Some Economic Facts O'Reilly & The GOP Will Not Talk About
By: Steve - September 30, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing and corporate friends tell you that if we let them run things and lower taxes on the wealthy even more, and bust all the unions, everything will be great.

But they ignore the fact that every time they do that the opposite happens, wages drop and the economy suffers. While the unions were strong and taxes on the wealthy high everyone did well, not just the corporations and the wealthy.

The boundaries of America's "golden age" are clear, and everyone agrees that the midcentury boom times began after Allied soldiers returned in triumph from World War II. But when did they wane? The economist Joe Stiglitz, in an article in Politico Magazine titled "The Myth Of The American Golden Age," sets the endpoint at 1980, a year until which "the fortunes of the wealthy and the middle class rose together."

Others put the cut-off earlier, at the economic collapse of 1971 and the ensuring malaise. Regardless of when it ended, it would not be unfair to use the '50s as shorthand for this now glamorized period of plenty, peace, and the kind of optimism only plenty and peace can produce.

In 1950, America led the world in GDP per capita. Even by 1973, it had only sunk to number two. Jobs were so plentiful that male employment peaked at over 84 percent. Unemployment, when it did strike, didn't last long. Housing was cheap. Gas was cheap. Movies were cheap. If America was ever "great," it was great in 1950, and one can sympathize with a desire to recreate those economic conditions, if not the social ones.

The '50s were, as Stiglitz puts it, "a time of war-induced solidarity when the government kept the playing field level."

In other words, they were a time of Big Government. And Big Labor: "By 1953, more than one out of three American workers were members of private sector unions. That means there was a union member in nearly every family."

Then there's taxes. Though a conservative writer at Bloomberg scoffs at the often-cited statistic that the top marginal tax rate in the '50s was an astounding 91 percent, even she admits that "the Internal Revenue Service showed that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent," which is vastly higher than it is today.

In fact, for most of the past 100 years, tax rates have been much higher than they are now, including during some boom times.

If bigger government, stronger unions, and higher taxes on the rich are what it takes to make America great again, Republican primary voters might be surprised to learn that the candidate who truly shares their values is not Donald Trump, but Bernie Sanders.

This is something O'Reilly and the Republicans never ever talk about. They ignore the facts, that when Taxes on the wealthy were high and the unions were strong most people did well and made a good wage. O'Reilly and the Republicans also ignore the fact that during the 8 years of Bill Clinton, he raised taxes on the wealthy, lowered them on everyone else, and we had an economic boom.

O'Reilly ignores all that history, because it proves his right-wing trickle down economic policies are bad and would be hurtful to the majority of Americans. The facts show that higher taxes on the wealthy, a decent minimum wage, and strong unions make America great, and almost everyone does good.

O'Reilly ignores all that, because he thinks taxes on the wealthy should be low, so he can make more money, even though it hurts the majority of Americans.

O'Reilly ignores this part of the constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Notice it says promote the general welfare? That means make America great for everyone, not just the wealthy and the corporations. But O'Reilly does not talk about that, he is on the side of the wealthy and the corporations, because he is one of them and the corporate advertising make him rich. He does not care about the people, all he cares about is getting richer.

Proof O'Reilly Fox & The GOP Lied About Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - September 30, 2015 - 9:00am

Here is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, the GOP, and almost all the Republicans running for President, especially Carly Fiorina, lied their ass off about Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts of babies. They were all lying, all of them, they lied for partisan political reasons, even O'Reilly who laughingly claims he is not one of them, as he says the exact same things they do.

Headline: Missouri AG Finds No Evidence Planned Parenthood Mishandled Fetal Tissue

Source: Reuters

An investigation in Missouri found no evidence that Planned Parenthood's St. Louis clinic mishandled fetal tissue or engaged in ANY unlawful activity, Attorney General Chris Koster's office said on Monday.

Koster's office had launched an investigation after an anti-abortion group released videos over the summer alleging that Planned Parenthood in other states illegally sold fetal tissue.

"The evidence reviewed by my investigators supports Planned Parenthood's representation that fetal tissue is handled in accordance with Missouri law," Koster said in a news release. "We have discovered no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Planned Parenthood's St. Louis facility is selling fetal tissue."

The Attorney General's Office interviewed workers at Planned Parenthood, the only licensed surgical abortion facility in Missouri, and reviewed documents from all 317 abortions during a 30-day audit, according to the statement.

The investigation found that all tissue from abortions was examined at a pathology lab then incinerated.

The facts show that all they did was legally sell fetal tissue for medical research, and at prices of $100 or less, so they were not making much for doing it. The same fetal tissue that Republican Dr. Ben Carson has admitted to buying himself for his own medical research.

So then O'Reilly and all his (insane pro-life nut-job) friends turned that into Planned Parenthood is selling babies body parts. It was crazy, and nothing but lies to make people mad.

And O'Reilly was at the head of the pack spreading the Republican lies on his #1 rated cable news show. Proving he is as far-right as anyone in the Republican party. And that he will lie to advance their pro-life anti-abortion agenda.

The Trump Tax Plan Is The Same Old Republican/Corporate Garbage
By: Steve - September 29, 2015 - 11:00am

The Truth About The Media & The So-Called Clinton E-Mail Scandal
By: Steve - September 29, 2015 - 10:00am

To begin with, there is no scandal. All she did was protect her privacy, so nobody could see her personal e-mails. The entire scandal is made up by the Republican party and biased people like O'Reilly promote it with lies and spin, while ignoring Republicans who did the very same thing, and worse.

Former President Bill Clinton is exposing how the media and the Republican Party continue to work together to push the bogus Hillary Clinton email scandal. And O'Reilly does not say a word about this, because it exposes his bias and shows how he is part of the Republican propaganda machine.

During an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria he asked former President Clinton why Hillary Clinton is having a tougher time than many imagined as a candidate, and he answered with the real truth.

Bill Clinton said this:
This is just something that has been a regular feature of our presidential campaigns, except 2008 for unique reasons. Ever since Watergate, something like this always happens. And so, I'd rather it happen now than later and it was always going to happen.

The other party doesn't want to run against her, and if they do, they'd like her as mangled up as possible.

And they know that if they leak things, say things that is catnip to the people who get bored talking about what's your position on student loan relief or dealing with the shortage of mental health care or what to do with the epidemic of prescription drugs and heroin out in America, even in small towns of rural America, or how are you going to get jobs into coal country given how much they've lost in the last 20 years.

So, that just happens. It always happens. We're seeing history repeat itself. And I actually am amazed that she's borne up under it as well as she has. But I have never seen so much expanded on so little.

But it's obvious what happened. You know, at the beginning of the year she was the most admired person in public life and she earned it.

Why? Because she was being covered by people who reported on what she was doing. The new star treaty, the Iran sanctions, tripling the number of people on aids getting medicine for no more tax money.

America was, when she left office, our approval rating was more than 20 points higher than it had previously been. What happened? The presidential campaign happened.

This is a contact sport. They're not giving the job away. And people who want to race, wanted her to drop some, and people in the party desperately wanted it because she's already put out more positions on more issues and said how she would pay for them I think based on the others combined, based on the two, the Republicans based on the two debates I saw.
And what makes former President Clinton's point even stronger is the fact that the media has ignored other high profile email scandals.

In 2011, The Boston Globe reported that before Mitt Romney left office as governor of Massachusetts 11 members of his staff bought their hard drives and wiped all of the emails, "Just before Mitt Romney left the Massachusetts governor's office and first ran for president, 11 of his top aides purchased their state-issued computer hard drives and the Romney administration's e-mails were all wiped from a server, according to interviews and records obtained by the Globe."

Reuters reported that Romney spent nearly $100,000 in taxpayer money on replacing all of the computers in his office just before his term ended.

Mitt Romney wiped his email server clean, something that Hillary Clinton did not do, and the media never covered it. Do you remember Mitt Romney apologizing for his email scandal? Of course not, because it never happened with the corrupt media.

Former President Clinton was exactly right. Republicans are feeding the email story to the media, and the press is running with it because they are bored by the real issues of the campaign. The mainstream press claims that the reason their political coverage is so superficial is because the American people don't care about the issues.

In other words, it's a made up scandal by the GOP, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly. One lies and the others swear to it, and the media eat it up because they are bored talking about the actual issues, like jobs, unemployment, and health care. They mostly do it for ratings, because they are corporate owned and more ratings mean more revenue from advertising.

The reality is that the media has chosen not to devote time and energy to the issues. It is much easier and cheaper to cover the scandals and the polls, which are influenced greatly by the media's own coverage decisions than to inform the electorate.

Bill Clinton nailed it. There has to be one scandal in every campaign that the media tries to hype to near Watergate levels. Republicans can't beat Democrats on the issues, so they are working with the corporate owned media to push Hillary Clinton's e-mails as a scandal.

And Bill O'Reilly is at the head of the pack of corrupt journalists, he claims to never use GOP talking points, as he uses them every night. Almost every night he does at least one segment on the bogus Clinton e-mail scandal, and some nights more than one segment.

This is done to keep the story in the media and keep people talking and thinking about it, and it's 100% pure partisan political dirty tricks, right from the Karl Rove playbook.

Right-Wing Media Helping Hate Group Leader Gain Political Power
By: Steve - September 29, 2015 - 9:00am

Tony Perkins is the head of one of the most extreme anti-gay hate groups in the country, and right-wing media outlets continue to give him a platform that enables him to play a major role in mainstream conservative politics.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled Perkins' group, the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay hate group, due in part to Perkins' history of making inflammatory comments about the LGBT community. Perkins has called pedophilia "a homosexual problem," accused gay people of recruiting children, and compared gay advocates to terrorists.

Despite FRC's extremism, right-wing media outlets have treated Perkins as a legitimate conservative commentator, regularly inviting him to speak on behalf of Christians without identifying him as a hate group leader.

The conservative media's favorable treatment of Perkins has allowed him to establish himself as a powerful force in Republican politics, using his national platform to pressure politicians who don't act in lockstep with FRC's extremism.

Perkins influence is especially evident at FRC's annual Values Voter Summit, a conservative political conference that has become a must-attend event for rising GOP politicians. This week, Republican presidential candidates will attend FRC's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. to vie for social conservatives support.

