demand three years of endless investigations into the deaths of four Americans killed during in Libya, while Jeb insists his brother is blameless for 9/11.

Trevor Noah Slams Jeb Bush For Lying That His Brother Kept Us Safe
By: Steve - October 22, 2015 - 10:00am

In case you haven't heard, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush have been caught up in a fairly heated back and forth over remarks the GOP presidential frontrunner made concerning 9/11 and the role George W. Bush played as president. This all stems from when Jeb stated during the second GOP debate that his brother kept us safe.

This prompted Trump to send out a message on Twitter pointing out that his brother was president during the 9/11 attack -- a clear insinuation that we weren't exactly safe the entire time Jeb's brother was in office.

Noah took aim at the back and forth Tuesday night on The Daily Show. "I'm sorry to say this," Noah said, mockingly struggling to say Trump was right. "But strictly, within the factual confines of that sentence, Donald Trump is -- Donald Trump is ... he's not wrong."

And he's not. Because it is ridiculous for Jeb to claim his brother kept us safe after we experienced a horrific attack that killed nearly 3,000 people on his watch -- and keep in mind, his administration had intelligence about the attack beforehand which they failed to properly act on.

After playing a clip of Jeb Bush struggling to answer several questions from CNN's Jack Tapper concerning his hypocrisy, The Daily Show host took Jeb to task. "That doesn't really make sense, though," Noah said. We were attacked, and my brother kept us safe? Do you know how that sounds?

It's not really correct. It's like saying, 'I'm blackout drunk, and totally cool to drive.' It's one or the other. It can't be both. And that's really what has never made sense about this whole he kept us safe line Jeb has been using.

It's as if he just wants to pretend that his brother's presidency didn't start until the day after 9-11, instead of 9 months before it. I can guarantee you that had 9/11 happened nine months after President Obama took office, Republicans like Jeb would blame him and call for him to be impeached.

In fact, I have no doubt that they would put the blame completely on his shoulders. Just look how ridiculous they've acted over Benghazi. Could you imagine a 9/11-type attack during Obama's presidency? Republicans would lose their minds.

Noah ended the segment by delivering what might be his best ending monologue of his short career as host of The Daily Show. He mocked George W. Bush's eagerness to start the Iraq War while discussing Jeb's rush to defend his brother.

"What's happened here is very simple: Jeb's brother was attacked, and he responded quickly and decisively. But then he found that the situation was more complicated than expected, landing him in a quagmire of hard questions," Noah said.

"If he pulls out of the decision, he leaves his name vulnerable to more attacks. But if he stays the course, he winds up destabilizing the party's position on Iraq and Benghazi. Which is an unwinnable situation. So maybe he shouldn't have jumped in so quickly in the first place."

Former GOP Senator Slams Ted Cruz for Constantly Lying
By: Steve - October 22, 2015 - 9:00am

In my opinion Ted Cruz is everything that's wrong with the Republican party. He is, without a doubt, one of the most dishonest people in Washington. And almost everything he says has proven to be lies by non-partisan fact-checking websites.

And it's not just Democrats who hate him; many members of the Republican party can't stand him either. He will claim it's because he's an outsider pushing his party to listen to the American people, but the reality is he's a jackass who blatantly lies to the most ignorant among us hoping it helps him politically. While making it all about him and his political future, he does not care about the people or even his own party, he just wants to use his office to get famous and make more money.

Unfortunately, it has helped him. He's extremely popular with tea party conservatives (some of the most ignorant voters there are) and he's solidified himself as a top 5 Republican presidential candidate. So, former Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently blasted Cruz for hurting the Republican party by constantly lying to the American people about what can or cannot be done in Congress.

COBURN: "When you tell people you can accomplish something that you cant, for example, shutting down the government over the Affordable Care Act," Coburn said, "you create greater disappointment in the hinterlands, because you gave them a false hope, knowing that you couldn't accomplish it, but it was about yelling, and screaming, and waving the flag."

COBURN: "I came out of the Senate with one of the most conservative ratings ever in the history of the Senate. You know, it was like 98.8% in terms of conservative," he continued. "And yet, I compromised all the time to accomplish things that were good for the country."

And let me point out that Coburn is extremely conservative. He's someone who voted against Hurricane Sandy relief; tried to force offsets in spending following the Oklahoma City bombing; and once said that there's no such thing as the debt ceiling. So when he's saying Cruz is ridiculous, that's pretty bad.

It's not every day that someone who tried to use a domestic terrorist attack that killed 168 people to push for spending cuts calls someone else out for being too radically right-wing.

The bottom line is this, dishonest people like Ted Cruz are a huge problem for the Republican party. They are doing exactly what Coburn said; blatantly lying to their voters, claiming congressional Republicans can accomplish goals that aren't possible.

The real issue is many of these tea party conservatives are in states and districts where they stand practically no chance of ever being defeated in a re-election campaign as long as they keep pandering to the fringe. So, when it comes to their political rhetoric, they can essentially say whatever they want without ever being held accountable for any of it.

That's the exact situation Ted Cruz is in. If he runs for re-election in 2018 he's going to win in a landslide, so there's no reason why he shouldn't lie through his teeth as long as it's benefitting him politically. And there's almost nothing the GOP can do about it because he's vastly popular with a good chunk of those who support their party in a state where even the moderate Republicans here would never vote for a Democrat.

At the end of the day, this is the GOP's own fault. When they embraced the tea party, they sold their souls for the long-shot hope of defeating President Obama. The problem is, instead of taking down President Obama, it is destroying the Republican party.

O'Reilly Tells Bogus Benghazi Committee How To Attack Hillary
By: Steve - October 21, 2015 - 10:00am

Which is just more proof he is a partisan right-wing hack, instead of the Independent fair and balanced journalist he claims to be.

Bill O'Reilly Instructs The Benghazi Committee On How To Question Hillary Clinton

O'Reilly: "Look, I Know Most Of The Commmittee Members Are Watching Us Right Now. Write That Down."

And remember, this is the bogus committee that even Republicans have admitted is a sham.



O'REILLY: You see now, I -- do I have to get elected to Congress to ask these questions? Look, I know most of the committee members are watching us right now. Write that down. That's the crux of the matter, that's it, don't ask anything else.

O'REILLY: Give me that committee, I want it. Not that I have an ax to grind, I don't. I just want the truth.

It Is Time For Us To Demand The Republicans Be Investigated
By: Steve - October 20, 2015 - 10:00am

For years we have allowed Republicans to exploit the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi for political gains. The GOP has faked more outrage over this attack than they ever showed over the 4,000 Americans who were sent to die in Iraq based on lies and misleading intelligence presented by the Bush administration.

Some Republicans have even suggested that Hillary Clinton should be put in jail concerning that Benghazi attack, but those same individuals seem to have no problem with Bush admitting that his administration committed war crimes that occurred in a war where they knowingly misled Congress and the American people.

But what we've seen over the last few weeks are admissions by two Republicans and an ex-investigator who have admitted that these GOP-led hearings on Benghazi have been nothing more than a partisan attack on Clinton to hurt her chances of becoming president.

Think about this; many Republicans supported a federal investigation into Planned Parenthood over highly-edited videos from a radical anti-abortion group (videos that have been discredited), with some saying we should shutdown the government to block funding for the women's health organization.

Remember that this propaganda from the GOP is not based on videos from a non-partisan group investigating the ethics of Planned Parenthood, it's from a radical far-right pro-life organization that heavily edited the so-called evidence.

Now, could you imagine what O'Reilly and his Republican friends would be saying if Democrats were being accused of wasting three years and millions of taxpayer dollars on investigations meant to do nothing more than attack one of their presidential candidates?

They would lose their minds. And for the record, we have already had seven investigations into Benghazi (not including the current one) five that have been led by Republicans, which have all concluded that, while more could have probably been done to defend against or prevent an attack, there was some level of fault on all sides, including embassy officials.

The current House Select Committee on Benghazi is actually just a follow-up to the last Republican-led investigation that concluded around Thanksgiving last year which found no wrongdoing linked to Clinton. And as soon as that investigation was completed, John Boehner announced that another committee would be put together at the start of this year to do the same damn thing.

In other words, they just keep the committee going to hurt Hillary Clinton politically, and will most likely keep it going all the way to the election.

Which is totally ridiculous. Especially for O'Reilly, who admits the committee is attacking Hillary for political reasons, while claiming they should keep going. When it's a farse and a total waste of time and taxpayer money, and yet O'Reilly does not call for them to end the joke of a committee.

So my question is this, when do we start investigating the Republicans?

Don't the American people have the right to know whether or not millions of their tax dollars have been wasted on what was ultimately nothing more than a partisan attack exploiting the deaths of four Americans, just so Republicans could try to hurt Clinton's chances at becoming president?

I want to see a non-partisan group investigate whether or not Republicans have exploited this attack and if investigators corrupted the process for political gains. That way, when it was all said and done, no one could complain that any results from that non-partisan investigation were politically motivated.

But with Kevin McCarthy's comment, an ex-investigator accusing Republicans of unethical behavior and a New York member of the House of Representatives admitting the investigation was largely based around a political attack on Clinton, enough is enough.

It's time for the American people to demand that we investigate Republicans for misuse of the House of Representatives to further a political witch hunt while wasting time and our money in the process.

Jeb Bush's Massive Campaign Spending Is Not Helping Him
By: Steve - October 19, 2015 - 10:00am

Normally when you spend millions and millions of dollars on a political campaign you go up in the polls, unless you are Jeb Bush, you spend millions and gain nothing.

Jeb Bush has become just another guy in a crowded field of presidential aspirants.

The former Florida governor spent 86% of the money he collected over the past three months, burning through $11.5 million of the $13.4 million that he raised. "He should have raised at least $25 million," a major Republican fundraiser said.

Jeb's third quarter report, filed hours before Thursday night's deadline, showed Bush with less cash on hand than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson. The struggling campaign has slashed staff salaries and tried to cut costs in other ways, including requiring the use of cheaper hotels.

It's still a lot of money, but it is a staggeringly underwhelming figure for the son and brother of former presidents, both of whom hosted multiple events to shake the family network's money tree. "Some donors are really nervous," another top Bush fundraiser said.

Despite tons of pro-Bush ads airing in the early states, and Jeb's aggressive schedule, his numbers are lingering and languishing in the single digits.

The campaign chalks up its high burn rate to building an infrastructure that can win over the long haul, but insiders fear Jeb is overly dependent on his super PAC.

The big open question is whether establishment Republicans are nervous enough to start thinking about throwing their weight behind another candidate or whether they will stick with Jeb in the long-term out of loyalty to the Bush family.

Now take note of this, do you hear about any of this from Bill O'Reilly? Of course not, because he does not want you to know Bush is having trouble raising money and moving up in the polls. But if Hillary jaywalks O'Reilly reports on that, and slams her for it.

Trump Admits Campaign Spending Almost Noting Because Of The Media
By: Steve - October 19, 2015 - 9:00am

Trump: I've Spent Nothing On Ads Because Of Fox News And Other Networks Constant Coverage



NEIL CAVUTO (Fox News): All right now, you are a billionaire. You have a lot of money. You could self-fund, as you say. I'm curious on whether you can tell us how much you've spent on this campaign since the beginning. Since the beginning.

DONALD TRUMP: Honestly, very little. It's like a couple of million dollars or something. Because I haven't -- I had earmarked till this point in a budget about $20 million. I've spent zero on advertising because you and Fox and all of the others, I won't mention names, but every other network, I mean they cover me a lot, to put it mildly.

And in covering me, it's almost like if I put ads in on top of the program, it would be too much. It would be too much Trump. So we expected to be about $20 million at this point and I've spent so far nothing and, you know, which I think is a great tribute.

It's your show, and it's a business show predominantly, although you've become more and more political, I noticed over the years, in all fairness, Neil. But you know, it's sort of a great tribute to business, because I've spent the least money and I have the best poll numbers. And that's pretty good, I mean, I'm proud of that.

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

So basically, the media (especially Fox) is funding the Trump campaign by reporting on him so much. He just sits back and let's the media give him free advertising, while he spends almost nothing. Folks, this is not how the media in America is supposed to work, and it's more proof they are corporate owned stooges that do not care about the people, they just want ratings.

Five Things Republicans Do That Hurt America
By: Steve - October 18, 2015 - 10:00am

Republicans like to champion themselves as the party of super-patriots and America-loving constitutionalists fighting to preserve this country's greatness, but that's not really what they are. In fact, to listen to right-wing rhetoric, most of them can't stand the majority of Americans or many of the rights that have been protected by our Constitution.

In fact, I would say that Republicans are destroying the United States. Look at how much time we have wasted battling the GOP on issues that we all knew they were eventually going to lose. From same-sex marriage to the Affordable Care Act, millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent the last few years thanks to Republicans who seem to devote their entire careers to trying to hold this nation back.

Every time we want to push this country forward, we spend years (if not decades) battling conservatives who almost always seem to be living in a time period several decades (sometimes centuries) behind the rest of the world.

So I thought I would list five ways I think Republicans are destroying the United States.

1) They are ruining Christianity: The Christian faith, if practiced properly (and privately), can be a great thing. But Republicans have hijacked the faith and ruined it for millions of Americans. A common line I have heard from many former Christians is: I no longer consider myself a Christian because of the ignorance I've seen from the so-called Christian right.

Republicans like to claim President Obama is waging a war on Christianity, but they're the ones who are driving people away and corrupting the faith.

2) They are constantly attacking freedom: From attempting to tell women what they can do with their own bodies, to trying to force their religious views on others, modern-day Republicans really only like freedom when they are being allowed the freedom to control or restrict the rights of others.

3) They really want bad guys to have guns: Despite what Republicans claim, there are common sense ways to make background checks more thorough and policies we could implement that would not prevent a single law-abiding gun owner from owning almost any gun they want.

And while Republicans are the first ones to cite mental illness as the primary factor behind gun violence, the policies they support only make it easier for these bad guys who want to carry out these horrific crimes to get a gun. So I guess the real question Republicans need to answer is, why do they support making it easier for mentally unstable people and criminals to obtain guns?

4. They really don't like the Constitution and would drastically change it if they could: Let's be real, most Republicans want the United States to be a theocracy. The only thing preventing them from turning it into one is our First Amendment.

From abortion to gay marriage to the Affordable Care Act and even the right to vote -- the GOP constantly tries to do whatever it can to bypass, sidestep or infringe upon laws and rights that are supported by our Constitution. The truth is, based upon GOP rhetoric, they really just don't like our Constitution -- considering they're almost always on the wrong side of it.

5) They have created an entire culture of people who hate our government, even people who are getting government aid: It's nearly impossible to get anything done in government nowadays because the GOP has done a fantastic job at convincing tens of millions of people that government is the bad guy and the millionaires and billionaires corrupting that very same government are the good guys.

As a Republican, if you even dare to think about working with Democrats to get anything done, you're literally risking your political career. Not only that, but this anti-government rhetoric has grown into radical conspiracies like Jade Helm, prompting anti-government lunatics to shoot at American military personnel because they actually believed that a military exercise was a plot by the government to confiscate guns.

Even as it pertains to mass shootings, it's becoming more and more common for me to see right-wing conservative groups pushing the idea that these are all plots by the government to pass strict gun laws. We have honestly reached a point with this anti-government rhetoric where radical conspiracies are becoming commonly accepted beliefs among many members of the GOP.

What's ironic about what I just listed above is that the people I'm describing, conservative Republicans, are typically the first people to proclaim how they're proud patriots who love the country and our Constitution.

Give me a fricking break. The truth is, the GOP has become a party that doesn't like the majority of Americans; puts lives in danger by making it easier for criminals to get guns; has no respect for the freedom of religion we have in this country; rarely finds themselves on the right side of our Constitution; and seems to distrust and hate the American government about as much as your typical Islamic radical.

Just like conservatives have done with Christianity, they have created some warped form of patriotism that is not at all patriotic. And here is my answer to the problem, let's give the Republicans 25 states and let the Democrats have 25, then they can do whatever they want in their 25 states and we will see who has the most people in them, I would bet anything that 80% of the people would end up in the 25 Democratic states.

When Republicans Have Power They Screw Everything Up
By: Steve - October 17, 2015 - 10:00am

Right now the Republican party has absolutely no leadership and is essentially in shambles. Their House Speaker has resigned; his so-called replacement removed himself from consideration after realizing he would not have the 218 votes needed to win; it seems no one who can actually win wants the position; and their current presidential leader is the racist and crazy Donald Trump.

Now didn't the Republicans promise that once they got control of Congress, things were going to become more efficient because Democrats were the ones causing all of the problems?

When the exact opposite has happened; Congress has become even more inefficient. From a radical abortion bill that caused a mini revolt among female Republicans in Congress, to our Department of Homeland Security nearly going unfunded all the way to the Patriot Act being allowed to expire -- in 2015, Republicans have seemed determined to prove that they can make Congress even more inept than before.

In fact, the more power Republicans have in government, the more they screw things up. For the vast majority of George W. Bush's presidency, Republicans had full control of Congress. What did they manage to accomplish? The Iraq War, historic income inequality and economic policies that ultimately led to the worst crash since the Great Depression and a national debt that nearly doubled during his eight years.

Looking at Congress since 2010, when Republicans took back the House and seized more power in the Senate -- it's been an absolute embarrassment. From record low approval numbers, to our first government shutdown in nearly 20 years, Congress has been a pathetic sideshow. And things just keep getting worse.

It's pretty bad when John Boehner might not even be able to resign at the end of this month -- a move enthusiastically celebrated by tea party Republicans -- because Republicans can not seem to find any person who can get the 218 votes needed to replace the outgoing speaker who actually wants the job.

And why doesn't someone like Paul Ryan, the lone individual who most believe could get the votes needed to win, want the position? Because he does not want to have to deal with the insanity of his own party. Just think about that for a minute.

A man who has huge presidential aspirations does not want to become the most powerful member of his own party (a move that should be seen as a promotion) because he knows dealing with the ineptitude of Republicans would likely ruin his chances of ever becoming president.

Republicans seem annoyed that members of their own party are doing to them what they have been doing to Democrats (and this country) for years. The bottom line is this, reality shows us that the more power Republicans have in our government, the more they screw things up.

And if you can look at what they do and still vote for any Republican, you have something wrong with you. Democrats are not perfect, but they are much better for the country and the average American, then the corrupt and dishonest Republicans who only care about the wealthy and the corporations.

Republican Secretary Of State Has 65 Corruption Charges
By: Steve - October 17, 2015 - 9:00am

And as usual, Bill O'Reilly has ignored the story and not said a word about it. But if a Democrat even jaywalks he does multiple segments on it, with future follow-up segments.

Dianna Duran, New Mexico's Republican secretary of state, was charged with identity theft on Friday, after being charged with 64 crimes related to fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering, the LA Times reported.

Duran has been accused of using her campaign funds for personal expenses at casinos and jewelry stores. The latest criminal complaint from the New Mexico attorney general's office alleges that Duran forged the signature of a former state senator on her campaign finance reports.

She claimed that former New Mexico state Sen. Don Kidd (R) was her campaign's treasurer, but Kidd denies that he was part of her campaigns.

When asked by an investigator with the attorney general's office why she listed Kidd as her treasurer, she said, "Well, I have no idea. I just don't know, that's amazing."

Last month, Duran plead not guilty to the charges of fraud and embezzlement after she was accused of funneling campaign funds to her personal bank accounts.

New Poll Is Bad News For The Republican Party
By: Steve - October 16, 2015 - 10:00am

So while O'Reilly and the Republicans are using the Benghazi committee to smear Hillary Clinton, they are ignoring the fact that their own political games are lowering their approval numbers and raising their disapproval. Republican approval and disapproval ratings are at record lows, but of course O'Reilly never mentions that.

In 2010, voter apathy and conservative anger allowed Republicans to retake the House of Representatives. But in the 5 years since then, the GOP has shut down the government, launched one politically-motivated investigation after another, and has done everything except for actually govern. Which is bad news for the Republican party.

In fact, Congress has become so dysfunctional under Republican leadership that a small band of right-wing conservatives pushed House Speaker John Boehner to resign - and then promptly torpedoed his assumed successor, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

It looks like becoming the next Speaker of the House is a job that nobody in their right mind would want, potentially leaving the position open for a lunatic like Louie Gohmert or someone much worse. This is a Republican Congress that has become so extreme, former vice presidential candidate and Ayn Rand worshiper Paul Ryan is considered to be too liberal for the ideological purists who will try to dictate the choice for Speaker.

Not to mention Ryan wants nothing to do with the position; even if he could get the votes needed, he knows that it would be completely toxic to his future aspirations for higher office. It’s no wonder that a recent poll by Public Policy Polling found that the GOP has gone so far to the fringes, Mitch McConnell is now slightly more popular with Democrats than he is with his own Republican base.

The departing John Boehner has a 21/64 disapproval/approval rating and that actually makes him popular compared to Mitch McConnell who comes in at 14/64.

McConnell's become so toxic to the Republican base that he's actually a little bit more popular with Democrats (17/59) than he is among voters in his own party (14/67). One thing Congressional Republicans haven't helped themselves with recently is their war on Planned Parenthood.

By a 12 point margin, 49/37, voters say they have a higher opinion of Planned Parenthood than the Republicans in Congress. That includes a 45/35 edge with independents. Congress on the whole has its requisite atrocious approval rating at 11/82.

It's not just the war on Planned Parenthood that has hurt Republicans, the whole Benghazi witch hunt has backfired horribly on them as well. To moderates and independents, they've proven that they're incapable of governing, and to the Republican base – they've proven that they're incapable of delivering on promises.

Republicans in Congress have promised their far-right base that they would repeal and replace Obamacare. They've tried over 50 times to defund it, only to have their attempts fail every single time. They promised the rabid Hillary Clinton haters that they would get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, and all they've done is give her ammunition for her presidential campaign while finding themselves looking at a potential ethics investigation for all their time and trouble.

The GOP was absolutely giddy over the doctored Planned Parenthood videos and launched an investigation that they've been forced to admit found nothing. The only thing that resulted from the investigation is that Planned Parenthood will no longer accept reimbursement for costs on fetal tissue donations, along with presidential candidate Carly Fiorina revealing herself as a liar for claiming to have watched video footage that did not exist.

For all of their faults, Democrats have managed not to let the lunatic fringe of the party take over like Republicans have. Currently, a billionaire who believes vaccines cause autism and a former neurosurgeon who believes evolution is a lie and claims Jews could have prevented the Holocaust by owning guns are the leading presidential candidates in their primary polls.

There's no need to make up stories about the GOP or be needlessly hyperbolic here; this is exactly how far the Republican Party has divorced itself from reality while trying to stay politically viable in the United States. As I've said before, they have to choose between continuing to appease an angry and aging base, or trying to shift back to the center -- even if it costs them a few elections in the process.

Trump & Bush Complain That Sanders Did Not Slam Clinton Over Emails
By: Steve - October 16, 2015 - 9:00am

Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush are mad that Sen. Bernie Sanders refused to do their dirty work for them by attacking Hillary Clinton for her use of private email.

When asked about Sanders speaking out against the Republicans and media obsession with Clinton's emails, Trump said, "I think Bernie, actually, for the sake of a good soundbite, let her off the hook. You have an FBI investigation on the emails, and he just let her off. And I think that when you're losing -- because he is losing badly if you look nationally -- when you're losing that badly, you have to go a lot stronger."

Meanwhile, On Fox and Friends, Jeb Bush had his own complaints about Sanders not acting like a classless Republican.

Bush said, "I thought it was interesting that they didn't go after her, particularly on the email issue, because look, there's an FBI investigation, she hasn't been forthcoming. It's clear the Russians and Chinese were trying to hack into her server. Information crossing that server was of national security interest, for sure. I would have taken her to task for that, and if she wins the nomination and if I win the nomination, trust me, this is not going to end."

Bush and Trump are angry because they expected Sen. Sanders to do their dirty work for them.

Instead, Sanders delivered the highlight of the debate when he said this:
SANDERS: Let me say something that may not be great politics, but I think the Secretary is right, and that is the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails, and let me say something else about the media as well.

I go around the country and talk to a lot of people middle class in this country is collapsing, we have 27 million people living in poverty, we have trade policies that have cost us millions of decent jobs. The American people want to know if we are going to have a democracy or an oligarchy as a result of Citizens United.

Enough of the emails, let's talk about the real issues facing America.
The one lesson that Bush, Trump, and the other Republican presidential candidates learned last night is that the rest of the Democratic field is not going to give them ammo to use against Hillary Clinton. The comments from both Trump and Bush also suggest that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, Republicans are planning to run a dirt filled issueless smear campaign against her.

Republicans don't understand what Sanders did because they can't comprehend doing the right thing. The Republican candidates spend all of their time trying to tear each other down while the Democratic field is building a cohesive message for their nominee to take into the fall of 2016.

This difference between the two parties is why Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 presidential election popular votes while Republicans struggle to stop fighting with each other long enough to select a nominee.

Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly: Hungry Children Unfortunately Do Exist
By: Steve - October 15, 2015 - 11:00am

By Nikki Johnson-Huston, Esq.
Award-Winning Tax Attorney, Donafy App Co-Founder, Motivational Speaker and Advocate for the Poor

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I watched the segment that you had last week about hungry children in America with Kristin Powers. I know that there has been a huge backlash because of your comments and I have to say that unlike many on the internet I am not mad at you. Instead I am sad that someone who is so knowledgeable on so many topics, would be so uninformed about such an important issue.

I'd like to think this is an opportunity to have a larger conversation about hunger and poverty in America, especially as it relates to children. You asked Ms. Powers to produce one family who was going hungry. Contrary to your beliefs there isn't one family, but millions of families who deal with this issue. I know firsthand based on my own experiences and see it firsthand on a regular basis in the advocacy work I now do in my free time.

A large part of my childhood was spent battling hunger, food insecurity, poverty and sometimes homelessness. These experiences as a child profoundly impacted me and made me someone I would not have otherwise been as an adult.

I spent many days hungry, scared and not knowing where my next meal would come from or where I might be living on a particular day. When I was young I didn't understand what was happening to my family, but I knew that it wasn't how people were supposed to live. It felt like we were forgotten by the world. This feeling was only rarely interrupted when we would meet someone who treated us with respect. Like the workers at the rescue mission where we would get two meals a day when we were homeless, or the food pantry volunteers that would give us groceries when there were more days in the month than there was money in our pockets.