And they'll likely do so without worrying that major media outlets will scrutinize them for cozying up to a known hate group. Donald Trump even spoke at the convention, proving he is about as far-right as it gets.

Failing to hold Perkins and FRC accountable for their anti-LGBT extremism isn't just bad journalism -- it proactively lends credibility to an organization that works tirelessly to attack and dehumanize LGBT people.

As SPLC's Heidi Beirich explained, "If people were better informed about what FRC has said in the past... they'd be much less likely to be snowed by anything that comes out of Perkins' mouth or comes out of FRC."

It's long past time for media outlets to stop giving Perkins a pass and start giving their audiences the full story behind who's leading the fight against LGBT equality.

Republican Peter King Says The Crazies Have Taken Over The Party
By: Steve - September 28, 2015 - 10:00am

John Boehner's surprising announcement that he is resigning from Congress at the end of October has been met with some interesting reactions from both sides of the political aisle. Far-right conservatives who believe Boehner is not conservative enough cheered the announcement, clearly hoping his successor will be someone from their group. Who are the people in Congress that clearly don't understand how our government works.

Many on the left celebrated the news considering Boehner has been one of the worst House Speakers in modern history -- though I've said everyone on the left who thinks Boehner is terrible that they're not going to like whoever replaces him.

The biggest reason why Boehner is so unpopular with many people within his own party who were trying to push him out is because they believe he's too liberal. Yes, the guy who's opposed everything President Obama has tried to accomplish, who's been one of the most obstructive House Speakers in the nation's history, is too liberal for many of his conservative friends.

Do you really think the person they pick to replace him is going to be more sane, moderate and open to working with Democrats to get things done? Trust me, in this case, the enemy you know is much better than the one you don't.

So then, you have Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and he had some very bad things to say about some members of his own party who he feels are responsible for Boehner's sudden exit from Congress.

"I think it signals the crazies have taken over the party... that you can remove a speaker of the House who's second in line to be president, a constitutional officer in the middle of his term with no allegations of impropriety, a person who's honest and doing his job. This has never happened before in our country," King said to CNN's Dana Bash.

"He could have stayed on." But King is absolutely right about Boehner's resignation being a sign that the crazies are taking over the Republican party. It's truly telling when someone like John Boehner, who is not at all liberal, is apparently "not conservative enough" for the modern-day GOP.

The truth of the matter is, Boehner is very conservative and his voting record proves it -- he just knows how government works. When he had to make some sort of deal with President Obama and Democrats (the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, re-opening the government) he usually did -- eventually. Not because he wanted to, but because he realized it was pointless to drag out a fight he couldn't win.

And btw, all those fights with Obama hurt the Republican party with the general public, but the far-right wing of the Republican party does not care, they simply want their elected officials to do what the far-right wants, and to hell what the people think, or how much it cost the country.

When you ask many of these tea party conservatives, they don't care. They don't function in reality. Just take our last government shutdown for example. Despite the fact that there was absolutely zero chance that Republicans were going to emerge successful, many threw a fit when Boehner struck a deal to re-open the government.

Even now, as a second potential shutdown is coming -- once again with absolutely no chance at Republicans achieving their goal of defunding Planned Parenthood -- many within the GOP continue to hope that the government closes. There's no other way to say it -- it's insanity which is taking over the Republican party.

These are not people who care about reality, facts or even rational common sense -- they're crazy people who will destroy this country if we let them. That's why we all need to make damn sure we don't.

And btw, these are the people O'Reilly supports, he wants you to vote more Republicans into office, even though they are bad for the average American. O'Reilly does not care, he just wants more Republicans because he is one, and he agrees with them, and he hates Obama and the Democrats.

Republicans Are Starting To Say No To Jeb Bush
By: Steve - September 28, 2015 - 9:00am

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey of Iowa Republican voters released on September 22nd shows the GOP race still being dominated by political outsiders.

Donald Trump continues to lead with 24 percent, to 17 percent for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and 13 percent for former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Behind the three candidates who have never held elected office, Senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Marco Rubio (FL) round out the top five, each polling at 8 percent support.

Conspicuously absent from the lead pack is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Bush is tied for sixth place in Iowa with Mike Huckabee. Both men are polling just 6 percent. And Bush continues to hemorrhage support in Iowa. A month ago he was in fourth place at 11 percent, but in the past thirty days he has seen his support nearly cut in half.

Bush hasn't done himself any favors either by reminding voters of his family connection with the failed presidencies of his brother and his father.

While GOP voters are less likely than the general population to view George W. Bush's presidency negatively, even they can become uneasy when Jeb says silly things about his brother "keeping us safe" and how he was a great President, when we all knew he did not keep us safe and he was a terrible President.

Bush's struggles in Iowa, and across the nation, are likely to continue, because Republican voters do not particularly like him. In Iowa, 40 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Jeb Bush, compared to just 38 percent who hold a favorable opinion of him. With such mild support from the party's base, Jeb Bush has little room to grow.

The only candidate who saw a comparable decline in support in Iowa from August to September was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who saw the writing on the wall and quit.

Bush managed to stay one point above the Scott Walker line in Iowa (Walker polled 5 percent in the PPP survey, which was conducted prior to his announcement that he was suspending his campaign).

However, unless Bush picks up momentum soon, he could be the next major Republican candidate to exit the race for lack of support.

Given the direction his poll numbers are heading, it may not be long before we say good bye to Bush's 2016 candidacy. Nobody wants another Bush in the White House, and even Republican voters seem uninterested in another Bush presidency.

O'Reilly Let Fiorina Spin Out Lies About Her Time At HP
By: Steve - September 27, 2015 - 11:00am

The media has been reporting the truth about Carly Fiorina and her time at Hewlett Packard as CEO, where they got billions in tax breaks and laid off thousands of people at the same time. This is a fact, and she was fired for it, if she did a good job she would still be the CEO.

So O'Reilly helped her by putting her on his show and letting her lie about it with no fact-checking, he did this because he is a Republican and he wants to help her spin the facts. She said this to O'Reilly:

Fiorina claimed that during her tenure as CEO from 1999 to 2005, she saved 80,000 jobs, went on to grow 150,000 more jobs, tripled the company's rate of innovation to 15 patents a day, quadrupled both the cash flow and grow rate and brought Hewlett-Packard from a Fortune 28 company to a Fortune 11.

She noted that, yes, she had to make tough, controversial calls as a tech executive, but similar calls will have to be made by whoever becomes commander-in-chief.

And it was pretty much all lies, but O'Reilly never disputed any of it, he just kissed her rear end and let her spin away.

Here is the real story, for people who care about the actual facts:

As CEO, she lobbied for a tax holiday on corporate profits to create jobs. Instead, the money was used to buy back stock while HP fired 14,500 workers.

A blind person could see that Fiorina was the very face of corporate greed and income inequality during her five-year tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Take, for example, the cynically named Homeland Investment Act of 2004. The bill was passed as part of the equally cynically named American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 after intense lobbying with Hewlett-Packard in the forefront.

The aim of the legislation was to generate economic growth and therefore jobs at home by according corporations a one year "tax holiday" on billions in overseas profits they had stashed offshore.

The result was a $265 billion corporate giveaway. The windfall was supposed to go toward research and development, and other job-creating endeavors.

Instead, almost all of it was put into stock buybacks as a way of funneling cash to stockholders, these prominently including CEOs. Never mind that the bill actually prohibited such buybacks.

Hewlett-Packard saved more than $4.3 billion and put more than $4 billion into stock buybacks. While it laid off 14,500 workers, which is a fact, nobody even disputes it, they even admit it happened.

To make it all even uglier, Hewlett-Packard lobbied for the Homeland Investment Act as a member of something called the Homeland Investment Coalition -- this at a time when the "war on terror" was intensifying and the word "Homeland" made everyone think of national security.

The Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2002. We had just invaded Iraq in March 2003. And there was Fiorina sixteen months later, using the word "Homeland" to hustle the government out of billions with false promises of new jobs.

That may not be actual treason, but it is close enough to come very close, coming in the midst of our longest war, when some of our very best young people were returning home in coffins.

And it is no less ugly because numerous other corporations were part of the scam, these including fellow tech outfits such as Microsoft and Apple, as well as pharma giants such as Pfizer and Merck.

What makes Fiorina worse than the other CEOs who pushed The Homeland Hustle is her appearance at this month's Republican debate, during which she called for a $500 billion-plus boost in military spending.

"We need the strongest military on the face of the planet, and everyone has to know it," said this instigator of a wartime con.

Even the Bush administration saw through the scam and opposed the legislation. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers warned that the bill "would not produce any substantial economic benefits."

"There will be some stimulative effect because it pumps money into the economy," Phillip Swagel, former chief of staff of the Bush council, has been quoted as saying. "But you might as well have taken a helicopter over Beverly Hills and pushed the money out the door. That would have stimulated the economy as well."

Bush ended up signing the bill just two weeks before the 2004 election. The resulting tax holiday reduced the rate on returning overseas profits from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. The biggest winners were Pfizer, which brought back $37 billion while eliminating 10,000 jobs, and Merck, which brought back $15.9 billion while eliminating 7,000 jobs.

Hewlett-Packard came in third moneywise, repatriating $14.5 billion. But it seems to have topped all the others in job cuts, besting Pfizer by 4,500.

In a twist, one of the Hewlett-Packard employees who lost her job in 2005 was Fiorina herself when she was fired as CEO. That meant she was forced out even as the scam she made possible was carried out.

This particular cut actually cost the company. She departed with a $21 million severance package.

But that does not seem so excessive when you consider that Hewlett-Packard and the rest of the Homeland Investment Coalition engineered a multibillion-dollar fast one during her tenure.

A University of Kansas study estimated that in this particular instance, every dollar spent on lobbying translated into an average of $220 in tax savings for the companies involved. That was a 22,000 percent return, and considerably more when it came to Hewlett-Packard.

Now Fiorina is running for president, declaring that we need to spend billions more on the military. And O'Reilly never reported any of this, because he is covering for her.

Republicans Are The Party Of Hate - Racism - Ignorance & Intolerance
By: Steve - September 27, 2015 - 10:00am

Life would be so much easier if I had just been a Republican. You grab a Bible; go to church a few days a year; hang a big flag on your house; claim you support the troops, go buy a truckload of guns; only care about yourself; and repeat (like a robot) whatever talking points you are given by O'Reilly and the rest of the conservative media, and you're good to go.