Hunger limits you in a way that is difficult to describe. You are constantly thinking about getting food, keeping food and not knowing when you are going to eat next. It's a vicious cycle. You want something better but you don't know how. Food and housing are so fundamental to the human condition that not having those things paralyzes you and keeps you living hour by hour instead of thinking about what you would like to accomplish in a day, week, month or year. Hunger, poverty and homelessness stole my childhood. It took away my innocence and my sense of security. And to think that I was one of the lucky ones.

I not only survived, but learned to thrive. I had many failures along the way but in the end found success with the help of many people who came into my life. I may have accomplished my childhood dream of being a lawyer and I now run my own firm, Law Office of Nikki Johnson-Huston LLC., but there are so many millions of people who continue to struggle like my family struggled. It's evident that we as a country aren't doing enough when influencers in the media are denying that these problems even exist.

There is a narrative out there that giving people access to the social safety net including food, housing and medical care takes away the incentive to work and to live a better life. I disagree. People want something better for themselves and their children but sometimes because of circumstances -- and yes, sometimes because of poor decisions -- they end up in a bad place and need help. There is no shame in asking for help and trying to better yourself.

I experienced poverty for my entire childhood and I can tell you I hated receiving food stamps and living in government housing. It made me feel ashamed and not good enough, but living on the streets for several months and eating at soup kitchens was worse. Not only was my stomach empty but so was my spirit. It was hard to believe that I could have a better life for myself when I didn't know where my next meal was going to come from.

After I was taken in by my disabled grandmother, she needed the social safety net to care for me. I remember I would hide my face in the grocery store when we would have to use food stamps because I was so embarrassed. My grandmother refused to let me hide because there was no shame in accepting help when we needed it, but she also told me to remember that feeling so that when I got to be an adult I could make better choices and not need food stamps. I have remembered that feeling many times as an adult and I have been fortunate enough to not need food stamps, welfare or Section 8 housing as an adult. At the same time I make no apologies for needing those things as a child and using them to make a better life for myself.

I know there is a very real concern about creating a permanent underclass of individuals who lack ambition and who will live off the government for their entire lives. There will always be a small minority of people who don't do the right thing, but the vast majority of people who get government assistance are hardworking people who have fallen on hard times and want to use the help to gain a path to self-sufficiency. The 2008 recession has shown us that even educated, middle-class professionals can lose their jobs and need help to care for their children.

My mother should have made better choices in her life, which I think she would freely admit, but we as Americans have stated that we will not allow children in the richest country in the world to go hungry. That sense of community makes me proud of this country and I will always be grateful for the role our nation at large played in my upbringing. We have to ask ourselves, would it have been better to punish my mother for her poor decisions by not providing aid to our family? Or was it better to make sure that I was fed, had a stable roof over my head and a chance at a better life?

I have worked hard and had the support of my wonderful grandmother but, without charity and the social safety net I would not have been able to achieve my dreams. I needed school lunches, welfare, health benefits, food stamps, Section 8 Housing, subsidized applications for college, financial aid and student loans. No one makes it alone; everyone has help in some way. The lucky among us have families who can provide for their needs, but for the less fortunate those things need to be provided by the social safety net and non-profits. The benefits that were given to me and my family were an investment by the taxpayers in my future and I believe that I was a good investment.

We have a choice to make as to who we want to be as individuals, political parties and a country. Are we going to continue a legacy of investing in our children in a way that allows them to live in dignity and have the opportunity to achieve their own dreams? Or should we revert to shaming and ignoring the least among us while making it harder for them to improve their station in life?

Mr. O'Reilly, by denying the problem you are denying the reality of millions of Americans and you show yourself as out of touch from your own viewing public. You can't solve a problem if you fail to acknowledge it even exists.

Nikki Johnson-Huston, Esq.
J.D./M.B.A./ Masters of Law in Taxation

O'Reilly Still Lying About Obama & The Democratic Economic Policy
By: Steve - October 15, 2015 - 10:00am

Tuesday night Bill O'Reilly once again showed that he is a dishonest right-wing hack, because during his biased and lie-filled TPM he said this while talking about Clinton and Sanders and the Democratic debate:
O'REILLY: There are plenty of differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Sanders is off-the-chart left and is running a one-trick pony campaign. The barnburner is telling folks our capitalistic system is rigged and the rich are taking advantage of everyone else.

That's what Bernie has, that's it. Hillary Clinton is a policy person. The problem is, the policies of the Democratic Party and President Obama are not working.
Now that statement is not only wrong, it's crazy talk. Because the policies of Obama and the Democratic party are working, and have been for 6 years, O'Reilly just will not admit it, because he is a biased right-wing stooge that does not want to admit Obama has been a good president, and that his policies have worked.

Just look at the facts, do not believe me, look at the facts:

-- When Obama took over for Bush the economy was in a depression, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, the housing market had crashed, the stock market had crashed, and was down to 8,000, the car market had crashed, the banks were going broke, unemployment was 10%, and the entire country was on the edge of a 2nd great depression.

-- Then Obama passed the stimulus bill, with the objection of O'Reilly and the Republicans, and put jobs bills into place. And after 4 years of the Obama economic policies the country is doing great. Unemployment is down to 5%, the stock market is at record highs, banks are good again, the car and housing markets were saved, he reduced our deficit, and we are adding 200,000 or more jobs every month.

-- On top of all that, the U.S. auto industry has created 500k new jobs in the last five years. More factories are opening their doors today than two decades ago. And we've doubled our production of clean energy since 2009.

-- Obama also passed a health care plan, and it is working. Every single economic measure has improved, except wage growth, which Obama has no control over. Wages have not gone up because the Republicans are blocking the Democrats and Obama from raising the minimum wage, and corporations are making record profits but will not give their workers a raise.

Not to mention, gas prices are near $2 a gallon, something O'Reilly and the right said would go to $5 a gallon under Obama. O'Reilly and the right also said Obamacare would be a job killer and lead to sky high health care costs, and they were wrong, the opposite has happened. Jobs are back and health care costs are under control.

Nothing O'Reilly says about Obama and the Democrats is true, that is why he does not go into details, he just says Obama and the Democratic party policies are not working, with no evidence to back it up. Mr. I have the facts has no facts, because the facts go against him and show he is lying.

Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest liar, and I challenge anyone to look up the facts I have reported here and tell me I am wrong. Every single measure of the economy shows good news, except wage growth, and that is a fact. Bill O'Reilly lies about it because he is a partisan stooge who wants you to think Obama and the Democrats are doing a bad job, for political reasons, because he wants you to vote for his Republican friends.

Bernanke Left The GOP Because They Are Crazy On Economic Policy
By: Steve - October 15, 2015 - 9:00am

Dear Bill O'Reilly, report this you biased hack. But of course you will not, because you support and promote the same crazy economic policies the nuts in the Republican party do.

The former Fed chair says he's no longer a Republican because the GOP has lost its economic policy mind.

It's the stupid economics. That's why he's no longer a Republican, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke tells us in his new book. Bernanke says he "lost patience with Republicans' susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right."

Here's part of his statement:
They saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories.

They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. They advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard.
Bernanke's right; these views aren't conservative -- they're crazy. Members espousing them may have made Bernanke's interactions with Congress uncomfortable, but they couldn't stop the Fed from using extraordinary monetary policy measures to try to pull the economy out of the Great Recession.

In Bernanke's harsh but accurate judgment, "fiscal policymakers, far from helping the economy, appeared to be actively working to hinder it." He's talking about Republican congressional efforts to use "must pass" legislation -- e.g., raising the legal limit on total federal debt or approving annual spending bills to fund the government -- as bargaining chips to achieve deep cuts in government spending, even when the economy is weak.

Like anyone who understands the issue, Bernanke notes that refusing to raise the debt limit isn't about controlling spending, it's about government not paying its bills: "It is like a family running up large credit card bills and then refusing to pay."

We can forgive the public for not understanding this, but not its elected representatives. To Bernanke, nothing justifies taking the economy hostage by refusing to raise the debt limit. And he's right; the best thing to do with the debt limit is scrap it so that government can pay its bills on time, unimpeded by political shenanigans.

President Obama and the Congress resolved the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis by enacting the Budget Control Act, which imposed tough spending limits and required further "sequestration" spending cuts when Congress couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan. Bernanke "was relieved to see a resolution of the crisis, but worried about whether the fragile economic recovery could withstand the austerity measures that Congress seemed intent on imposing."

In Bernanke's diagnosis, Republican fiscal policymakers put the recovery at risk when, after enacting Obama's stimulus package in early 2009, they shifted into austerity mode. At the same time, state-level balanced-budget requirements forced a sharp drop in public-sector employment. (Typically, government employment rises in a recovery.)

Tight fiscal policies, Bernanke wrote, "were arguably offsetting much of the effect of our monetary efforts" and making it difficult to achieve the Fed's full employment goal.

Republicans continued to advance discredited "expansionary austerity" arguments. Bernanke advanced the mainstream view: Congress needed to focus its deficit fighting on the long-term fiscal challenge; too much austerity too soon "would only slow the recovery without solving the longer-run problem."

Republican budget proposals reflected hard-right priorities that, if enacted, would have derailed the recovery. Obama's and the Senate Democrats' budget proposals, in contrast, never reflected far-left policy priorities.

Instead, they looked like centrist proposals that would emerge from good-faith bargaining between the two parties. They were more timid on both short-term stimulus and longer-term deficit reduction than what Bernanke and other mainstream analysts hoped to see, but at least they went in the right direction.

Notice that Bill O'Reilly never reports any of this, because he is part of the far-right who spin out lies about the economy and Republican policies.

Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Illegally Targeting Clinton
By: Steve - October 14, 2015 - 10:00am

So where is the great (so-called) journalist Bill O'Reilly on this story, nowhere to be found. He does not even report it, let alone have him on as a guest or call for the committee to be ended. Because O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack who wants them to keep going because it hurts Hillary Clinton.

Just imagine all the damage that has already been done because of this bogus committee, but O'Reilly does not care, he wants it to continue because he is a Republican who hates her.

A Republican, who formerly served as an investigator for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, confirmed that his GOP bosses are conducting an illegal investigation for partisan political purposes that is targeting Hillary Clinton.

A former investigator for the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi plans to file a complaint in federal court next month alleging that he was fired unlawfully in part because his superiors opposed his efforts to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic mission in the Libyan city rather than focus primarily on the role of the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Despite the change in focus, Major Podliska continued to work on his examination of the response in Washington to the attack, only to meet escalating resistance from his superiors, according to his complaint. In his view, they felt he was not focusing enough on Mrs. Clinton's alleged mistakes, a criticism he considered odd given that his findings were far from favorable to her.

What Major Podliska described is an illegal use of taxpayer funds to conduct a partisan political investigation into the likely 2016 Democratic nominee.

And btw folks, here is something O'Reilly and the right never mention, the resolution that authorized the Select Committee does not give Republicans the power to investigate Hillary Clinton's email server. The Select Committee is only authorized to examine, "internal and public executive branch communications about the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012."

Let me say that again, the Committee is not authorized to investigate Hillary Clinton or her use of a private email server. By redirecting the investigation to focus on Clinton, House Republicans are illegally misusing taxpayer funds for partisan political purposes.

But Bill O'Reilly and Fox News never tell you that.

The ranking member of the Select Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said in a statement, "These are extremely serious whistleblower charges by one of Chairman Gowdy's own handpicked investigators who reports that he was fired in part for not going along with the Republican leadership's plan to use the Select Committee to target Hillary Clinton, and they show (from the inside) that Kevin McCarthy's stark admission was true: Republicans have been abusing millions of taxpayer dollars for the illegitimate purpose of damaging Hillary Clinton's bid for president."

Benghazi Select Committee member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called for the committee to be shut down, "Even before Kevin McCarthy's comments laid bare the true intent of the committee, it's been clear that Secretary Clinton has been the true target of this investigation, and the Republican whistleblower who has come forward only provides further evidence of what has been long evident.

It's time to shut down the Benghazi Select Committee. Only by ending this expensive and politicized investigation can we begin to undo the damage already done through this unprecedented use of Congress’s power for nakedly political purposes."

It is time for an investigation into the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Even committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy's own former investigator is exposing the partisan intent of the investigation.

House Republicans have abused their power, and they must be held accountable for their corruption.

Meteorologist Destroys GOP Over Climate Change Denial
By: Steve - October 14, 2015 - 9:00am

I would bet that one day in the future we will look back at our history with amazement that tens of millions of people doubted overwhelmingly accepted science on climate change. All because a far-right political party, that's mostly backed by big oil somehow managed to convince them that most of the world's scientists are biased liberals who are lying about climate change.

It's totally absurd. I have said climate change denial is the same as the propaganda pushed by big tobacco decades ago. Back then big tobacco paid for biased scientific studies to be done to disprove the notion that smoking was hazardous to a person's health. Hell, there were even doctor recommended cigarettes, so they had doctors on the payroll too.

Nowadays if someone tried to claim smoking wasn't dangerous most people would look at that person like they were crazy. Except, not that long ago, there was actually a heated debate in this country over whether or not smoking was, in fact, dangerous. In my opinion, that's exactly the type of situation we're seeing today as it relates to climate change.

Between lobbyists and scientific studies (mostly paid for by oil companies) trying to discredit climate science, we're in the midst of reality battling possibly the most powerful industry on the planet -- big oil.

So, during an excellent interview with the Star Tribune, highly acclaimed meteorologist Paul Douglas destroyed Republican propaganda against climate change:
Q: When you first entered the world of meteorology, did you ever imagine the climate control catastrophe unfolding today?