No complex or critical thinking is required. In fact, both of those are highly discouraged. Look at some of the more well-known members of the conservative media; people like Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

These are people who have become stars among conservatives for simply spouting utter nonsense as often as possible. I firmly believe that right now I could go give a speech at a conservative event, have no idea what the event was about, and just using what I know about Republicans I could have people in attendance giving me standing ovations throughout most of my speech.

Just talk God and Guns, be Anti-Gay, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Mexican, Anti-Black, then slam Obama and all liberals, and you are a hero with Republicans. I could write that speech in 5 minutes, and mark off the standing ovation points as I do it.

It's not hard to do. These are the people who claim to stand for "Christian family values,” yet support draft-dodgers like Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump simply because they often make racist and insulting statements about President Obama and liberals in general.

I'm not sure how you can claim that you're defenders of "family values" when: Trump has been married three times (so much for that sanctity of marriage). Nugent dodged the draft (so much for supporting the troops), has threatened the president's life and is an admitted sexual predator. Limbaugh has been married four times (again, so much for sanctity of marriage), is an admitted drug addict and constantly insults women.

But it's okay because they all love guns and hate President Obama. And apparently that's all you really need to do in order to be loved by these good, wholesome Christians standing for family values and the moral majority.

And let's not forget the family values that were on full display a few months ago by tea party queen herself Sarah Palin during a late-night drunken brawl her family was involved in. Apparently, even her 5-year-old grandson was a witness to it.

Nothing says "good Christian values" quite like riding around in a limo late at night with several members of your family intoxicated, crashing parties -- with a 5-year-old in the car.

But, again, she loves guns and hates President Obama, so she's just fine by conservatives. The truth is, these people are nothing but cheerleaders for hate, ignorance and intolerance. Anyone can get on a stage and bash homosexuals, attack President Obama, praise guns and say "God Bless America" and these people would stand in awe, cheering like mindless drones programmed to respond to certain words or phrases.

That's really all it takes for conservatives to support anyone. If you can spout enough anti-liberal nonsense on a large enough stage, you're only a few steps away being the next conservative hero. Because at the end of the day, these people don't stand for anything.

They claim they're all about Christian values, but that's negated when they throw their support behind adulterers and sexual predators. It's just millions of people who are distracted by talking points, an American flag, a gun and the Bible. And when it's all said and done, they're really nothing more than cheerleaders for anyone who can get on a stage and preach hate, ignorance and intolerance.

Trump's Downward Spiral Continues During Interview With ABC News
By: Steve - September 26, 2015 - 11:00am

I knew this day was coming for a while, but I thought it would be much sooner. Donald Trump, the current GOP presidential frontrunner is finally starting to be exposed for the fool he is. Not only was his performance during the second debate shaky, he just seems to be running out of idiotic things to say. Then again, that's what happens when you've run a campaign based on nothing but soundbites and propaganda rather than substance or facts.

Well, for the first time in weeks the newest CNN/ORC poll showed Trump's support dipping 8 points from earlier this month, down to 24 percent. While it's just one poll, that's still a fairly significant drop. Not only that, but his fairly mixed debate performance was followed up by a controversial exchange during a campaign event where a man accused President Obama of being a foreign Muslim -- and Trump made absolutely no attempt to correct him.

While that's not exactly shocking, it has helped to further solidify the belief by many that Trump is a racist and a bigot. Then to make matters worse, Trump embarrassed himself during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos when the host pressed him on whether or not he thought President Obama was indeed born in the United States.

"So for the record, was President Obama born in the United States?" Stephanopoulos asked. "Well, you know, I don't get into it, George. I think about jobs," Trump said. "I'm talking about the military. I don't get into it. I mean they ask that question and I just want to talk about the things, because frankly, it's of no longer interest to me. We're beyond that. And it's just something I don't talk about."

"Well, the way to get beyond it is to answer yes or no," Stephanopoulos replied.

"Well, that's -- that's possible, but I don't get into it and I just don't talk about it," Trump countered. "So, and even though you've raised questions and you've investigated this in the past, you're still...." Stephanopoulos said before being cut off. "Well, you know, people thought I should have defended," Trump stated.

"Some people thought I should have defended the president in terms of the question that was asked the other night."

"President Obama was born in the United States. You've raised it many times. And he's not a Muslim?" Stephanopoulos pressed again.

"George, you have raised the question," Trump replied. "I haven't raised the question. I don't talk about it and I don't like talking about somebody else's faith. He talks about his faith and he can do that. But I don't talk about other people's faith. It's not appropriate for me to talk about somebody else's faith."

Yes, the man who could not stop obsessing about President Obama's birth certificate now suddenly doesn't want to talk about things such as his religion or if he's actually an American.

You can't make this stuff up. As Stephanopoulos pointed out, all Trump had to do was give a simple yes or no answer and he wouldn't even do that. The bottom line is this, Trump will probably never answer that question because he's a coward.

He's well aware that many of his supporters are racists and bigots, who don't believe President Obama is an American or a Christian. It's a sad day when it seems that pandering to bigotry can move you to the front of the line of one of the biggest political parties in the country.

John Boehner To Resign From Congress In October
By: Steve - September 25, 2015 - 11:00am

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will resign from Congress at the end of October, his office announced Friday.

In a statement, Boehner's office said that he had only planned to serve in Congress until the end of last year, but changed his plans when former Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) lost his seat.

Boehner was facing pressure from conservative Republicans over a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, and there were rumors that those members would try to oust Boehner as speaker.

"The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution," his office said in a statement.

Boehner, who was first elected to Congress in 1990, has served as speaker since 2011.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said that Boehner resigned because he knew that he could lose his position.

"There's no question conservatives had a victory here," he said. Huelskamp is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, the group that was trying to oust Boehner.

Across town, a group of social conservatives were gathered for the start of the annual Values Voter Summit, where dozens of politicians were scheduled to speak over the next few days. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla) delivered the news of Boehner's resignation to the summit to huge cheers and a standing ovation from attendees, underscoring the opposition Boehner often faced from within his own party.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Boehner's resignation "seismic," adding that it was "a stark indication of the disarray of the House Republicans."

Asked about the resignation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) skipped over the pleasantries and went straight to criticizing Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for making promises to conservatives and not keeping them.

Rep. John Flemming (R-La.) said Boehner played his decision close to his vest and that even Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) didn't know about it until the announcement.

Boehner had been scheduled to speak with reporters Friday morning after meeting with Republicans, but left the meeting by a back door and didn't talk to the press.

John Stossel Calls Out O'Reilly For Deceptive Editing
By: Steve - September 25, 2015 - 10:00am

Stossel: "Your Editor Split It Fifty-Fifty, But Almost Everyone Just Said No, No Problem, Without Hesitation"

Now remember this, O'Reilly has said a hundred times that noting is ever edited on the Factor, and this proves he is a liar. Another Fox employee even busted him, so he can not say it is a big liberal conspiracy. I have known this for years, because people send me un-edited transcripts, and they show me how dishonest O'Reilly is, by editing their segments all the time.

JOHN STOSSEL: I just wanted to add, the people -- I asked 25 people, I thought most would have an objection. And your editor split it fifty-fifty. But almost everyone just said no, no problem, without hesitation.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): This is New York City. If you go down to Mobile, Alabama, you'll find a little bit of a different vibe.

STOSSEL: Probably.

Basically, what O'Reilly had his editor do is take a segment Stossel filmed and distort it to make it look like the answers were a 50/50 split, to support O'Reilly's argument, when in fact it was closer to 90/10 against O'Reilly, so he doctored the video to make it look like he was right.

Then after getting busted by Stossel, he tries to explain away the dishonesty with a diversion, by saying he would get different answers in the south. When of course he would, because there are more right-wing racists in the south who hate muslims.

Which still has nothing to do with the Stossel survey he took in New York, that O'Reilly edited to make it look like they were split 50/50 in agreement with his point. This is deceptive and dishonest, and the exact opposite of what O'Reilly says he does, proving once again how unfair, biased, and dishonest he is.

Bill O'Reilly Challenges (Comedy Actor) Will Ferrell To A Debate
By: Steve - September 25, 2015 - 9:00am

The partisan right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly challenged Will Ferrell to a debate Tuesday, and yes I am being serious, it actually happened.

The so-called truth-telling serious journalist has called out a comedy actor to have a debate, who's next? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck?

During his Tuesday morning appearance on Fox & Friends, O'Reilly went off on the celebrities who have come out to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the presidency.

While never saying a word about the celebrities who endorse Republican candidates.

He singled out Ferrell in particular and challenged him to a debate. O'Reilly expanded on this on Tuesday night's Factor, saying that while he probably should not have singled Ferrell out, he would still be up for going a round or two with the Anchorman star on the issues of the day.

Why? Because O'Reilly doesn't think Ferrell and other celebrities actually understand the issues. But he says he only deals in the facts, then he speculates that Ferrell does not understand the issues, simply because he does not agree with O'Reilly. O'Reilly has no clue what Ferrell knows, and yet he says he does, when it is total speculation, something else he says he never does.

More Proof O'Reilly Is Lying About Obama & The Economy
By: Steve - September 24, 2015 - 11:50am

Headline: US new-home sales surge 5.7 percent in August to 7-year high

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Buoyed by steady job gains and low mortgage rates, Americans purchased new homes in August at the fastest pace in more than seven years.

New-home sales surged 5.7 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 552,000, the Commerce Department said Thursday. That is the strongest pace since February 2008, near the beginning of the Great Bush Recession. Last month's increase followed an even bigger 12 percent jump in July, according to the government's revised figures.

Healthy hiring and smaller price increases for new homes have finally begun pushing up sales, which were hammered during the Great Recession and recovered slowly even after the downturn ended in 2009. New home sales have soared nearly 22 percent in the past year.

Strong gains in new-home sales could accelerate the economy by boosting home building, which generates construction jobs, demand for more building materials and more spending on landscaping and other services.

Now remember this, just a few days ago O'Reilly said the Obama economic policies have been a failure, the economy is in chaos, and Obamacare is a disaster. Even though all the facts show the opposite, the economy is doing great, jobs are up, unemployment is down, gas is $2.00 a gallon, the debt is down, Obamacare is doing great, and O'Reilly is a lying piece of garbage.

Spending Bill Defunding Planned Parenthood Blocked In Senate
By: Steve - September 24, 2015 - 11:30am

Republicans lose again, and this time some of their own even voted against their own bill.

Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans filibustered the Thursday vote on a short-term spending bill that would have defunded Planned Parenthood. Not only did the the legislation fail to gain the 60 votes necessary for it to move forward, a bipartisan majority -- 52 to 47 -- voted against it.

Eight Republicans -- including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) -- joined Democrats in blocking the legislation.

GOP leaders had reportedly hoped that the vote would be enough to assuage conservatives threatening a government shutdown over the $500 million or so in federal funding that goes to the reproductive health organization.

According to Politico's Seung Min Kim, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told members the Senate will hold a vote on Monday for a "clean" temporary spending bill that would maintain government funding -- including Planned Parenthood's -- at its current levels for a few months while a larger budget deal is worked out.

And btw folks, even if it had passed President Obama said he would veto it, so it would just be another waste of taxpayer money and time vote by the stupid far-right anti-abortion Republicans. If Democrats were doing this kind of stuff O'Reilly would be all over it, but because he is a Republican, and an anti-abortion nut who agrees with them, he says nothing, not a word.

Hypocrite O'Reilly Uses Pope's Message To Slam Obamacare
By: Steve - September 24, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly is a massive hypocrite, and here is why. When someone is killed in a mass shooting and liberals use it to complain about Republicans and the NRA voting against background checks and stricter rules to buy guns, O'Reilly screams bloody murder and loses his mind.

O'Reilly does multiple shows and segments saying it is wrong for liberals to use the shooting for political reasons, and calls them every name in the book. He says they are partisan fools that do not love America.

Then the total hypocrite does the very same thing with something the Pope said about helping the poor. O'Reilly used the Pope's statement for political reasons to attack Obamacare, even though it is working and it is helping the poor get and keep health insurance.

O'Reilly: "There Is A Better Way To Deliver Health Services ... Than A Massive Government Intrusive Program"

Dear Bill O'Reilly, there probably is, but the corporate owned right-wing stooges in Congress would never agree to it, let alone vote for it. So Obama and the Democrats had to use their majority to pass a health care system when they had the chance, because they knew Republicans would never do it.

And it turns out Obamacare is working pretty good, far better than they thought it would, and 99% better than Republicans and O'Reilly said it would, so they were wrong, it has lowered the cost, not prevented jobs, is cheapr than they said it would be, and given million health insurance they would not have if not for Obamacare.

Here is the video:

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: Now that's a challenge to all Americans to help the downtrodden, but how to help them is the issue. Most Americans are very generous folks. But we must all be careful not to make problems worse in the name of compassion.

Let's take Obamacare, for example. It certainly helps poor people who cannot afford health insurance. There's no doubt the intention of that entitlement program is noble. But by forcing subsidized health insurance payments on businesses, President Obama has made it more difficult to create full-time jobs in America.

Thus, while some of the poor benefit, other Americans are punished because the job market is smaller and salaries are lower. It's well documented that many American businesses have cut back the hours of their employees, citing the cost of Obamacare.

So the truth is, there is a better way to deliver health services to the poor than a massive government intrusive program. Insurance competition and direct subsidies to the destitute on a case by case basis is the answer.

Now think about this, Bill O'Reilly is lying. Jobs are at record highs, and unemployment is down to 5 percent. The economy is doing great, jobs have increased by 100,000 or more every month for years, the stock market is doing great, GDP is great, the deficit is down to record lows, and every measure of the economy is doing good.

O'Reilly is lying, just look it up for yourself, he is a partisan hack who lies about Obama because he does not want to admit a Democrat is doing a good job of running the country, and that Obamacare is working, because he said it would be a massive failure that would bankrupt the country and kill all the jobs, and he was dead wrong, as usual.

Ron Reagan Says Author Bill O'Reilly Is A Snake Oil Salesman
By: Steve - September 24, 2015 - 10:00am

Reagan: "I Didn't Know My Father Was The Next One To Get Killed In Mr. O'Reilly's Universe"

Ron Reagan is discounting Bill O'Reilly's newest book about Ronald Reagan, calling O'Reilly a "snake oil salesman" who doesn't care about truth.

O'Reilly's new book is the latest in his ongoing series with co-author Martin Dugard. Their previous books have repeatedly been called out for shoddy scholarship.

"Bill O'Reilly is not somebody who as far as I can tell really invests a lot of time or energy in the truth," Reagan said on Monday. "He's a snake oil salesman, he's a huckster, he's a carnival barker, but that's about it. He's not a journalist. I don't consider him to be that. Is it annoying when anyone writes crap about your parents or your family members, loved ones? Yeah."

Reagan also criticized many of today's conservative commentators and presidential candidates for invoking his father's name and legacy to support their own views.

"It bothers me, that they're using him for whatever purpose they have in mind," Reagan said. "They'll just take whatever idea they have and they'll just slap his name on it and hope that that just gets them over. Certainly I don't feel good about that. I don't pay all that much mind to it any more than I pay to, say, Bill O'Reilly's forays into history."

Reagan, who was 22 when his father was shot in 1981 by John Hinckley, Jr., said he was not aware of the book about the failed assassination attempt, saying, "I didn't know my father was the next one to get killed in Mr. O'Reilly's universe."

According to Reagan, he's "not interested in his theories," so he does not plan to read O'Reilly's book.

Reagan thinks his father would have had a harsh view of prominent conservative media figures. "I can't imagine that he wouldn't have found them bigoted, homophobic and all the rest as they appear to be," he said.

"I also think that he would find people like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to be just hucksters. I don't think that he would be impressed by their sincerity or their intellect. I don't think that either one of them are really serious about what they say."

He also criticized the Republican candidates for pandering to conservative media figures, something he says his father would not have done.

According to Reagan, "Unlike a lot of politicians today, he didn't need the imprimatur of some talk show host, he was very much his own man. He wouldn't be worrying about what Rush Limbaugh said about him."

Reagan also said it's wrong for many of the Republican candidates and right-wing media figures to assume Reagan would have agreed with them.

"Most of the people who claim to be his followers have never even met him, never knew him," he said.

"You see that a lot. Did Ted Cruz hang out with my father? No. The broader issue I think is the Republican Party now has become a very different animal than it was when my father was president. It doesn't make sense either to start bringing up my father -- who left office a quarter of a century ago -- and styling yourself as you'd like people to think after him.

They're always asking themselves 'what would Ronald Reagan do?' in these circumstances and miraculously it always turns out that he would do exactly what they were intending to do; so clearly they're just using him to sort of validate whatever policy they have in mind."

He also agreed with the view of many observers that his father would not be welcomed into the Republican Party of today.

"That's true, if you compare his record then with their rhetoric and policies now, it would seem that Ronald Reagan really wouldn't be a good fit," he said.

"That's absolutely right. I don't see him being more conservative now than he was then. I don't see him if he had lived to be 100 and whatever continuing a progression in his politics that mirrors that of the Republican Party today -- it is a mean-spirited party."

"But more than that it's a party that's no longer a legitimate political party because it's forsaken any interest in governance. This is a party that when Obama came into office, of course, [party leaders] famously met ... and said 'we're going to oppose everything he does, even if it's things that we want to do, we're going to oppose it because the best way to get him out of office in four years is to just make it seem as if he can't do anything.' So that's what they set out to do, screw the country. They didn't care about that."

Asked about Reagan's immigration views, for example, his son said, "He had no hostility towards Latinos, Hispanics.

He admired their culture, enjoyed it very much ... There was no kind of xenophobia of that type in him. He would've I'm sure said, 'we have a right to control our borders' and things like that and if there were issues with people just flooding across the border that that was something that needed to be dealt with but he was not hostile toward these people.

"He would have been looking for a sensible, workable solution for this, not relying on the kind of jingoistic, bigoted stuff that you hear coming from Donald Trump and some of the others."

On gun violence, Reagan thinks his father would disapprove of how far to the right the National Rifle Association has driven the party on the issue, saying, "This is an instance where they have simply moved so far beyond him that he couldn't stomach it anymore ... I think he would see the NRA as becoming extremist and I think he would probably recognize as well, I'd like to hope so anyway, that they're really just shills for the gun industry."

Reagan also thinks his father would not have approved of Republicans recent threats to shut down the government: "I think he'd be appalled actually at ... the idea of shutting down the government because you want to defund Planned Parenthood. What are these, children? As if government doesn't do anything good."

Debunking The Biggest Republican Lies About Obama & The Middle East
By: Steve - September 24, 2015 - 9:00am

It sure is no secret that Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans love propaganda. Over the last few years I have been astonished at the nonsense many conservatives say is true. I can not count how many times I have heard Republicans say that President Obama's the one who caused the economic crash - even though it began before he ever took office.

Though with the economy harder to bash nowadays, Republicans have turned their sights on blaming this president for another issue caused by his predecessor: The current chaos in the Middle East. It's astounding to me that these folks have the gall to sit there and say that what's currently going on in the Middle East is the fault of President Obama - when it's all linked to the Iraq War Bush started and Obama opposed.

What's even more amazing is just how misinformed most conservatives seem to be about all of this. Then again, these are people who mostly just parrot what they're told by the conservative media, so it's not particularly shocking that they really don't know factual information about what's going on in the Middle East.

So, I thought I would debunk five of the most common lies I hear Republicans say in their desperate attempts to blame the chaos in the middle east on President Obama.

1) President Obama is the reason why American troops left Iraq:

This is easily the biggest right-wing lies I come across. The truth is that the timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was setup by George W. Bush in 2008 when he signed a SOFA agreement with the Iraqi government. President Obama simply enforced that agreement. And by the way, Dick Cheney called the SOFA agreement signed by his boss a "sign of success" in Iraq.

2) We're not doing anything to combat ISIS:

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! President Obama has literally ordered thousands of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. Aside from sending in ground troops, which even most Republicans haven't openly supported doing, just what the hell more do they want him to do?

3) President Obama let Syria spiral out of control, which helped strengthen ISIS:

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! Last year, the president asked Congress to vote on a resolution to allow him to do more in Syria - and Republicans prevented that from happening. The House couldn't get enough Republicans to support giving President Obama the power to take further action in Syria - now they are trying to blame President Obama for not taking further action in Syria. It's ridiculous.