A: No. I'm a bewildered spectator most days, just predicting the weather. But by the late 1990s, early 2000s, something had changed. Weather was always a symphony, beautiful and predictable to some degree, a natural ebb and flow. By the late 90s the weather was more like a second-grade orchestra, a very talent-free orchestra.

I just started connecting the dots, and that led me to climate change. I didn't wake up and have an epiphany. It had nothing to do with Al Gore. I was tracking Minnesota's increasingly bizarre weather when I said, "Something's up."

Q: Can you generally tell if a meteorologist is Republican or Democrat based on whether they believe humans have caused the warming of the planet?

A: I think there's definitely a correlation. Conservatives, because they fear that tackling climate change will automatically lead to bigger government, it's easier to push back and deny the science. Or be skeptical about the science.
He then talked about a book he's writing with a conservative minister in an effort to reach out to Republicans who continue to deny climate change.

Douglas specified that believing in and understanding climate change doesn't make you a liberal -- it just means you're literate:
We are writing a book geared to conservatives and evangelical Christians, helping them connect the dots and telling them why they should pay attention to, why they should not dismiss this.

As I tell people, acknowledging the science, the data, acknowledging that climate change is real doesn't make you liberal, it makes you literate.

It means you're scientifically literate. You respond to data and facts and not conspiracy theories and fairy tales. He heads up the Evangelical Environmental Network.

They do a lot of lobbying. They helped to get the whole mercury rollover, cleaning power plants. His thrust is that it’s affecting kids’ health today. The poorest are first to [suffer the impact]. The 1 percent can move. This really is the global civil rights movement of the 21st century.
I think it's important to point out that Douglas is not just some random weatherman who stood in front of a green screen, spouting off whatever computers told him to say. He's a respected climate scientist who has dedicated decades of his life to understanding weather and climate, and has been a pioneer in developing new technology to assist others as well.

But just imagine how much better off this country would be if conservatives did respond to data and facts instead of conspiracy theories and fairy tales.

I think that sums up the main problem with the Republican party. Far too many of them believe in insane partisan conspiracy theories pushed by people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, as opposed to proven scientific data supported by scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and many others.

O'Reilly Ignores Another Benghazi Committee Story
By: Steve - October 13, 2015 - 11:00am

New York Times Confirms Whistleblower Account: The Committee Fox News Built Swapped Benghazi For Clinton

NYT: "The Committee Put Aside All Of Its Proposed Public Hearings Focused On The Attack And Never Followed Up On Most Of Its Announced [Defense And Intelligence] Witness Interviews"

O'Reilly ignores all this stuff, while still claiming the committee is valid, when we all know it is a fraud and it was used by Republicans to smear Hillary Clinton, instead of getting to the truth about why Benghazi happened.

Here is the new story O'Reilly ignored, while complaining Bill Clinton took his comments about the committee out of context.

In the wake of allegations that the House Select Committee On Benghazi illegally retaliated against a whistleblower who protested the committee's abandonment of its original mission to turn an investigation of the circumstances around the 2012 Benghazi attacks into a partisan focus on Hillary Clinton's personal email account, a new report from The New York Times has confirmed his account.

The New York Times reported on October 10 that Bradley Podliska, a former investigator for the Republicans on the Benghazi committee who was allegedly fired unlawfully, accused the committee of focusing "primarily on the role of the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton" instead of conducting a comprehensive investigation into the September 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.

The committee, which was pushed for and promoted extensively by Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, was recently revealed by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to be a part of a political strategy to harm Clinton.

The new whistleblower allegations and subsequent Times report further support McCarthy's admission. According to the Times, the extent of the committee's "shift" in focus has been dramatic as "the committee has conducted only one of a dozen interviews that Mr. Gowdy said in February he had planned to hold with prominent intelligence, Defense Department and White House officials, and it has held none of the nine public hearings -- with titles such as 'Why Were We in Libya?' -- that internal documents show have been proposed."

From the October 11 report:

When the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks on American government outposts in Benghazi, Libya, was created, Democrats immediately criticized it as a partisan effort to damage the political fortunes of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But Representative Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican and former federal prosecutor who is the committee's chairman, told Fox News at the time: "I have no friends to reward and no foes to punish. We're going to go wherever the facts take us."

Now, 17 months later -- longer than the Watergate investigation lasted -- interviews with current and former committee staff members as well as internal committee documents reviewed by The New York Times show the extent to which the focus of the committee's work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

A committee with a stated initial goal of learning more about how four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed in Libya has created a political whirlwind in Washington, affecting not only Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, but now also the race for House speaker. Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to testify in front of the committee on Oct. 22.

The committee has conducted only one of a dozen interviews that Mr. Gowdy said in February he planned to hold with prominent intelligence, Defense Department and White House officials, and it has held none of the nine public hearings -- with titles such as "Why Were We in Libya?" -- that internal documents show have been proposed.

At the same time, the committee has added at least 18 current and former State Department officials to its roster of witnesses, including three speechwriters and an information technology specialist who maintained Mrs. Clinton's private email server.

Crazy Jindal Blames Oregon Shooting On Abortion Movies & Absent Dads
By: Steve - October 13, 2015 - 10:00am

Funny, he seems to have left out one little thing, the guns the shooter had.

Bobby Jindal is mad about the Oregon shooting, and has taken to the internet to vent.

On Tuesday, the Republican presidential candidate published a strongly-worded blog post on his campaign website blaming the tragedy on the cultural decay of American society: Things like abortion, video games, movies, music, nontraditional family structures, and absent fathers.

"Our families are a complete mess, and we have raised tens of millions of young boys who will never become real men because they have no values whatsoever, they have no truth in their lives, and they have no regard for common decency," Jindal wrote, before lamenting what he called a "deep and serious cultural decay."

Jindal also explicitly rejected calls for gun control in the wake of this latest massacre, which saw nine people shot and killed by a young man named Chris Harper-Mercer. Instead, Jindal blamed the shooter's father Ian Mercer, who railed against weak gun laws in the United States after finding out that his son had killed so many people.

"If Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns, this wouldn't have happened," Mercer said.

And he is exactly right, if we had real gun laws that blocked mentally ill people from getting guns he would not have had all those guns. And of course he could have maybe got a gun illegally somewhere, but maybe not as many, and maybe not any if he did not have the money to buy them.

Mercer reportedly did not have a close relationship with his son, telling reporters that he had divorced from the shooter's mother years ago and lived with her and his stepdaughter. In his blog post, Jindal said this was the reason Harper-Mercer committed the crime -- not because of his access to guns.

"He's a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He's the problem here," Jindal wrote.

Mercer reportedly had no idea that his son had an interest in guns before the shooting, which Jindal said was indicative of his parenting.

"Why didn't he know? Because he failed to raise his son," Jindal wrote. "He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology."

So let me get this straight, the mentally ill shooter who pulled the trigger is not to blame, the divorced father who was not even living with him and his mother is? That is just right-wing insanity.

There's been no indication that Harper-Mercer had any specific gripe with his father. His neighbor had told authorities that he had been dealing with some mental issues -- specifically, Asperger's syndrome. His mother, Laurel Harper, told the New York Times that she also suffered from the syndrome. She also said she shared Harper-Mercer's love for guns, and kept many in their shared home.

So the mother had the guns in the house he lived in, where the Father did not live, but somehow in Jindals warped mind the Father is to blame but the Mother is not? Wow!

So far, Harper-Mercer's motivations have been speculative, ranging from religious to romantic. Authorities have not yet officially determined a motivation for the shooting.

It is unsurprising, however, that Jindal would avoid placing blame on access to guns. The Louisiana governor has supported a variety of pro-gun laws in his state, which in 2013 had the highest gun-related homicide rate of any state in the country, according to federal data.

Lindsey Graham Now Demands Hurricane Money For South Carolina
By: Steve - October 13, 2015 - 9:00am

In the midst of severe flooding, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has become a big Government convert, who now believes in federal aid for natural disaster victims.

At least if those victims are his constituents, Graham has had an epiphany in favor of federal aid. The South Carolina Senator infamously voted against disaster aid when the Northeastern United States was battered by super storm Sandy in 2013, but now the South Carolina Senator is singing a different tune.

In defending his new found love for federal aid, Senator Graham told CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
Let's just get through this thing, and whatever it costs, it costs.
When pressed about his opposition to the 51 billion dollar relief package for Sandy victims in 2013, Graham lapsed into a convenient case of amnesia, arguing:
I'm all for helping the people in New Jersey. I don't really remember me voting that way...Anyway, I don't really recall that, but I'd be glad to look and tell you why I did vote no, if I did.
What a massive hypocrite and liar, of course he knows how he voted and what a fool he now looks like.

Graham was one of 36 Republican Senators to vote against the super storm Sandy relief measure on January 28, 2013.

He can look it up himself on the Senate roll call from that day.

While Senator Graham is right to demand relief aid for his flood-ravaged constituents in South Carolina he was wrong to oppose the same type of relief for fellow Americans who suffered from flooding outside the boundaries of his state in 2013.

Graham's self serving position on disaster relief underscores much of what is deficient in conservative ideology. Conservatives, like Graham only recognize a national problem if it affects them personally. If another part of the country is ravaged by a storm, he lacks empathy and says "sorry, you're on your own."

However, when the flooding is in his own backyard, he is the first to scream and holler for help, because the problem is too big to be handled locally.

Maybe this will be a learning experience for the Senator, and he will start to acknowledge that federal disaster aid has a role in helping flood victims everywhere. Then again, maybe the next time another part of the country is under water, he will go back to doing what Republican Senators do best.

He will deny funding, because his own house is high and dry, and for a conservative Senator, apparently that is all that matters.

CAIR Representative Calls Out Bill O'Reilly For Stereotypes & Factual Errors
By: Steve - October 12, 2015 - 10:00am

Not only did O'Reilly admit to errors, he also admitted he edits segments on the show, when in the past he has said many, many, times that nothing is ever edited. So not only did he have factual errors, he is a liar, because he clearly edits segment after segment.

O'Reilly Admits To Factual Errors In Watters World Segment On Dearborn, MI: "That's My Fault As An Editor" And "It Won't Happen Again"



BILL O'REILLY: So what's the beef, Mr. Walid?

DAWUD WALID: Well the show that you had Bill, just really shows old, tired, and really bigoted frameworks about the community here in Michigan and Dearborn in particular. And there were a number of factual errors that were in the story. For instance, the mentioning that the police chief was a Muslim when in fact Chief Ron Haddad is a Lebanese Christian.

O'REILLY: But that was corrected though. I corrected that fairly quickly.

WALID: OK, but then also [there] was misinformation put out saying that there was a Muslim woman who was killed simply for having condoms. That never happened. There was no honor killing or anyone getting stoned to death in Dearborn. It hasn't happened. And there are no honor killings taking place.

O'REILLY: OK, and I think those are legitimate points that should have been clarified by Watters and weren't. So I will cede that those things should have had clarification there. Was a condom killing in Germany. And Watters didn't say that. That was said by some guy who didn't know what he was talking about. However, have you ever seen Watters' World before?

WALID: I've only seen it about one or two times.

O'REILLY: All right. How would you describe it?

WALID: Oh, well how I'd describe it is it goes into particular communities and in some ways it makes fun of people or communities. But also, it reinforces or plays into stereotypes that people have about certain communities.

O'REILLY: However, your points about honor killings and stonings and things like that, that's my fault as an editor. I probably... probably, I should have said you know what, if we can't back this up -- and believe me, I'm glad you contacted us because it won't happen again. That if there's any kind of accusation of violence or something like that, we'll check it out.

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

Haha, if you believe it will never happen again, I have some land to sell you, O'Reilly is a biased right-wing snake oil salesman, and it will happen again for sure. Hell he can not even tell the truth about editing, he said there was no editing, ever, then he admits to edits, and admits he still got it wrong, so nothing he does can be trusted.

Ben Carson Does Not Even Understand How The Debt Ceiling Works
By: Steve - October 12, 2015 - 9:00am

So if he does not even understand how the debt ceiling works, how can he possibly be qualified to be the President, answer? He is not.

Of all the political debates over the last few years, nothing is more ridiculous than the controversy over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. I have seen plenty of stupid back and forth discussions with Republicans, but the debt ceiling easily ranks at the top of my list as one of the subjects where many conservatives proved what sheep they are to whatever Bill O'Reilly and the right-wing media tells them to believe.

For those of you who might not know, the debt ceiling is not at all complicated. What it boils down to is basically just a procedural move that allows the government to pay its bills. It's not a budget, it's not about new spending nor is it "giving the president a blank check" to do whatever he wants with taxpayer money.

It is literally just a vote that allows the government to pay the money it's already agreed to pay. To put it in real word terms, say you have a $100 credit card bill due at the end of the month but you need approval from your wife to pay it. You're not asking to charge more on the credit card, you're simply asking permission to pay the bill on the debt you've already charged and agreed to pay.

If your wife says no, then you default on the payment and it hurts your credit score which impacts your future borrowing power. If your wife says yes, you make your $100 payment and honor your credit commitment. That's what the debt ceiling is. It is in no way about new spending.

Despite the simplicity of it all, it seems Ben Carson has absolutely no idea what it is. During a recent interview with Kai Ryssdal, Carson was asked whether or not he supported raising the debt ceiling, only to ramble on and on about new spending and the budget -- neither of which have anything to do with the debt ceiling.