4. We're less safe under President Obama:

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! Since Obama took office there have been more terrorists killed than during the entire 8 years George W. Bush was in the White House -- including the death of Osama bin Ladin, who Bush said he would get. If anything, this president gets hammered by some on the left for being the drone president. There's absolutely no evidence, aside from right-wing propaganda pulled out of thin air, to support the idea that we're less safe because of this president.

5. ISIS is the result of Obama's failed foreign policy:

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! ISIS is a direct result of the destabilization of the Middle East that followed the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and disbanding the Iraqi army, another decision Bush and Cheney made. The current chaos in the Middle East is all tied to the ripple effect that occurred as a result of Bush starting a war in Iraq that never should have happened in the first place.

It's insane to blame this president for issues that are a direct result of the incompetence and failed foreign policies of the president who came before him. Unless Bush's plan was to leave U.S. troops in Iraq (forever) a group like ISIS eventually causing serious problems there was always inevitable.

Iraq falling into chaos wasn't a matter of if it was going to happen, just when. Anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knew that the when was going to be just after American troops left. Again, the timetable for the removal of all U.S. forces from Iraq was set by Bush - not Obama.

Now, will me pointing out these facts make any difference in the minds of most Republicans? Hell no, they're going to believe what they want to believe, no matter what the facts tell them.

And O'Reilly, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent spews out all these right-wing lies and propaganda every night, as he claims to never use GOP talking points. What a joke.

Trump Declares War On Fox News And Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - September 23, 2015 - 11:30am

The on again/off again Donald Trump and Fox News feud is back on in a big way after the Republican frontrunner went a Twitter tirade against Fox and Bill O'Reilly.

Trump went off on Twitter and claimed that Fox News was unfair to him.

[email protected], why don't you have some knowledgeable talking heads on your show for a change instead of the same old Trump haters. Boring!

Trump soon began retweeting and quoting his supporters anti-Fox tweets that said they would boycott O'Reilly and Fox News.

Trump and his supporters do think CNN is fair to him.

"@Rbbrkhd: @realDonaldTrump @oreillyfactor @FoxNews The way you have treated @realDonaldTrump is totally unacceptable...CNN has been fair"

Trump said that Fox was hard to watch during Megyn Kelly's show.

@realDonaldTrump - I am having a really hard time watching @FoxNews.

Finally, Trump quoted his supporters calls for a Fox News boycott.

"@VickyBrush: Do what most of us are doing! Turn off @FoxNews! There is a major boycott going on with them, anyway. Problem solved!

Trump is creating a major headache for Fox News by doing what many believed was impossible. He is turning Fox News's own viewers against the network.

Unlike other Republican candidates, Trump doesn't need the endorsement of Fox News or the free media that their coverage can provide. Trump is his own media machine, so he doesn't owe Fox News anything.

On NBC's Today show, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly dismissed Trump as theater, "I've known Trump a long time, he wants people to like him. When people criticize him, he takes it personally. And this machine, this tweeting thing. The worst thing you can give Donald Trump is this tweeting thing. I think this is just an extension of his reality show, The Apprentice. This is just theater right now."

The right is so fractured that the current Republican frontrunner is in a state of war with the party's in-house cable television network. The longer Trump is allowed to rampage the more damage his does to Republican chances of victory in 2016.

GOP To Use Debunked Propaganda In Push For Government Shutdown
By: Steve - September 23, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly never facts checks any of their nonsense, he just lets them spin it out because he is one of them, and also an anti-abortion nut.

Shutting down the government is the act of a political party that's behaving like a spoiled child who's not getting their way. They accomplish nothing and just end up costing taxpayers a lot of money.

That still hasn't stopped Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz from stating that he supports shutting down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood. If you recall, Cruz also led the charge for our last government shutdown in 2013 concerning funding for the Affordable Care Act. That did no good at all, and did nothing but cost taxpayers money.

Just like in 2013, if the government is shut down, it will have been for nothing -- because there is no possible way Republicans like Cruz are going to win this fight.

Not only that, but all of this anti-Planned Parenthood nonsense is based on highly edited videos from a radical anti-abortion group that have already been debunked as misleading and inaccurate. It's amazing to me to watch members of a political party push this propaganda against Planned Parenthood that's not based on facts or even reality, but propaganda from a far-right anti-abortion group.

During the 2nd GOP presidential debate, Cruz actually tried to claim that Planned Parenthood has committed multiple felonies. Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina claimed the videos contained footage of a fetus with a beating heart, kicking its legs on a table while employees of Planned Parenthood talk about keeping it alive to harvest its brain.

There's just one problem with both of those claims: They are both lies!

Let's get real, if members of Planned Parenthood had committed multiple felonies as Cruz claims, someone would have been arrested. Then as it relates to this supposed video - it doesn't exist. All of this shutdown the government to defund Planned Parenthood nonsense is being driven by highly edited videos put together by a radical anti-abortion advocacy group.

There's a reason why this group selectively released these videos over several weeks as opposed to taking them directly to the FBI or some other law enforcement agency. If this was really about Planned Parenthood breaking the law (which they haven't), that is what this group would have done.

Not only that, look at the facts, 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with providing abortions. A lot of what Planned Parenthood does revolves around providing contraceptives for people to lower the number of unplanned pregnancies -- which actually reduces abortion rates.

If anything, it can be argued that Planned Parenthood does more to prevent abortion than any other organization in the country.

Not a single dollar from the government goes toward providing abortions. In fact, it's illegal for Planned Parenthood to use any federal money to perform abortions. So, when Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood, all they're really trying to do is strip away funding for the 97 percent of what the organization does -- which is provide various vital health care services for women.

The bottom line is this, Republicans are pushing us toward another possible government shutdown based on debunked propaganda from a radical anti-abortion group -- and it's yet another shutdown they can't win.

Not only do they not have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid the filibuster, but they certainly don't have the 67 votes needed to override a veto by President Obama.

So, if the government is shut down by a group of insane Republicans, we will be looking at exactly what we saw in 2013: A shutdown that has absolutely no chance of accomplishing anything positive for the country or the American people.

It's Official: Bill O'Reilly Is A Certified Right-Wing Propagandist
By: Steve - September 23, 2015 - 10:00am

Now get this, O'Reilly said that because the median income for working Americans is 6.5 percent lower than it was in 2007, it means President Obama's economic policies have failed.

Huh? That is insane for two reasons, to begin with Obama has nothing to do with the median income, that is decided by the wages corporations pay their employees and by the minimum wage rate. Something Obama has no control over, and in fact, he has asked corporations to give their employees a raise, and asked the Republicans to vote for a minimum wage increase.

And they said no to both, which is not Obama's fault, it's the fault of the corporations and the Republicans, but in O'Reillyworld that means it's Obama's fault. Which is pure right-wing insanity.

Second, every single other measure of the economy has increased greatly since Obama took office, the GDP, the jobs are way up, the unemployment rate went down to 5%, gas prices are near $2.00 a gallon, and the stock market is at record highs.

If Obama was a Republican O'Reilly would call him the greatest President ever, and praise his economic record, as he did with Bush, who did much worse than Obama did. But under Obama it's all doom and gloom with O'Reilly, because the median income is down 6 percent.

When none of it is Obama's fault, and everything else is booming. He cherry picks one stat and blames it on Obama, when he has no control over it, that is what you call bias and lies.

Here is the quote from O'Reilly, and my God does it show what a lying, dishonest, right-wing stooge he is:

O'REILLY: All of this P.C. fog has shrouded important issues. Like the new census report released last week. It says median income for working Americans is 6.5 percent lower than it was in 2007, seven years ago, because 2014 was the census stat. That means only one thing -- President Obama's economic policies have failed. Right?

Democrats will never admit that, but, facts are stubborn things. Unlike Mr. Obama, poverty and income inequality have become worse in America. Especially in the minority precincts. But the president will never say that. While salaries for working folks are down. But the president will never say that. And the liberal media largely ignores the facts, instead trumping up dopey stuff about Muslims.

Wrong, Idiot! You are wrong, and a partisan hack who is a disgrace to all journalists.

Beck: Trump's Campaign A Plot By Big Business & Liberals To Destroy Tea Party
By: Steve - September 23, 2015 - 9:00am

This is so insane it's laughable, and Beck is crazy. Earth to Beck, Trump is leading the polls in the GOP primary, that means the Republicans who vote in the primary like him. How the hell is that destroying the Tea Party, especially when they destroyed their own party by running far-right insane candidates. Almost nobody supports the Tea Party, except the far-right loons who agree with them.

Donald Trump has been saying a lot of things lately that have made the Republican Party look bad. Considering the fact that we have candidates like Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal or Ben Carson, that puts into perspective how extreme some of the rhetoric has been and how far the candidates are willing to go to win over right-wing primary voters.

A conservative pundit with some sense would look at this field and proclaim that the popularity of Donald Trump shows that there is something very, very wrong with the Republican Party. Considering the fact that the top three contenders in the race are a reality show billionaire, a disgraced former CEO, and a neurosurgeon who thinks Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery -- it isn't any wonder why many think the Republican Party is doomed.

This is why the GOP is currently scared to death over President Obama's push to get legal residents to become naturalized citizens and be able to vote, because these are new voters who would almost certainly not vote for Republicans, and for good reasons.

However, right-wing talk show host Glenn Beck has an explanation for Donald Trump's popularity in the Republican Party and with the Tea Party movement. It isn't because Trump panders to people who hate Muslims and embraces conspiracy stories like the discredited myth that vaccines cause autism -- his entire campaign is apparently a plot by big business and liberals to destroy the Tea Party.

Beck said this: "The Tea Party is eating its own," Beck said. "If I'm a guy who is a Republican establishment guy or I'm a liberal, I want to destroy the Tea Party. But if I'm a businessman, I want to destroy it as well. The reason why the GOP isn't suffering with their goals on campaign funds is because big business just wants business to go on. They know how to play the game. Look, Donald Trump has said, 'I give to everybody."

He knows how to play the game. He doesn't know how to play the game with a libertarian, small government guy who says, 'There's no game for you to play here, Donald, and we stand by the Constitution.' So you can't buy that person or bully that person out of their house any more."

"It makes sense that he doesn't want the Tea Party," Beck continued. "So what's as good as getting the presidency of the United States? Discrediting and destroying a movement that stands for true principles. Small government and maximum freedom, stand for those who want to disrupt the system that makes everybody rich."

"I think it is really important that you stand up," he warned, "and you separate yourself as a tea partier and say, 'That is not us, that is not us.'"

The funny thing is that a lot of the talking points Donald Trump is spouting out on the campaign trail are very similar to the ones Glenn Beck parrots on his show.

Beck has previously claimed that vaccines are part of a plot by the government to control the population and has repeatedly had guests on his show like Frank Gaffney who spout conspiracies about Muslims that would put Ben Carson's or Donald Trump's casual Islamophobia to shame.

Both Donald Trump and Glenn Beck are not serious political figures, they're entertainers who are performing for an audience which has a multitude of other acts from which to choose. They have to continually ratchet up the rhetoric and fear-mongering, or risk losing that audience to other political celebrities who will say the things they want to hear.

While this is good for Glenn Beck's bank account, his rhetoric (and that of others like him) is pushing the Republican Party ever further to the fringe, and hastening its demise.

Far-Right Loon Scott Walker Finally Drops Presidential Run
By: Steve - September 22, 2015 - 11:00am

Now think about this, O'Reilly and most of the GOP stooges at Fox News loved this guy, and had him as a front runner, then he opened his mouth in the debates and the polls showed a different story, they did not want him. When you poll at zero, it sends a message, you are too extreme and stupid for the far-right GOP primary voters.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has suspended his presidential campaign, effectively ending a once-promising GOP presidential bid that collapsed amid tepid debate performances, confusing statements and other missteps.

"Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field," Walker said in a brief speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday evening. "With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately."

Walker said that because the field is so crowded, candidates have become focused on personal attacks instead of the substantial issues that matter most to voters. He said Republicans have lost the "optimistic view of America" pushed by President Ronald Reagan, Walker's political idol, and urged those still running to "get back to the basics" with a focus on creating jobs, reducing the size of government and strengthening the military.

"To refocus the debate on these types of issues will require leadership," Walker said. "I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner. This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and, more importantly, to the future of our country."

In making that plea, Walker did not directly name the current front-runner, businessman Donald Trump.

The announcement stunned many of Walker's major supporters, donors, fundraisers and even some of his staff members. Given his tanking poll numbers, many expected dramatic changes to the staff and strategy -- but not such a sudden end.

As Walker slid in early polls, he seemed to struggle to find his place in the field, sometimes taking stances or using language that confused some of his longtime supporters. During the first Republican debate, Walker pitched himself as "aggressively normal" but seemed to disappear on the crowded stage.

While he tried to be more energetic during the second debate last week, Walker was again overshadowed and hardly spoke during the three-hour faceoff. There were always glimmers of hope within the campaign that the situation would improve, and Walker's campaign was constantly maneuvering -- first targeting Trump's supporters, then trying to tap into anti-establishment sentiments and then, just last week, focusing all of their energy on Iowa.

Throughout the summer, Walker made a series of confusing or contradictory comments that often took several days to fully clarify. In August, he seemed to endorse ending birthright citizenship, then said he didn't have a position on the issue, and then said that he did not want to change the constitution, which many believe guarantees citizenship to those born on U.S. soil.

In late August, Walker called building a wall along the Canadian border "a legitimate issue for us to look at," only to say days later that he never supported the idea and that his words were twisted by the media. Over Labor Day weekend, he refused to say if the United States should accept more Syrian refugees, telling reporters that it was a "hypothetical question" and that he wanted to talk about "reality" – only to say soon after that the United States should not accept more refugees.

Union leadership, which had long considered Walker a top target, reacted quickly Monday to reports that he was suspending his campaign. "Scott Walker is still a disgrace, just no longer national," AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said in a terse afternoon statement. In recent weeks, there were clear signs that Walker's campaign was in trouble. His poll results began to resemble a ski slope. And although the super PAC was flush with money, supporters worried that the campaign itself was running low on cash.

The large staff and paid consultants around Walker have been on what one called a "death watch" for the past several weeks. It was clear to many that a single bad debate performance would spell the beginning of a dramatic downsizing of Walker's campaign, with Walker staffers bracing for spending cuts, layoffs and a shake-up in the campaign leadership.

Following last week's debate, the frustration of many fundraisers and major donors exploded, as they demanded that Walker replace his campaign manager, Rick Wiley. Over the weekend, Walker skipped two previously scheduled appearances in Michigan and California, angering Republicans in states with high numbers of delegates, so that he could instead spend more time in Iowa.

There, he struck several people as looking exhausted and beaten down. Then again, maybe he just knew he could never win and nobody would vote for him, so he figured he would get out and stop making a fool of himself for the whole country to see.

This Post GOP Debate Poll Should Scare Republicans To Death
By: Steve - September 22, 2015 - 10:00am

The poll showed that 36 percent of poll respondents support Donald Trump; 12 percent support Ben Carson; and 10 percent support Carly Fiorina.

That's 58 percent of Republican debate-watchers who support one of the three candidates in the race with no experience in elected office. To put it another way, none of the twelve candidates in the field with political experience managed to get more than 10 percent of the vote.

Jeb Bush's numbers are terrible, and Scott Walker's are even worse.

Only 6 percent of the poll respondents said they would vote for Jeb Bush. That ties him with Chris Christie for sixth place (behind Trump, Carson and Fiorina, as well as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio). Just like Trump is still gaining support, Bush is somehow still losing it.

This is really bad news for the Republican establishment that their preferred candidate is getting 6 percent in the polls. And the man who was supposed to be his "conservative challenger" is doing even worse.

O'Reilly and his conservative friends had all hyped Bush and Walker a few months ago, and they are both doing terrible.

Scott Walker, who when the race started was the closest thing to the candidate of the conservative movement, is polling at 1 percent, which is down with the crazy Rand Paul.

Donald Trump Claims Voters Do Not Care He Knows Nothing
By: Steve - September 22, 2015 - 9:00am

This would be really awkward for O'Reilly and the Republican Party if they held consistent and honest values, but since they don't, they're not feeling the sting from a know-nothing wealthy and sexist racist who is polling first in the 2016 GOP presidential primary.

It's Donald Trump, touting his power to buy the presidency as a rich celebrity, in an interview with the New York Times:

“Expressing confidence that American voters do not care if he lacks specifics, Donald Trump says he has yet to fully exploit his personal advantages over his Republican presidential rivals (mostly his wealth and celebrity) and that both will matter more to his political fate than debate performances like his shaky one last week.

"Trump said that he was prepared to spend $100 million or more to become the Republican nominee and that most of it would go to galvanizing voter support in states with early nominating contests."

So basically he is admitting he is just trying to buy the Presidency.

Now remember when Republicans tried to accuse then sitting Senator Barack Obama of being a celebrity? They are getting that handed back to them on a big plate of payback.

Trump says the people (and by people, he is referring to Republican primary voters) don't care about his policies; they just want to hear him be an angry right-wing rich white guy, according to Trump.

"He said he did not give many specific answers at the debate because he believed that most people cared more about seeing his leadership style than hearing detailed policy plans, and that he preferred to speak in "broad strokes about his views."

Trump's views, like his birtherism, his hatred of immigrants, his belief that Mexicans are all rapists, the nasty things he says about professional women with whom he is interacting. Yes, those views are the views that the Republican base loves to see, because most of them have the same views.

Ironically, those views are also the carefully cultivated views that Republican establishment plants in their base in order to avoid discussing actual policies with them, so the horror of Trump's popularity is simply the natural evolution of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy.

This is what it takes to sell a debunked economic policy that is designed specifically to benefit the top 1% at the expense of the very people whose votes they need.

Sarah Palin was a 2008 warning shot to Republicans to get it together, but they decided to blame her and carry on in deep denial, pretending all was well. Then in 2012 they took refuge in establishment with Mitt Romney, who hates half the country. But even he couldn't sell the people the knife with which to stab themselves in the back.

So now here they are, eight years later, caught between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush -- or Sarah Palin with less knowledge of government and Mitt Romney with George W. Bush's last name and the George Bush foreign policy team to back up all that the Bush name stands for.

To make it rain trickle down economics, even though it has been proven to not work, Trump will just have to keep insulting everyone but white, hetero Christian males and those who identify with them.

Ask 9/11 Victims If George W. Bush Kept Us Safe
By: Steve - September 21, 2015 - 10:00am

In Wednesday night's GOP debate, Jeb Bush made the outrageous statement that his brother George W. Bush "Kept us safe."

Here is a news flash for Jeb: George W. Bush did not begin his term on September 12, 2001. The worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on his watch. And it occurred after he had systematically ignored intelligence warnings - before 9/11 - that Osama Bin Laden "was determined to strike the U.S." and that his terrorist network might try to hijack planes to do it.

There were no alerts to the airlines, no increased security, nothing, Bush did nothing to stop it, even though he was personally warned. So not only did he not keep us safe, he pretty much allowed 9/11 to happen by doing nothing about the warnings.

Terrorism was a low priority for the Bush Administration before 9/11. And just six months after 9/11, when asked about apprehending the mastermind of those attack, Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Instead his administration was busy cherry picking intelligence to justify an attack on Iraq that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The Iraq War did anything but "keep us safe." It was based on false "intelligence" that Saddam Hussein had non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It cost over 4,000 American lives and maimed or injured tens of thousands more. It cost America trillions of dollars. Worst of all it served as a recruitment tool for Al Qaida and other terrorist networks around the world.

In fact, rather than "keep us safe," a 2006 intelligence report concluded that the War in Iraq "made the overall terrorism problem worse." It also kicked over the sectarian hornet's nest in the Middle East and created the conditions that spawned Al Qaida in Iraq that ultimately turned into ISIL (there was no Al Qaida in Iraq before the invasion).

Of course you can understand why Jeb Bush insists that his brother "kept us safe". He has surrounded himself with many of the very same foreign policy advisors that presided over the worst foreign policy record in half a century.

They are the same crowd that most recently tried and failed to sink the six-nation agreement to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without a war.

After a while it gets sickening to listen to their attempts to rewrite history and posture as tough foreign policy geniuses when in fact they conducted a foreign policy that put America and our interests at more risk and sent thousands of young men and women to their deaths in an unnecessary elective war.