Even when Ryssdal tried to tell him that he was talking about a completely different subject, it didn't stop Carson from continuing to prove that he has absolutely no idea what the debt ceiling is:
Ryssdal: All right, so let's talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, "We're gonna run out of money, we're gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November." Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Ryssdal: To be clear, it's increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You'd let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, "Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we're not raising any spending limits, period."

Ryssdal: I'm gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that's already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

Carson: What I'm saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You're always gonna ask the same question every year. And we're just gonna keep going down that pathway. That's one of the things I think that the people are tired of.
Now I've seen Republicans play stupid about the debt ceiling when they clearly knew that they were lying about what raising it means, but that's not what Carson was doing. He legitimately had no idea what the hell he was talking about. His answers literally made no sense at all as it relates to the debt ceiling, which only enforces my belief that Carson is very unqualified to be the president.

And let me remind everyone that this is the guy who is basing his tax policy on biblical teachings. While Ben Carson might know medicine, it's pretty clear that he doesn't know much about anything else.

Bill O'Reilly Finally Admits Benghazi Committee Is Political
By: Steve - October 11, 2015 - 10:00am

But then he ruins it and defends the Committee anyway, which he would never do if the Democrats were doing it to a Republican running for President.



BILL O'REILLY: If you don't think the Benghazi thing is political, of course it's political. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't know what exactly happened, and why the secretary of state was ignorant about the security problems in Benghazi, Libya. But if you think those guys, those Republicans on that panel don't want to bring down Hillary Clinton, you're six years old. Because they do.

So it is political. But it is also incumbent upon the most transparent human being that's ever lived, according to herself, Hillary Clinton. And you know I think Claude Rains in The Invisible Man is offended by that, all right? It is incumbent upon her to explain a lot of things that she hasn't explained. So I don't mind that it's political. I just want to get to the bottom of it.

And here is the bottom of it: Hillary Clinton will not be President of the United States if the FBI comes back and says she broke the law. And they may well. So that's it. It's the FBI, it's not the House Committee on Benghazi. Whatever they say isn't going to matter to Hillary Clinton. The FBI will matter, and we should have that I would say in three or four months.

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

Remember this folks, they have spent years trying to get Hillary, they have lied and ignored other people who could have come before them, so they wasted taxpayer money and they got nothing on her. They have used and abused their power and taxpayer money, for nothing. O'Reilly even says we should know what exactly happened, even though we do, it has been investigated to death, and we know what happened.

O'Reilly and the right still refuse to drop the smear job, because they want to hurt her politically. And if a Democratic committee were doing the same thing to a Republican, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for them to be impeached.

Instead he admits they are being political, then defends the political smear job and the waste of taxpayer money, when he should be calling for them to disband the committee and pay the taxpayers back.

Alabama Proves Voter ID Laws Were Passed To Disenfranchise Minority Voters
By: Steve - October 11, 2015 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly never reported a word about this, because he denies the Voter ID laws Disenfranchise Minority Voters, even though actual voter fraud almost never happens, so they passed laws for a problem we do not have. And some Republicans have even admitted the voter ID laws were passed to block some minorities from voting, who mostly vote Democrat.

All these voter ID laws that have been passed across the country by Republican-controlled state legislatures are an absolute joke. What they amount to is a poll tax. They are just another way for Republicans to rig elections by disenfranchising voters who typically don't vote for Republicans.

I'll explain how this con goes. Republicans can not target specific demographics with an outright ban on voting, but what they can do is make the requirements to vote more difficult. Say, for instance, the need for a valid ID. Now, the ID itself isn't the problem; it's the access and costs associated with obtaining that ID.

Despite what O'Reilly and his Republican friends claim, this isn't always easy for a lot of Americans -- especially those living in poverty. Because, in many states you can't obtain an ID without paying some sort of fee. Whether it's the actual fee for the ID itself, or the fee required to obtain a birth certificate, some sort of monetary exchange is required at some point in order to obtain the proper identification to legally be allowed to vote.

While some states have created specific IDs just for voting, most Americans seem unaware of their existence. Not only that, but any form of ID requirement makes it nearly impossible for people to register to vote at the last minute due to the time required to actually receive the ID.

But even if you get beyond the fees associated with the ID, perhaps the most underhanded way Republicans are trying to rig elections is by making it much more difficult for specific voters (most notably minorities) to get to a DMV office and obtain the proper identification needed in order to vote.

My prediction is coming true in Alabama where the state recently announced the closure of 31 DMV offices -- including all of the offices in counties where African-Americans make up 75 percent or more of the population. Now, could this all be a giant coincidence?

Not hardly, but I'm sure that’s what O'Reilly and the Alabama Republicans will claim. But when you're a state like Alabama with a very checkered history relating to racism, it definitely looks suspicious that just a few years after passing strict voter ID laws (which studies have proven target minority voters), you're about to close every DMV office in counties that have an African-American population over 75 percent.

Especially when people have been saying for years that this is exactly what Republicans were planning to do with these voter ID laws: Require an ID to vote -- then make it more difficult to obtain an ID. I also think it's important to reiterate that voter fraud is not even remotely an issue in this country.

There have only been a handful of credible cases over the last 10 years out of literally hundreds of millions of votes that were cast during that time. Then again, as any rational person can tell, voter ID laws have nothing to do with addressing the non-existent problem of voter fraud and everything to do with Republicans trying to prevent people who often don't vote for them from being able to vote at all.

Some Moms Respond To Bill O'Reilly's Latest Poor-Shaming Tirade
By: Steve - October 10, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly Claimed Childhood Hunger Was "A Total Lie" And Attacked "Derelict" Parents For Living In Poverty.

On the October 6 edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that childhood hunger in the United States is "a total lie" and blamed purportedly "derelict" parents for allowing their families to live in poverty, which he implied was a form of child abuse.

When guest Kirsten Powers pushed back on O'Reilly's poor-shaming narrative, he challenged her to "produce one" example of a poor family struggling with hunger in the United States today, shouting "you can't."

On October 8, TalkPoverty.org interviewed four mothers whose life stories fly in the face of O'Reilly's denial.

As Bill O'Reilly apparently does not know a single family straining to make ends meet, we did his homework for him and asked four mothers who have experienced hunger to tell us what they think about his comments:

1) Bill O'Reilly said show me hunger and I say, "Here I am." My children have lived through a lot of adverse situations; we have been homeless and have relied on shelters. Without food stamps, my children would starve. When is it okay for children to starve in this country? When is it okay to actively ignore starving children in your country? -- Asia Thompson, Pennsylvania

2) He hasn't experienced poverty but Bill O'Reilly should know that poverty can happen to anyone. When my twin sons were 9 months old, my husband lost his job and we had to go on WIC to feed our children. This program provided support and the food was one less thing we had to worry about. And as a Head Start teacher, I see firsthand how kids can't focus in school because they're so hungry. - Mary Janet Bryant, Kentucky

3) I used all of these programs for my children, and I am a success story like thousands of other parents. My oldest daughter is in her fourth year of college studying stem cell biology on her way to a PhD. I beg to differ with Bill O'Reilly's opinion, as he doesn't have firsthand experience with hunger and poverty. - Vivian Thorpe, California

4) I think it's easy to miss the signs of child poverty and hunger in our society because people often look better than they feel. I was less hungry as a kid because my family benefited from WIC, SNAP, and school lunch. I also graduated from high school, college, and graduate school.

I have worked hard for 25 years in the TV business and I am the social safety net for my family now. To my way of thinking, Bill O'Reilly is seeing the emperor in a fine new suit of gold-threaded clothes but that emperor is naked. - Sherry Brennan, California

Now of course O'Reilly could find people like this and put them on his show, but he will never do that, because he is a lying right-wing jackass that does not want his viewers to know the truth. Instead he lies that no children are ever hungry, when is just ridiculous and proves that he is a dishonest far-right idiot.

Trump Slams Far-Right Glenn Beck & Erick Erickson On Twitter
By: Steve - October 10, 2015 - 9:00am

Donald Trump picked his new media target on Thursday -- "wacky nut job" Glenn Beck.

And btw folks, Glenn Beck is a good friend of Bill O'Reilly who is a regular guest on the Factor, who also did a big summer tour of the country with O'Reilly at speaking events, just as O'Reilly does now with the insane Dennis Miller.

Beck must have said something to set off the Donald because the GOP frontrunner really let him have it on Twitter.

TRUMP: "Wacky @glennbeck who always seems to be crying (worse than Boehner) speaks badly of me only because I refuse to do his show--a real nut job!"

He followed up with a tweet warning of the big trouble Beck represents: "I hear @glennbeck is in big trouble. Unlike me, his viewers & ratings are way down & he has become irrelevant--glad I didn't do his show."

But one crazy conservative media figure wasn't enough for Trump. Moments later, he celebrated Erick Erickson's departure from the right-wing blog Red State.

"Wow, great news! I hear @EWErickson of Red State was fired like a dog. If you read his tweets, you'll understand why. Just doesn't have IT!"

And this is the same right-wing idiot CNN has on their payroll as a political analyst, which is a joke, and one of the reasons I stopped watching CNN.

Bill O'Reilly: Read This Then Report It You Fraud
By: Steve - October 9, 2015 - 11:00am

GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty

Jason Chaffetz says he's found no evidence of wrongdoing by the family planning provider.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that the GOP's investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds hasn't turned up anything.

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.

Chaffetz, a candidate for House speaker, grilled Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a five-hour hearing last week. He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit. (Nonprofits put their revenues back into their programs.)

But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.

His concession will be music to Democrats ears, who have long accused Republicans of trying to sink Planned Parenthood because they oppose abortion. The women's health care provider gets about $500 million a year in federal funds, but federal law prohibits any of it from being used for abortions.

Instead, the money is used to subsidize a range of health care services for low-income women, including birth control, cancer screenings and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.

O'Reilly and the Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on Planned Parenthood after anti-abortion activists released heavily edited undercover videos a few months ago that purported to show the family planning provider selling fetal tissue after abortions. Multiple state investigations and a federal investigation have so far been unable to find any facts to support that claim.

Planned Parenthood, which legally accepts money to cover the costs of transporting donated fetal tissue to medical researchers, has slammed the videos as "deceptively edited" and denies any wrongdoing.

Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.

"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the Republicans found they did nothing wrong, so report it or your journalistic credibility is down to zero.

More Proof The Republican Benghazi Hearings Were About Slamming Hillary
By: Steve - October 9, 2015 - 10:00am



It's Official: Jeb Bush Is A Moron & As Dumb As His Brother
By: Steve - October 9, 2015 - 9:00am

Most people would agree that the country probably could not survive another Bush in the White House. While George H.W. Bush wasn't all that terrible, his two sons (Jeb and George) are absolute morons. Putting aside the disaster that was the George W. Bush presidency, even from an image standpoint he made Americans look like bumbling idiots. This is a man who could not even speak a sentence, and made up words.

Now we have Jeb Bush running for president, a man that was once called the smarter Bush. While over time, I think it's become clear that even the so-called smarter Bush is not very smart. Take for instance his ridiculous comment regarding the tragic school shooting in Oregon at the hands of known psychopath who had easy access to guns, thanks in large part to the NRA and the Republican party making sure guns are easier to get than a driver's license.

Jeb said this: "I had this challenge as governor. Look stuff happens, there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do."

Yeah, stuff happens, are you kidding me. Tell that to the parents of the victims face to face without getting punched in the nose, I dare you. Jeb Bush is an idiot. And his statement is actually much worse than what most of the media is focusing on.

Jeb Bush just told us that we should not do anything to address horrific acts of violence because, well, you can't prevent them all -- so why even try.

Which is the very same thing Bill O'Reilly said btw, making him as dumb as Jeb Bush.

This is also a similar attitude Marco Rubio had during the second GOP presidential debate when he discussed climate change. During that debate Rubio insisted that, since the United States can't reverse climate change on its on, then we shouldn't even bother trying to do anything.

While the subjects about which both men were talking are clearly different, the idiocy displayed by both is basically identical. As Donald Trump would say -- they're losers. Why try if you won't always succeed. But what Bush's comments really reflect is how devoid of reality many Republicans are when it comes to gun violence in this country.

Sure, if mass shootings in the United States were a once every 2-3 years event, he might have a point -- but they're not. Not only that, school shootings are becoming more common. To say nothing about the insane amount of gun violence that plagues this country every single day.

Now I support the right to have a gun 100%, and I think people should be allowed to have guns, I would also never support a gun ban. But you have to do more to stop the crazy from getting guns, the Republicans and the NRA want everyone to have a gun, which is insane.

Republicans often say guns aren't the problem, it's mental illness. The reality is, it's both. As much as Republicans love to downplay guns, while mostly focusing on the mental health aspect that pushes someone to commit a mass shooting, they're not doing a damn thing to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to purchase a gun.

What's the go-to spin for the far-right gun fanatics? If there were more guns, this would not have happened. Yet, no matter how many guns saturate this country, we continue to lead the modern world in gun violence.

Jeb Bush and all of these gun nuts should answer these two questions:

How many guns do we need in this country before we eliminate gun violence? How many mass shootings need to happen, and how frequently, before Republicans will finally admit that we need to do something about them? Judging by history, I'm sure the answers they would give would not make any sense.

BREAKING: Kevin McCarthy Abruptly Withdraws From House Speaker Race
By: Steve - October 8, 2015 - 11:00am

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the person who the vast majority of people assumed was going to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House, has abruptly withdrawn his name from consideration just hours after assuring people he was confident of victory as he headed into the GOP conference concerning the speakership.