But the thing that is most galling is their refusal to take any responsibility for allowing the nation to be subjected to the worst attack on the homeland in 70 years.

It is simply outrageous that the Bush crowd would have the audacity to say they "kept us safe" after presiding over the 9/11 debacle - and the inept, ineffective, ideologically driven response that followed.

The Republicans have been fixated for years on the tragic death of one American Ambassador and his aides in Benghazi - even though he was knowingly taking risks to advance America's foreign policy goals in Libya and there is not one shred of evidence of official wrong doing.

Can you imagine the investigations and vicious smears of Democrats that would have ensued had Al Gore been President at the time of the 9/11 attacks?

Democrats did not use those horrible attacks to their political advantage. But the chutzpa required for Jeb Bush to argue that George Bush actually kept America safe is simply beyond the pale - and can't be ignored.

Of course it wasn't just Bush's failed defense and foreign policies that left everyday Americans less secure. His trickle down economics lead to the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression; cost 8 million Americans their jobs; and did economic damage that, years later, has just begun to heal.

George Bush left President Obama an economy that was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month when he took office in 2009. And the collapse of the financial markets on Bush's watch whipped out $2 trillion in retirement savings.

Is that what he means by "keeping us safe."

And who can forget how he kept the people of the New Orleans and the Gulf Coast "safe" when they were struck by Hurricane Katrina. Over a thousand Americans died because the levies failed in New Orleans and the Bush Administration's response was infamously inept and days too late.

In response to Jeb Bush's delusional statement at the latest Republican presidential debate that his brother George "kept us safe", which he doubled down on a day later, Americans United for Change has unveiled a new TV ad, "Safe?" airing next week nationally on cable new stations.

The evidence is clear. The best ways to keep America truly safe are never to forget just what George W. Bush did to America -- and to keep Jeb Bush and the entire Bush gang a "safe" distance away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the levers of American political power.

Maher Does Real Journalism Over 11 Wrong Republican Predictions
By: Steve - September 21, 2015 - 9:00am

And the rest of the media never says anything about any of this. Bill Maher hit Republicans right between the eyes with reality by debunking 11 predictions the Republican Party got wrong.

After asking why Meet The Press continues to have Dick Cheney on after he was wrong about Iraq, Bill Maher got to the meat of his commentary by running off a list of Republican lies and bad predictions.

Maher said this:

During the last election Mitt Romney said, "If President Obama is elected you will not be able to get a job." But unemployment is now lower than it ever was under Reagan. It's Romney who can't get a job.

Mitt also said if we bailed out the car companies you could kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. But we did bail them out, and it's doing better than ever.

Donald Trump said Obamacare would be a job killer. But it didn't kill jobs. It didn't result in death panels. It didn't bankrupt the states. It didn't bankrupt the nation. It didn't bankrupt Medicare. It didn't bankrupt the insurance industry.

Here's what actually happened. Insurance companies got richer; some kids got inhalers, and John Boehner had to pay more taxes on his tan.

Or how about Newt Gingrich in 2012 saying if you want ten dollar a gallon gasoline, Barack Obama should be your candidate.

Gas is now $2.11 a gallon here in central Illinois, but O'Reilly and the GOP never mention the gas prices anymore, when it was over $3.00 a gallon O'Reilly cried about it every night and they blamed it all on Obama, now that it's about $2.00 a gallon they have gone silent and do not give Obama credit for it.

Or the NRA president saying that a reelected Obama would erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. Or Rick Santorum warning that if gay marriage became the law of the land our country will fall. Wrong!

You know, for a party that's so anti-gay, they sure pull a lot of stuff out of their ass.

The basis for the Republican Party's comprehensive track record of being wrong about everything is their decision to oppose anything President Obama suggests. The Republican refusal to compromise combined with a failed social and economic ideology has created an inability for Republicans to be right.

They have virtually been wrong about everything, and now they want you to put them in the White House, give me a break, I would not vote them in the any house, except the nut house. And O'Reilly pretty much supports them all, because he is a Republican.

The Republican refusal to recognize facts has left them living a parallel universe that is governed by their feelings and beliefs. Republicans can't share common ground with the rest of us because they invent their own reality.

Until Republicans decide to join the rest of us, they are going to be off on an island watching the rest of the world pass them by. The United States is changing, evolving, and growing while the castaways on GOP island cling on to their racist, anti-gay, anti-immigrant past.

Carly Fiorina Lied About Planned Parenthood During GOP Debate
By: Steve - September 20, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly promoted what she said and ignored the fact that she was lying, but a guest on the Factor would not let O'Reilly get away with it.

Glenn Kessler, from the Washington Post was on to explain to O'Reilly what Fiorina got wrong about Planned Parenthood.

Kessler: "There Was No Actual Footage Of That Procedure" Fiorina Mentioned In The Videos.
KESSLER: Well, what she's describing, in one of the videos there's an interview with a woman who worked at a biotech startup in which they received fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood affiliates in California.

And she does describe this procedure -- what she claims she witnessed -- where they would harvest the brain. There was no actual footage of that procedure. There was intercutting videos of a fetus from an organization that provides stock footage of abortions.
So as usual, O'Reilly takes lies from a Republican (does not fact-check it) and promotes the lie as if it is true, this is what Bill O'Reilly does folks, it's called bias and propaganda to push an agenda, an anti-abortion agenda.

Here are the actual facts:

Some of the media are praising former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's performance at Wednesday night's Republican debate, declaring her the winner of the 11-person GOP free for all. In the way that the American press scores political debates, where striking cheap emotional chords with viewers counts for more than making coherent policy arguments, Fiorina probably did win the debate.

However, voters should be concerned that Fiorina built her debate victory on a bed of lies. None of those lies was more blatant than her emotional diatribe against Planned Parenthood. During the debate, Fiorina said this:
I dare, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. This is about the character of this nation!
To loud applause, she concluded her rant by saying this:
And if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.
Fiorina's so-called horror story was a real crowd pleaser, but there was one problem, it was all lies, and rather than daring Clinton and Obama to view the video tapes maybe she should watch them herself first. Nowhere in the 12 hours of sting videos released by the biased and dishonest anti-abortion group attempting to defame Planned Parenthood, does the gruesome scene Fiorina mentions take place.

The brain harvesting discussion and the fully formed fetus flailing on the table are not anywhere in the tapes Fiorina urges Obama and Clinton to view. But that doesn't matter to Fiorina. She knows that by making up scary tales about Planned Parenthood, she can further her political career and endear herself to the far-right right-wing, anti-choice religious fanatics who vote in GOP primaries.

The Republican debate was full of candidates spreading lies, but Fiorina's recounting of watching a horrifying video that doesn't exist was the night's biggest whopper. Yet, sadly it went unchallenged by any of her GOP opponents, who are all too willing to spread their own lies about Planned Parenthood. The organization is a convenient bogeyman for the GOP to demonize in order to score cheap political points and gain votes with their far-right base.

And on top of the lies, none of the CNN moderators dared to call out Fiorina for her bald-faced lie. Rather than swallow her fake horror story, one of them should have dared her to watch the video again because the scene she describes is a figment of her imagination.

Shame on Carly Fiorina for making up the lies, and shame on CNN for letting those lies go unchallenged.

Demanding honesty from our politicians is a test about the character of our nation. If we will not stand up and demand that Carly Fiorina stop spreading blatant lies, then shame on us too.

And this lie can easily be proven, by just watching the video, but they still lie about it and they get away with it because nobody calls them on their lies. O'Reilly and the Republicans are also lying that the videos show they were selling body parts, which is another lie.

They sell fetal tissue, not body parts, for a small amount on money, usually $100 or less. And the tissue is used for medical research, which is done in every country in the world. They are not selling body parts, that would be illegal, and the videos were edited to make things look bad.

In fact, Dr. Ben Carson (the Republican running for President) has even bought and used fetal tissue in his medical practice, even though he is anti-abortion. Because it is legal and nobody thinks it is wrong, except for insane far-right anti-abortion nuts.

O'Reilly never explains any of this, he just puts out the anti-abortion propaganda, with no fact-checking, because he is also an anti-abortion nut. It's about as dishonest as a so-called journalist can be, and yet O'Reilly does this stuff almost every night, while telling you he is a truth-teller, which is just laughable.

Fact Checking Republicans Is Not Good For Them
By: Steve - September 20, 2015 - 10:00am

Notice that O'Reilly did no fact-checking of the Republicans, all he did was have partisan guests on to grade the candidates. But when Democrats say things, O'Reilly fact-checks every word they put out.

CNN did, and here are some of the results.

Fact check: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he was named U.S. attorney by President George W. Bush on September 10, 2001.


Fact check: Donald Trump says Wisconsin is losing $2.2 billion.


Fact check: Bush says U.S. has failed to bolster ties to any nation under Obama.


Fact check: Trump says he never lobbied Bush for casinos in Florida.


Fact check: Bobby Jindal says letting more Syrian refugees into the U.S. would involve a circumvention of the normal immigrant vetting process.


President Obama Slams Trump & The Gop For Saying America Is Not Great
By: Steve - September 20, 2015 - 9:00am

And btw folks, when George W. Bush was in office and liberals said he was ruining America, O'Reilly slammed them and called them un-American traitors, but when Republicans do the very same thing under Obama, O'Reilly is silent, especially when his friend Donald Trump does it.

O'Reilly even told liberals who had bad things to say about America under Bush that they should move to Russia and he would buy their one way plane tickets. But now that a Democratic President is in the White House somehow it is now ok with O'Reilly for the Republicans, Trump, and even himself, to slam America and say we need to make America great again by putting a Republican in the White House.

During his speech to the Business Roundtable Wednesday, President Obama started by taking down Donald Trump for claiming that America is not great.

The President said this:
OBAMA: Everything is dark, and everything is terrible. They don't seem to offer many solutions. There's nothing particularly patriotic or American about talking down America, especially when we stand as one of the few sources of economic strength in the world.

If our leaders can put common sense over ideology, and the good of the country over the good of the party then we'll do just fine. Despite the perennial doom and gloom that I guess is inevitably a part of every presidential campaign, America is winning right now.