Where this leaves the GOP is anyone's guess, but the general consensus is that they're in shambles. It's entirely possible a different establishment candidate announces their intention to seek the position, but the vote has been postponed until further notice. What seems to have happened is McCarthy lacked the 218 votes needed to win, so instead of suffering that embarrassment he decided to remove himself from contention.

So, who could get those votes? Well, rumors have it Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the only person most within the party believe currently has enough support to get to the magic 218 number. There's one big problem with that, however; Rep. Ryan wants nothing to do with being Speaker of the House. As someone who clearly has his sights set on the White House in the future, he's well aware that being House Speaker in a ridiculously unpopular Congress probably wouldn't be good for that goal.

In fact, Ryan just issued another statement reiterating that he will not be a candidate for House Speaker. Unless something drastic changes or he gets convinced otherwise, I don't believe he would change his mind on that. What this all boils down to is that the Republican party is being held hostage by the so-called freedom caucus.

It's a small group of about 40 far-right House members who are the folks who've supported such issues like shutting down the government over the Affordable Care Act and Planned Parenthood. They're also the same people who continue to believe raising the debt ceiling is about new spending when it's just a procedural movement that allows the government to pay out money it's already agreed to spend.

In other words, this so-called freedom caucus is comprised of the members of our government who have absolutely no idea how our government works. So, now what? Well, either Republicans find a consensus candidate who can get the 218 votes needed to win or the House is left in turmoil considering these far-right radical candidates for speaker don't have the votes needed to win.

This is really bad for the Republican party, and as close to an internal civil war as we've ever seen. They're now literally having to scramble to try to find anyone who they think can get the 218 votes needed to win. Basically what this freedom caucus has done to the GOP is what they want to do to the entire country -- tear it apart.

And the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They sold their souls to the devil known as the tea party hoping it would help them defeat President Obama. But it turns out, the tea party didn't take down Obama -- instead it is destroying the Republican party.

O'Reilly Calls Child Hunger a Myth: Goes On Crazy Rant Against The Poor
By: Steve - October 8, 2015 - 10:00am

Unless you've lived in poverty, you really have no idea what it's like. To live a life where you're literally one bad thing happening (job loss, illness) away from potentially being homeless is a terrifying way in which to live. Something O'Reilly has never done, because he always had money and was never poor. The way I always describe it is sort of like walking on a tightrope, where even the slightest misstep could lead to being homeless and having thoughts of suicide.

I never told anyone this before, but after my Father passed away a few years ago I was almost homeless and broke, and I had thoughts of suicide. I was lucky to have just enough money to pay the bills, so I made it through the rough time. Now I struggle to pay the bills every month, and it is stressful beyond belief. I get food stamps but it is only $189.00 a month, and I run out of them every month.

I would ask O'Reilly to see if he can live on $6.00 a day for food. I would bet the farm he could not, and would never even try.

Just imagine a situation where you have $200 to your name and you owe $150 to the electric company, $50 to the water company and you still haven't bought any food for your children to eat, and by the way, both the water and electricity are about to be shutoff.

So you beg at least one company to give you another week so that you can actually buy food. Then imagine living a life where that seems to be an everyday occurrence. The toll the anxiety and stress has on a person is unreal.

So, when idiots like Bill O'Reilly have the gall to go on some unhinged rant against the poor, actually calling child hunger a myth, I take exception to that level of stupidity and ignorance.

O'Reilly said this: "If you look at the studies of poverty, most poor people in this country have computers, have big screen TVs, have cars, have air conditioning."

O'Reilly: "This myth that there are kids who don't have anything to eat is a total lie."

"There are kids in New York City who go all weekend without anything to eat except when they eat in the schools." Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers countered.

"That is absolutely a fact."

This is the typical b.s. that's often pushed by Fox News. If a poor family might dare to have a computer or a television, this somehow means that they're not actually poor. In today's world, a person with children almost has to have a computer if for nothing more than school work. But even without children a computer and Internet access are becoming vital parts of our everyday life.

And heaven forbid poor people have air conditioning. I guess that means they're living the high life. But for O'Reilly to say it's a myth that child hunger is an issue in this country is flat-out insanity.

Let's look at a few stats that prove O'Reilly is a liar: Around 1.6 million children every year experience homelessness, 22% of all children in the U.S. live in families that fall below the federal poverty line, and the average SNAP (food stamps) comes out to about $1.46 per person - per meal.

I guess to O'Reilly, a person can eat a great meal for under $1.50. I'd like to see him try it.

He also went on to claim that any child who might not have enough to eat is being abused by their parents. Because, according to O'Reilly, there are more than enough programs for those who feel entitled to get free stuff from the government where no child should ever go without food.

In other words, he basically said any parent who can't provide food for their child is committing child abuse. Powers tried to battle O'Reilly on his insanity, citing her dealings with soup kitchens and churches who tell her about the families who come in because they can't feed their children, only to have the right-wing moron continue to insist that child hunger is a myth.

Eventually Powers just gave up, telling O'Reilly that they will just have to agree to disagree. That's when he challenged her to bring a family on his show who can't feed their family, a challenge she was more than willing to accept. But something tells me we'll never see that happen.

Bill O'Reilly would never allow himself to be embarrassed on his own show. O'Reilly's comments displayed his absolute and total ignorance about poverty in the United States.

Clearly he has no idea what it's like to be poor and has an obvious disdain for those who are poor. This is another perfect example of the total and complete disdain O'Reilly and Fox News has for Americans living in poverty.

And it's 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a total right-wing stooge, because nobody except right-wing loons say that kind of garbage. To say kids do not go hungry in America is just madness, and O'Reilly has lost his mind. Not only that, he is slime and garbage, and he should be ashamed to be an American.

Planned Parenthood President Slams Fiorina For Lies About Videos
By: Steve - October 8, 2015 - 9:00am

And of course the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, never said a word about it. Because he is a pro-life Republican who supports her lying, because he likes it when the anti-abortion nuts lie to make Planned Parenthood look bad. In fact, O'Reilly helps them by promoting Fiorina and her lies, while not reporting the other side that has the actual facts.

Here is the story O'Reilly ignored, and ask yourself this, O'Reilly claims to be fair and balanced and give equal time to both sides, so why does he not have the President of Planned Parenthood on the Factor to debate it, because he does not want you to have the truth or hear both sides of the argument.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards took Carly Fiorina to task for her lie about a video that purports to show a live-birth abortion at a women's health center.

"It is extraordinary that someone running for president would lie in that way," Richards said in an interview on Meet the Press that aired on Sunday. "This has been completely discredited by every reputable news source. And yet Carly Fiorina seems to continue to repeat the same lie."

Oh, and btw, it's not just O'Reilly who ignored it, it's all of Fox News. They did not have the Planned Parenthood President on any of their shows as a guest, ever. Because they do not want you to hear both sides, they want you to believe their lies.

Richards said the undercover videos released by the (far-right pro-life) Center for Medical Progress that appear to show Planned Parenthood executives trafficking fetal body parts from abortions are "distortive and deceptive."

She also said the tone of Planned Parenthood executives in the undercover videos does not reflect the "compassionate care that our doctors and clinicians provide to 2.7 million patients."

This is a perfect example of biased journalism from O'Reilly and Fox News. A real news network would do fair and balanced segments on the issue with guests from both sides, and give them equal time to debate it. O'Reilly and Fox did not do that, instead they spread lies and promoted Fiorina, without once saying she was lying, or giving you all the facts.

Noah Rips Pro-Life Republican Hypocrites About Gun Violence
By: Steve - October 7, 2015 - 10:00am

Add Bill O'Reilly to the list, because he is also a pro-life Republican who is a massive hypocrite, while claiming to have a pro-life position.

I have always found using pro-life to describe people who oppose abortion pretty much ridiculous. First, it's wrong to assume that just because someone supports the right for women to choose what they want to do with their own bodies, they are pro-abortion. I support abortions rights, but I am not pro-abortion. I simply believe in a woman's right to choose for herself what happens to her body, because after all, this is America, land of the free, right?

And I also feel it is none of their business to tell a woman what to do with her body, as long as she is 18 or older, if not, her parents should have a say in it.

Many of these so-called pro-lifers are also people who are the first to support war, the death penalty and guns. That's sort of like claiming you're an advocate for healthy eating while washing down fried chicken and ice cream six nights a week with a 6 pack of coke.

So, Trevor Noah went off on this pro-life hypocrisy Monday night, asking why Republicans seem to stop being pro-life the moment it comes to gun violence. He played several clips of Republicans condemning Planned Parenthood, including Carly Fiorina who flat-out lied during the second GOP debate about an abortion video that doesn’t even exist.

He then showed some of these same people talking about gun violence -- only in a much less pro-life sort of way. You know, the typical guns aren't the problem nonsense they regurgitate anytime some horrific mass shooting occurs. It's like I wrote the other day, when it comes to gun violence Republicans are absolute cowards.

They will never stand up to the NRA or the radical pro-gun fanatics who support them no matter how many innocent lives are lost in this country because too many of them lack the fortitude to actually admit that our lax gun laws are the reason why so many bad guys get their hands on dangerous weapons. These are the folks who literally argue that mental illness is to blame, not guns -- while supporting policies that make it more likely mentally ill people get guns and less likely they get help.

After all, since Sandy Hook (when the it's mental illness argument really took off), how many pieces of legislation have Republicans in Congress supported that aimed at reducing the likelihood that someone suffering from a dangerous form of mental illness was unable to obtain a gun? That number would be zero. If they had worked with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, we would have seen those policies enacted.

Noah then pointed out what liberals have said for years, that the GOP only pretends to care about life before it's born. He pondered how much good Republicans could do if they channeled their pro-life energy toward saving the thousands of lives lost at the hands of guns as opposed to constantly obsessing about abortion.

"The amount of lives they save could reach superhero levels," Noah said at the end of the segment. "They just need to have a superhero's total dedication to life. Right now they're more like comic book collectors: human life only holds value until you take it out of the package, and then it's worth nothing."

Judicial Watch Is A Right-Wing Joke Who Feeds The Media Lies
By: Steve - October 7, 2015 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly never reports any of this about them, because he promotes their lies like the rest of Fox News does, here are some facts about them you probably do not know.

Judicial Watch is a conservative activist group that has been one of the organizations driving the media narrative on Hillary Clinton's emails. They have a history of dishonest activism, promoting conspiracy theories, and pushing false or misleading narratives.

The organization was formed in the 1990s by conspiracy theorist Larry Klayman, who used the technique of filing bogus lawsuits in an attempt to bring down the Bill Clinton administration. It is now headed by Tom Fitton, who has continued Klayman's methods in an ongoing campaign to antagonize the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats.

The organization has played a key role in the ongoing controversy over the email system Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state. Records obtained from the State Department by Judicial Watch have served as fodder in the media and for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

This week, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the frontrunner for the soon-to-be vacant Speaker's office, boasted on Fox, "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought and made that happen."

Judicial Watch has tried to stake its own claim to denting Clinton, with Fitton claiming in a press release, "Judicial Watch has had more success investigating the IRS, Benghazi, and Clinton email scandals than any House committee under Boehner's direction."

Since it was reported in March that Clinton used a private email server, Judicial Watch has been mentioned dozens of times in reports on the story, including in major outlets like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and USA Today.

But if history is any indication, media outlets risk credibility and accuracy by relying on Judicial Watch.

The media's reliance on Judicial Watch's work comes with a significant risk, as the conservative group often overreaches in its attacks on Democrats and progressives.

For example, on September 24, Judicial Watch released records it had received from the State Department which it claimed "reveal former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally signed the authorization for Huma Abedin, her then-deputy chief of staff, to become a special government employee."

The New York Times reported on Judicial Watch's findings, writing that the documents "show that Mrs. Clinton personally signed forms establishing a new title and position for the aide, Huma Abedin, in March 2012." Politico, Fox News, and other outlets also published stories based on the document.

Those stories were all wrong!

As the Times reported a few days later, the document that Judicial Watch had given to the media had the signature redacted "in a box intended for the aide's supervisor," and the assumption was apparently made that Sec. Clinton had signed it. But later a copy of the document was given to the Times and it showed that it was signed by Cheryl Mills, who was then Clinton's chief of staff.

In other words, the entire premise of the Judicial Watch release was false (and the uncorrected headline still remains on the Times website).

Judicial Watch has often started stories that are flat out lies and fall apart almost immediately under scrutiny.

For example, Judicial Watch alleged that the Obama administration had appointed 45 "czars" to serve under him, a claim which then became the basis for a viral email attacking the president. As explained by PolitiFact in 2014, Judicial Watch stretched the truth by listing senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as a czar, crediting the Obama administration for czars created under the Bush administration, and describing Ray Mabus as the "Oil Czar" when in reality he was Secretary of the Navy, a Senate-confirmed position.

Judicial Watch accused then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of engaging in "boorish demands for military travel" that are "more about partying than anything else" and highlighted expenditures of "$101,429.14 ... for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol."

After conservative outlets regurgitated the claims, FactCheck.org investigated and found that "costs are not as high as critics claim, and they're comparable to those of her Republican predecessor."

Last year, Judicial Watch alleged that a company had been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) "for requiring workers to speak English."

But in reality, the EEOC said it sued the company for violating its employees' rights by subjecting them to a "sham performance improvement plan" that focused on their English language skills.

Judicial Watch has concocted conspiracy theories that end up being amplified by conservative and mainstream media, as well as elected officials.

Judicial Watch claimed that the Justice Department was helping to "organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman," the Florida man who shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin.

In reality, the unit of the DOJ was sent to Florida in order to defuse tensions in the community, and as the Orlando Sentinel reported, they "reached out to the city's spiritual and civic leaders to help cool heated emotions."

Judicial Watch claimed that ISIS had set up a terrorist camp in Mexico "just a few miles from El Paso, Texas," facilitating the smuggling of terrorists into the United States. Conservative media outlets picked up Judicial Watch's claim.

Authorities in the United States and Mexico rejected the group's fearmongering. A spokesman for the National Security Council said there was "no indication that this claim has any validity to it," while an FBI spokesperson told PolitiFact, "there is no credible information to support" the allegation.

The government of Mexico said this: "The government of Mexico dismisses and categorically denies each of the statements made today by the organization Judicial Watch on the alleged presence of ISIS's operating cells throughout the border region." Similarly, the Texas Department of Public Safety said they had "no credible information to corroborate or validate this story."

PolitiFact rated the claim as "false." A similar claim by Judicial Watch in September of 2014 became the basis of a statement by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) that ISIS is "present in Ciudad Juarez" in Mexico. Government agencies denied that allegation as well, and PolitiFact rated it "false."

Throughout the Obama administration, there have been repeated news stories discussing the cost of travel arrangements for the Obama administration, particularly for first lady Michelle Obama and her daughters.

These stories have been based on reports generated by Judicial Watch, and their website boasts an archive of releases on the topic (despite the organization's existence during the Bush administration, the "First Family" Vacations archive is limited to travel from only after Obama took office to present).

Many of these releases also exaggerate the truth. In 2010, Judicial Watch alleged that the Obamas went on a "private family safari" at taxpayer expense, but the safari was paid for with the Obama's own funds.

They also claimed the trip "was as much an opportunity for the Obama family and friends to go on a safari as it was a trip intended to advance the administration's agenda in Africa" but the schedule was filled with official events:
The six-day trip was dominated by official events and meetings with world leaders.

Mrs. Obama met with the South African president's wife; spoke to the Young African Women Leaders Forum; participated in community service events in Johannesburg; visited U.S. embassies and consulates; spoke at the University of Cape Town and met with students from poor communities; held a meeting with Archbishop Desmond Tutu; met with Botswanan president Ian Khama; and gave interviews to several news outlets, including NBC, ABC, BET, and CNN.
The exact same thing happens when Republicans are in office, and more, but Judicial watch never mentions it then, they only complain when a Democratic President is spending money on official trips. And Bill O'Reilly used their dishonest propaganda, he also complains about Obama and his spending on trips, while never complaining about the Republicans that do the very same thing.

The right-wing partisan Judicial Watch was formed for this very purpose two decades ago, to use the courts and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to trip up and raise implications about Democrats and other related elected officials. While never saying anything about any Republicans.

It does so through dishonest claims and lie filled document releases. And despite their history of dishonesty, almost all of the media has continued to rely on them, only to sometimes be caught hyping inaccurate supposed scoops.

Scared Trump Backs Out Of Hispanic Chamber Q&A Forum
By: Steve - October 6, 2015 - 10:00am

If he is scared to answer questions at a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce forum, how can he possibly be the President of The United States?

Donald Trump has been caught in another conflict with Latinos. The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce announced Friday that the billionaire businessman and Republican presidential frontrunner backed out of an agreement to appear at a question-and-answer forum next week.

The incident comes after Trump has drawn continuous controversy over his views and comments on illegal immigration. He has accused "rapists" and "killers" of entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico. He also released a platform calling for the 11 million immigrants living in the country without authorization to be deported and vowing to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border if he's elected.

Last month, Trump met with Javier Palomarez, the CEO of the Hispanic Chamber, at Trump Tower in New York City. Palomarez said he was "encouraged" by the discussion and said Trump agreed to participate in the Q&A on Oct. 8.

But Friday, the prominent Latino trade group (which is based in Washington D.C.) said Trump pulled out because of concerns he might be criticized at the event.

"This is classic, classic Donald," Chamber spokesman Ammar Campa-Najjar told Politico. "People criticize him, and then he runs off and throws a Trump tantrum."

Palomarez said in a statement that Trump clearly withdrew "out of fear." "This further disqualifies him as a serious candidate in the eyes of the Hispanic community," he said.

Then Trump slammed Palomarez as negative to him, even though it conflicts with an interview Trump gave on Geraldo Rivera's radio show the day after his meeting with the Chamber's CEO.

"I think he was a terrific guy," Trump said of Palomarez at the time. "We don't agree on everything certainly, but I think I agreed to do some kind of luncheon or whatever down in Washington."

"I will be going down at some point in October or whatever," he added. "I will go to Washington. That won't be that easy a meeting because you'll have hundreds of people, and they will have constituents of his and they may disagree with me. But ultimately, we will all get along."

It shows Trump is a liar, because he told CNN he never agreed to the meeting, even though he admitted to saying he would go on the Geraldo radio show. He also said Palomarez is a great guy, then he slams him, so you can not believe a word from Trump.

Trump also claimed that Latino voters "love" him and that he will win the Latino vote next November. But a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday shows that 82 percent of Hispanics have an "unfavorable" view of Trump.

A handful of other 2016 candidates have participated in the Chamber's Q&A series, including Republicans Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz and Democrats Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders.

Note to voters, Donald Trump is a liar who will say anything to get higher ratings in the polls, he is just telling you what you want to hear to get poll ratings, do not trust him.

Republicans Owe Taxpayers $4.5 Million Dollars for Phony Benghazi Probe
By: Steve - October 6, 2015 - 9:00am

Republicans have been going on for years, actually only since a Democrat took over the White House, about deficits. The deficit, they scream hysterically, will kill our children! Therefore, we need to stop feeding the children in poverty today, as well as taking money from senior citizens and our veterans. We just can't afford these things, they tell us. We must be responsible.

But then Wednesday night Speaker-in-Hopes House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) spilled the Benghazi beans on Fox News as he was desperately attempting to do what poor, put-upon Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has been doing for years -- calming the crazies on Fox News while selling total baloney to the public.

McCarthy hasn't Boehner's presence or control, so when pushed about what he has done for conservatives, McCarthy proudly preened on about the fake Benghazi investigations being a political tool to steal the White House from Hillary Clinton in 2016.

McCarthy admitted that the Benghazi committee helped erode Clinton's "unbeatable" aura. Huh.

It's not as if we didn't know this was the agenda, I have been writing this for years. And just yesterday we discussed the outrageous fact that the Benghazi probe has gone on longer than the Watergate probe.

But the party that sells itself as fiscally responsible, in spite of their claim that deficits don't matter when they were in charge, would definitely want to reimburse taxpayers the $4.5 million they have spent on lowering former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's poll numbers and manufacturing sound bites for free campaign ads against her, which they will all use since Republicans always have to run against a person since they can't run on their own ideas.

We know they will never pay the taxpayers back, but it makes their justification for austerity transparent as the attempt to inflict their ideology without debate that it is. As we face yet another Republican shutdown due to their refusal to actually negotiate a budget the correct way, lest they lose the power to hold the country hostage, they should be called out for their wasteful spending.

If we have $4.5 million to spend so Republicans can commit fraud against the people while manufacturing lies about a woman who has almost consistently been the most admired woman in the world for ten years, then we don't need to be cutting SNAP or stealing from Social Security.

Certainly not first on the list.

No, first on the list would be unnecessary spending, and campaign ads for Republicans are unnecessary spending. Not only is this an abuse of power that would have to be investigated by Republicans since they're the majority (and we all know Republicans don't hold themselves accountable so that's not going to happen, unlike the weak Democrats who would have already tossed themselves out of office), but it's a total waste of money because it's not going to work.

No matter what Republicans do, they do not have a single viable candidate. They are currently running Donald Trump first in the polls, so let's just be honest -- they're up a creek without a paddle right now. The chances of them getting a sane candidate without the baggage of a last name and a team that started the Iraq invasion on a lie are slim, because their base won't have it.

The few candidates they have who are marketable to the public aren't even making a blip in their primary polls. Poor Governor Kasich (R-OH), the lone person who could debate Hillary Clinton without looking like a complete lunatic, stands no chance. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FLA), for all of his compelling personal story and background, can't hold it together in public and comes off like an infant. He's just not ready.

So this Benghazi probe fraud is worse than just an abuse of power, it's a total waste of money. Republicans would have been better served to have taken their 2012 post mortem to heart and worked on adjusting their current party of top 2% strategy to fit with the actual values of what used to be the Republican party.

There are plenty of moderates who would vote for that party, but that party has turned into the Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin circus. It's really hard to justify even taking them seriously at this point.

We want our $4.5 million back, and I'm calling on the next Republican to use deficits as an excuse to cut funding for programs they don't like. Because when they are in office, they never do it, in fact, they say deficits do not matter when a Republican is in power.

Mr. Non-Partisan O'Reilly Tells Jeb Bush He Needs To Get Angry
By: Steve - October 5, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides, has a no spin zone, does not endorse candidates, is not a Republican, and never uses GOP talking points. As he does all those things, and does them every night.

Now we can add giving advice to Republicans running for office, while never giving Democrats any advice, except for drop out of the race.

O'Reilly to Jeb Bush: You Need to Get Angry

One of Donald Trump's favorite personal attacks on his presidential rivals is his branding of Jeb Bush as "low energy."

Bush has dismissed that label and laughed it off, but when he sat down with Bill O’Reilly Friday night, O'Reilly very bluntly told him his energy is, in fact, lacking.

O'Reilly told Bush he's "been flat" and hasn't "shown the passion and the anger and the outrage" that other candidates like Donald Trump have.

Bush insisted he's not "angry" but he's very passionate about fixing the problems facing America.

O'Reilly still insisted it's a problem for him when he doesn't show his anger on things like Planned Parenthood or immigration or foreign policy, and the fact that he's not connecting may explain his single-digit poll numbers.

In other words, Bush needs to be more like O'Reilly and the far-right, angry.

Nobody cares about Planned Parenthood, except for the far-right pro-life loons like O'Reilly.

Nobody cares about immigration, except for the far-right racist wing of the Republican party, and of course Bill O'Reilly.

And Foreign Policy is not a big issue with the American people.

The big issues are jobs, wages, health care, the economy, etc. Notice O'Reilly and the GOP never mention those, they go on and on about meaningless wedge issues, like abortion and immigration. It's a distraction from the real issues, because they have no answers for dealing with them, and the plans the do have are rejected by most Americans.

So they waste our time talking about immigration and abortion 24/7, because that is all they have.

Question For Bill O'Reilly: Why Are You Ignoring This Racism Story
By: Steve - October 5, 2015 - 9:00am

You claim racism is pretty much gone in America and the people who say it's not are just dishonest race hustlers, ok, so then explain this jerk. An entire state in the south is being racist, and of course you ignore the entire story, all while claiming racism is pretty much dead in America.

Headline: Alabama to stop issuing driver's licenses in counties with 75% black registered voters

The state of Alabama, which requires a photo ID to vote, announced this week that it would stop issuing driver's licenses in counties where 75 percent of the registered voters are black.

Due to budget cuts, Alabama Law Enforcement Agency said that 31 DMV offices would no longer have access to driver's licenses examiners, meaning that residents will need to travel to other counties to apply for licenses. The move comes just one year after the state's voter photo ID law went into effect.

AL.com's John Archibald asserted in a column on Wednesday that the U.S. Department of Justice should open an investigation into the closings.

"Because Alabama just took a giant step backward," he wrote. "Take a look at the Alabama counties with the highest percentage of non-white registered voters. That's Macon, Greene, Sumter, Lowndes, Bullock, Perry, Wilcox, Dallas, Hale, and Montgomery, according to the Alabama Secretary of State's office. Alabama just opted to close driver license bureaus in all of them."

"Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one," Archibald explained. "But maybe it's not racial at all, right?"

Ok O'Reilly, explain that, i'll be waiting.

Juan Williams Gives O'Reilly & Fox A Reality Check On Benghazi
By: Steve - October 4, 2015 - 10:00am

Headline: Fox's Juan Williams: McCarthy "Just Spoke The Truth, Which Is That" The Benghazi Committee Has "Been A Political Farce"

Williams: "I Don't Think There's Any Question That's What This Has Been About"

And btw, we already knew it, but now we have the proof, because they finally admitted to it. The whole thing was a partisan political attack to make Hillary look bad because they knew she would be running for President, and Mr. I never use GOP talking points (Bill O'Reilly) was at the head of the pack as part of the dishonest right-wing smear job.



Partial transcript:

WILLIAMS: Well, he just spoke the truth, which is that, and I think that the Clinton campaign has already said this reveals that it's been a political farce. That we're not learning much about Benghazi, what we're learning is about Hillary's emails, about her conversations with Sidney Blumenthal, who she likes, all her preferences, that she got some traffic tickets -- I don't even know if they were her traffic tickets.

What he said was, it's very much to the effort to reduce Hillary Clinton's numbers, her favorability numbers, her trustworthy numbers in the mind of the American people before the election. I don't think there's any question that's what this has been about. She's testified seven times and they haven't found anything and they've got her coming again in late October to testify.

Kentucky Republicans Claim First Amendment Right To Accept Bribes
By: Steve - October 4, 2015 - 9:00am

A Kentucky Republican lawmaker and two other candidates are claiming a First Amendment right to accept gifts from lobbyists.

State Sen. John Schickel and a pair of Libertarian Party hopefuls filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court intended to overturn state ethics laws that limit campaign contributions to $1,000 and prohibit lawmakers from accepting gifts from lobbyists and their employers, reported the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"This infringes on the legislator's, lobbyist's, and employer of lobbyist's right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech," Schickel argues in the lawsuit.

Kentucky passed ethics laws in 1992 after an FBI investigation, named Operation BOPTROT, revealed 15 elected officials -- including then-House Speaker Don Blandford -- in the state had been selling their votes.

Schickel complained in his lawsuit that current ethics laws prevent him from attending "holiday parties, hosted by longstanding friends, who are lobbyists or employ lobbyists."

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about this story, because he is also a Republican and he does not want to make them look bad. But if a Democrat filed a lawsuit like this, O'Reilly would be all over it and claim it means the entire Democratic party is corrupt and that proves it.

Bill O'Reilly: Journalist Or Clown?
By: Steve - October 3, 2015 - 11:00am

The so-called hard journalist Bill O'Reilly has recently ignored many important news stories, that all show the Republicans to be dishonest liars about Planned Parenthood and fetal tissue research, etc. While promoting their pro-life propaganda about the dishonest and highly edited Planned Parenthood videos, as he claims to be an Independent and non-partisan journalist.

He spins out all the GOP lies and propaganda about the videos, but when the facts come out and show they were edited and they are not selling babies body parts, it was fetal tissue for medical research, he does not correct the record as a real journalist would do, he continues to say they are selling body parts and he continues to lie to the American people, just as his right-wing friends are.

But Friday night he sure had time to waste a segment on his so-called hard news show with what he says are nothing but facts, on topless women in Times Square taking pictures with people.

Transcript From The Factor website: Nudity in NYC

Jesse Watters walked a few blocks over to Times Square, where women 'entertainers' are going topless and posing for photos with tourists. Here's what a few of the bare-breasted women told him:

"I'm a professional salsa dancer and I wanted to pursue my career" ... "I was in school and looking for something to do on the side" ... "Some of my family thinks this is terrible, some get it" ... "My mom is open-minded, she supports me" ... "I work on tips" ... "I do pretty well for myself but I'd rather not get into numbers" ... "Mayor de Blasio needs to come here and have a few laughs" ... "There are bigger issues in New York City than some boobs in Times Square."

So I guess O'Reilly now thinks that is hard news and nothing but the facts. When in fact, it's tabloid garbage that is not news and has no facts. It's mindless entertainment for O'Reilly to get ratings from his clueless and brainwashed fans.

Seth Meyers Calls Out GOP Hearing About Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - October 3, 2015 - 10:00am

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, this is real journalism, maybe you should try it sometime. I dare you to invite Seth Myers on the Factor to discuss it, yeah I know, it will never happen because he has the actual facts on his side.

Meyers On Deceptive Charts Pushed By Right-Wing Media and the Republicans in Congress: "They Made A Chart With No Y-Axis. Why? Because They Don't Believe In Funding For Affordable Health Care"



The entire hearing was a joke, the Chairman and Congressman would not even let the woman from Planed Parenthood answer their questions. They used bogus slides and charts from a pro-life group, and then denied they knew who did them, even though it said who did them right on the charts.

It was just laughable, and every Republican at the hearing should be ashamed to be part of it, they should resign now, because the whole thing was a massive waste of taxpayer money and more like a skit on Saturday Night Live then a real congressional hearing.

And of course O'Reilly ignored it all, because he is a Republican and pro-life, so he supports their fraud, and even helps them spread the right-wing abortion lies on his own show every night. But he did have time to do an entire segment about topless women running around Times Square in New York City.

Fox Host Explains To O'Reilly The Benefits Of Fetal Tissue Research
By: Steve - October 3, 2015 - 9:00am

But he forgot one thing, he should have slammed him for saying it is selling baby body parts, because it is not. To begin with, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And they are not selling body parts, they sell tissue for medical research that saves millions of lives. The only problem with it is the pro-life idiots like O'Reilly who spin and lie about it for political reasons.

Fox's Eric Shawn Explains To O'Reilly The Benefits Of Fetal Tissue Research: It "Has Saved Millions Of Lives"

O'Reilly Previously Likened Fetal Tissue Donation To "Nazi Stuff" and claimed it was selling body parts.

Partial transcript:

O'REILLY: All right, so now the congresswoman says that fetal tissue, the selling of body parts by Planned Parenthood, has wiped out measles and everything else. What is the truth?

ERIC SHAWN: Well, fetal tissue research has saved millions of lives, Bill. Look at polio, 1954. That vaccine was created through a kidney cell from a fetus. You've got the vaccines now, chicken pox, rubella - that's German measles, hepatitis, shingles, rabies, are all from fetal tissue research.

Those from two aborted fetuses in the 1960s, they've grown the cell lines since then. But the scientists say a lot of research now on Parkinson's, spinal cords, ALS, Alzheimer's, Down syndrome, degenerative eye disease, and the Ebola vaccine that was created this year, all came from and are being researched by using fetal tissue. They say it's really invaluable.

O'REILLY: All right, so, there is a point that you say fetal tissue from aborted babies can be used for good. That's true.

SHAWN: That's correct. Yes, yes, absolutely. Yes.

O'REILLY: OK. So it's all a matter of regulating the situation and making sure that it isn't abused or isn't used for -- it all goes into this good research. And I think that's what everybody is wanting to see.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, let it go idiot. For the last time, it is not a baby, it's a fetus, and they are not selling body parts, they sell tissue for medical research. Stop lying to the American people. And stop promoting the edited and dishonest pro-life group videos that try to make Planned Parenthood look bad, they are a fraud.

O'Reilly Proves His Right-Wing Bias Once Again
By: Steve - October 2, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly: Only Reason Biden Beats Republicans in Polls Is Because Americans Are Dumb

Now think about this, when Republicans are beating Democrats in polls he never calls Americans dumb, he only says they are dumb if they support a Democrat. And when Democrats say Americans are dumb for supporting a Republican, O'Reilly calls them clueless America hating liberals.

This is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased Republican, because only a biased Republican would say that. In O'Reillyworld if you support a Republican you are a well informed American who is doing the right thing. But if you support a Democrat, somehow in O'Reilly's mind you are just dumb.

Vice President Joe Biden is not even in the race for the presidency yet, but in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, when he's put up against the top four Republicans running for president -- Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Jeb Bush -- he beats all of them in a head-to-head match-up.

But why is that the case if, in the same poll, it's shown that most Americans aren't happy with the current direction of the country?

Bill O'Reilly says it's because "many Americans are simply dumb."

He said that "the machines" allow people to create their own little bubbles and that has to be it.

"If you don't know anything," O'Reilly said, "no matter what kinds of facts are presented, you can't process them."

And now here is a truth bomb for the idiot O'Reilly. The majority of Americans do not like Trump, Carson, or Fiorina. As the poll shows, Biden beats them all because they are far-right stooges that will never be the President.

The American people are not dumb for opposing them, they are smart. They know that they are extreme far-right partisans who will never be the President.

O'Reilly just can not handle the truth, that the Republican primary leaders are not liked by the majority of Americans. So he just says they are dumb, because they do not agree with him, and because they say they would support Biden instead of the Republicans who are running.

It's crazy talk, and something only a clueless right-wing hack would say.

Insane House Republicans Will Try To Repeal Obamacare For The 61st Time
By: Steve - October 2, 2015 - 9:00am

House Republicans are about to try to repeal Obamacare for the 61st time.

The Hill reported that this pointless exercise in futility is coming from Rep. Paul Ryan's Ways and Means Committee, "The measure would repeal ObamaCare's individual and employer mandates for obtaining and providing insurance, along with two major taxes used to pay for the health care law: A 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans, called the "Cadillac Tax," and a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices."

Here are a few of the achievements that Republicans are looking to roll back by repealing Obamacare:

-- 17.6 million uninsured Americans have gained health insurance coverage since enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

-- The rate of uninsured has dropped to historic lows - currently just 11.4%.

-- As of March 31, 2015, 10.2 million consumers had coverage in Health Insurance Marketplace plans.

-- 50,000 lives have been saved due to a reduction in hospital-acquired conditions, such as infections.

-- The private sector has added 13 million jobs.

-- Americans have saved $9 billion since 2011, because of the new requirement that insurers have to spend at least 80% of every premium dollar they receive on quality health care.

-- $19.2 billion has been recovered for taxpayers from stepped-up anti-fraud efforts in Medicare and other health programs under the ACA.

House Republicans are returning to repealing Obamacare because they can't agree with each other on passing anything. The 61st attempt to repeal the ACA will end up the same way that the other 60 attempts did.

Since Republicans are using the reconciliation process to pass the repeal, the bill will get to President Obama's desk. And the President will promptly veto the bill, so Republicans will have once again accomplished nothing.

The American people should get used to this sort of behavior because it is going to happen even more in the post-Boehner House. Mitch McConnell is already using the tactic of bringing up defeated bills for votes repeatedly, and the extremist Republicans in the House believe that if they just keep passing Obamacare repeal bills eventually the President will sign one of them and kill his own health care bill, even though it will never happen.

This is never going to happen, but their belief that it might is one of the reasons why Republicans have turned Congress into a joke, and their approval rating is about 5 percent.

Dishonest Cavuto Caught Lying About Edited Planned Parenthood Videos
By: Steve - October 1, 2015 - 10:00am

Fox News Senior Vice President Neil Cavuto promoted a series of deceptively-edited videos released by the biased pro-life Center for Medial Progress (CMP) by claiming that the tapes "were not edited or strung together."

In fact, CMP's videos were deceptively edited in numerous instances, including in cases of videos described by CMP as "full footage."

During the September 25th broadcast, Cavuto said this: "I made a point when these CMP videos came out of picking any one of them -- which were not edited or strung together -- picking out an objectionable part and playing it at home.

There was not a lot of doctoring going on there." Cavuto then hosted CMP founder David Daleiden, giving him a platform to promote falsehoods about Planned Parenthood and the CMP video stings, with no other guest for balance.

During the segment, Cavuto asked Daleiden about critics' claims CMP's tapes are "strung together, doctored, and edited," leading Daleiden to claim, "The fact is we post the full footage of the conversations with the Planned Parenthood directors and executives on our YouTube channel for everybody to see."

Which is a lie, because an independent analysis conducted by forensic experts of the first seven CMP-released videos found "42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes."

Multiple other sources have come to the same conclusion and official investigations have cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.

Daleiden also said on the program: "It's been a good 15 years" since the issue of illegal sales of fetal tissue has been discussed. He did not mention that he modeled his own campaign against Planned Parenthood based on the work done 15 years ago by the discredited anti-choice group Life Dynamics whose star witness, a medical technician named Lawrence Dean Alberty, admitted to lying to Life Dynamics about having witnessed illegal activity involving fetal tissue collection and profiteering.

The veracity of what is "unedited video" from the Center for Medical Progress has become an issue in light of a subpoena issued on September 23 by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, requesting from CMP "all unedited video footage in their possession, relating to the acquisition, preparation and sale of fetal tissue."

Several GOP-led House committees have announced or begun hearings following the release of CMP's deceptively-edited videos targeting Planned Parenthood, leading to calls from some Republicans to shut down the federal government if Planned Parenthood is not defunded by Congress.

On September 25, attorneys for Planned Parenthood submitted a letter to both Chaffetz and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), which included a document from former FBI forensic video/audio analyst Douglas Lacey, pointing out the committee's request of footage from CMP was not specific enough.

According to this expert, "source footage" is needed from the anti-choice group -- "the actual original recording saved on the recording device" - and only upon review of that will the committee be able to "verify with any confidence the authenticity of a video recording and determine whether it has been edited or altered."

The letter "urged the Committee to insist that Mr. Daleiden and CMP produce nothing short of the complete, original 'source footage' from each device used to record Planned Parenthood personnel."

And of course O'Reilly will never point any of this out, he will ignore it and continue to put out the Republican propaganda on it, because he is a dishonest Republican.

Democrats Call For End To Benghazi Investigation After McCarthy Admits Fraud
By: Steve - October 1, 2015 - 9:00am

After Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) admitted that Republicans lied about the purpose of the Benghazi investigation, several top Democrats are calling out the House Republicans abuse of power and calling for an immediate end to the investigation.

Rep. McCarthy got flustered during an interview with Sean Hannity and blew the worst kept political secret in Washington. He admitted that the Benghazi investigation is all about digging up mud on Hillary Clinton.

The ranking member of the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said, "This stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public: the core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi Committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and never to conduct an even-handed search for the facts.

It is shameful that Republicans have used this tragedy and the deaths of our fellow Americans for political gain. Republicans have blatantly abused their authority in Congress by spending more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds to pay for a political campaign against Hillary Clinton."

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because he is a Republican who worked with them and supported them.

The office of Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "House Republicans were never interested in a bipartisan investigation to improve the security of Americans abroad. They've only been interested in pure extremist political theater. Leader McCarthy: the American people don't want more politically-motivated "select committees" - not to smear presidential candidates, and not to assault women's health. They want real leadership to confront the challenges we face as a nation."

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) called for an immediate end to the Benghazi investigation and for Republicans to apologize to the families of the Benghazi victims.





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