America's great right now. We can do even better, but the reason I'm so confident about our future is not because of our government, or the size of our GDP, or our military, but because everybody in this country that I meet regardless of their station in life, their race, their religion, the region they live in. They do believe in a common creed that if people work hard in this country, they should be able to get ahead.
Republicans would have nothing to run on if they admitted that America is doing better than almost everyone else. Donald Trump's whole campaign is based on the feeling among O'Reilly and his Republican friends that America is not great now under Obama, even though everything has improved while he has been in office.

There is an unpatriotic feeling to Trump, O'Reilly, and the Republican Party's constant talking down of America. According to Trump and others, America is only great when a Republican is in office. The only reason they don't think that America is great is because they aren't in power.

Donald Trump bad mouths America, but he has no plan for how to improve the country. His whole platform is a cult of personality centered around Trump's self-described greatness, with no policy details.

Trump's entire presidential campaign is a gimmick, but President Obama cut through the bluster to do more damage than any of the Republican frontrunner's opponents are capable of.

O'Reilly and the Republicans will spend hours telling each other how lousy the country is, but President Obama was correct. Their talk is not only factually inaccurate. It is unpatriotic, and Obama hit on the fatal flaw that is destined to doom Republicans in 2016.

Negativity turns off voters, but negativity is all that Republicans have got. The one time candidate of hope and change demonstrated why positive thoughts about America and its future will always win on Election Day.

And to be honest, Trump is never going to be the President. He is only winning in the polls for the Republican primary, because he is famous and well known, and he is working the far-right of the Republican party with racism and hate, which is what they love.

After Watching The 2nd GOP Debate I am Glad I Am Not A Republican
By: Steve - September 19, 2015 - 10:00am

After watching Wednesday night's 2nd GOP presidential debate, I have never been more proud of the fact that I am not a Republican. That debate was one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. For a while I even thought I was watching Saturday Night Live, instead of an actual political debate.

And until the field is down to about 4 or 5 candidates, these debates are pointless. I lost count how many times Jake Tapper asked a specific question, only to have the candidates often avoid answering, typically going off on some completely unrelated tirade. I would say 90% of the night consisted of each candidate personally attacking President Obama, the Iran deal, Planned Parenthood, immigrants, Donald Trump, or the Supreme Court.

I sat in front of my television for almost 3 hours and I can not tell you a specific plan any of these candidates has other than a couple of references to a flat-tax. Which, by the way, is nothing more than a huge tax hike on the poor and middle class while massively cutting taxes for the wealthy, that also benefits all of them because they are all millionaires and billionaires.

It is a testament to the sad nature of the GOP when the so-called winner of the debate (at least according to most political pundits) was Carly Fiorina, essentially because she presented herself well. Forget the fact that practically nothing she said had any sort of substance, or the fact that she basically said that if she were elected president she would likely end up starting WWIII with Russia.

As long as you are a candidate who can memorize talking points well, then deliver them in a confident manner, getting your facts straight simply doesn't matter.

If you listen to the right-wing pundits, to be a strong presidential candidate one must only possess the ability to speak well during a debate. It doesn't matter what you're saying, just as long as you say it proudly. One of my favorite parts of the debate came after several of the candidates had been bashing President Obama's foreign policy, prompting Tapper to point out that it was congressional Republicans who refused to give the president the ability to take further action in Syria.

That's when they began trying to blame him for the fact that they wouldn't vote to give him the ability to do more in the war-torn nation. It was like watching two anti-Obama propaganda trains collide head-on. On one side it was the, 'President Obama let Syria spiral out of control, which has empowered ISIS' rhetoric colliding with the, 'Well, as congressional Republicans we didn't give him the authority to do more because we don't trust this president.'

They were literally trying to claim that President Obama had not done enough in the Middle East -- while at the same time admitting that their party refused to give him the power to do more. Though, aside from a couple of candidates saying they'd put U.S. forces back in the Middle East, almost none of these clowns pointed to anything specific that he's done wrong or they would have done differently.

I sat back looking at the sideshow I was witnessing, often thinking to myself, "How the hell can anyone support any of these people?" While neither Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders are perfect candidates, at least both are running on something.

During the democratic primary race we've seen each candidate come out with huge ambitions to fix our health care system; make education more affordable; reform our flawed prison system; profess their desire to raise our minimum wage; protect women's rights; and to do something about stopping the record amounts of money corrupting our government thanks to the Citizens United ruling.

A novel concept, right? Presidential candidates running on what they plan to do, not just against whatever their opponent says they want to do.

As a liberal Independent, I feel lucky. Because the worst Democrats will do for 2016 is either Clinton, Sanders or Biden? I'll take that all day. While I've been vocal about my skepticism that Sanders can win in the general election, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote for him if he were to become the nominee. In fact, I'd be proud to vote for any of them.

Now over on the Republican side, the four leading candidates are: Donald Trump: An arrogant, bigoted sexist billionaire who spends 70 percent of his time telling everyone how great he is. Not only that, but he flat-out admitted last night that he doesn't know much about foreign policies and the threats the United States faces globally -- but he'll learn about them before he's elected.

Ben Carson: A neurosurgeon who has absolutely no qualifications to actually run for president much less get elected. Carly Fiorina: A woman who laid off thousands of workers during the same period of time she was buying several private jets as CEO of HP -- who then proceeded to nearly run the company into the ground. She was ultimately fired in 2008 for being absolutely terrible at her job.

Jeb Bush: The brother of George W. Bush, one of the worst presidents in United States history - enough said. Those are the leading GOP candidates. Just let that sink in for a moment.

The second debate was tough to watch; it was disorganized and way too long. Even as someone who follows politics closely, less than halfway through the debate I just wanted it to end.

Like I said, after watching that circus I have never been more proud of the fact that I'm not a Republican. While I know most conservatives won't be embarrassed by Wednesday night's GOP debate, I'm embarrassed for them. And I truly feel sorry for anyone who is so blinded by ideology that they would support anyone standing on that stage.

Jon Stewart Slams Congress Over 9/11 First Responders Health Care Bill
By: Steve - September 19, 2015 - 9:00am

Standing in front of the U.S. Capitol, Jon Stewart, the retired host of The Daily Show, unloaded on Congress for their indifference to the plight of 9/11 first responders who have suffered injury or illness because of their acts of valor on September 11th, 2001.

Stewart was in Washington with a group of 9/11 workers, lobbying Congress to extend the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act which is set to expire in a month, potentially eliminating critical health programs that benefit more than 33,000 emergency workers who sacrificed their well-being to rescue others on September 11th, 2001.

Stewart apologized to the rescue workers, saying he was embarrassed that their presence in Washington was even necessary. Stewart lashed out at Congress insanity and spoke passionately, as he said this:
I'm embarrassed for our country. I'm embarrassed for New York, I'm embarrassed that you, after serving so selflessly with such heroism, have to come down here and convince people to do what's right for the illnesses and difficulties that you suffered because of your heroism and because of your selflessness.
At the end of his statement, he really slammed Congress, by saying this:
"Nobody had to lobby you to rush to those towers that day."
He is slamming them for the non-renewal of the bill, as they all gave speeches praising the First Responders a few days ago, while not voting to re-new the bill to give them the health care they not only need, they deserve.

An estimated 130 firefighters and 85 law enforcement officers have died from illnesses associated with exposure to dust and toxins at Ground Zero, according to the group Citizens for the Extension of the James Zadroga Act, an organization lobbying on behalf of extending the legislation.

Extending the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act should be bi-partisan and uncontroversial. The nation owes these heroes the health care they deserve, for putting themselves in harm's way in a time of crisis, to help others.

The organization plans to meet with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other members of Congress this week. The rescue workers have already done their part. Now it is time for Congress to extend funding for their health care coverage.

Jon Stewart is 100% right. It is a national embarrassment that Congress needs to be pressured into doing the right thing. The Act should be extended on a unanimous vote, without the need for anybody to remind members of Congress that providing health care for 9/11 rescue workers is the right thing to do.

Obama Slams Republicans For Their Un-American Immigrant Bashing
By: Steve - September 18, 2015 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never reports a word about it, because he is a conservative who agrees with the Republicans over immigration.

President Obama is speaking his mind, and now that he does not have to worry about a re-election he is not holding back. The President took Republicans to task during a town hall in Iowa for their un-American immigrant bashing behavior.

Obama said this:
And this whole anti-immigrant sentiment that's out there in our politics right now is contrary to who we are. Because unless you are a Native American, your family came from someplace else.

And although we are a nation of laws and we want people to follow the law, and we have been working -- and I've been pushing Congress to make sure that we have strong borders and we are keeping everybody moving through legal processes -- don't pretend that somehow 100 years ago the immigration process was all smooth and strict and -- that's not how it worked.

There are a whole bunch of folks who came here from all over Europe and all throughout Asia and all throughout Central America and all -- and certainly who came from Africa, who it wasn't some orderly process where all the rules applied and everything was strict, and I came the right way. That's not how it worked.

So the notion that now, suddenly, that one generation or two generations, or even four or five generations removed, that suddenly we are treating new immigrants as if they're the problem, when your grandparents were treated like the problem, or your great-grandparents were treated like the problem, or were considered somehow unworthy or uneducated or unwashed -- no. That's not who we are. It's not who we are.

We can have a legitimate debate about how to set up an immigration system that is fair and orderly and lawful. And I think the people who came here illegally should have the consequences of paying a fine and getting registered, and all kinds of steps that they should have to take in order to get right with the law.

But when I hear folks talking as if somehow these kids are different from my kids, or less worthy in the eyes of God, that somehow they are less worthy of our respect and consideration and care -- I think that's un-American. I do not believe that. I think it is wrong. And I think we should do better. Because that's how America was made -- by us caring about all our kids.
Logic and facts have no impact on Republicans, so maybe calling out their racism disguised as fake patriotism will have an impact. President Obama was correct. Republicans aren't engaging in a legitimate debate. A debate on immigration policy has been replaced by a furthering of the centuries old ugly American tradition of immigrant bashing.

The propaganda that Republicans are putting out is an attempt to hide the real source of the nation's problems. Republicans are blaming immigrants to hide their role and responsibility for the nation's problems.

As Bernie Sanders said, "It was not undocumented people in this country whose greed and recklessness on Wall Street drove us into the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. It wasn't undocumented people in this country who got us into a war in Iraq that we never should have gotten into. It wasn't undocumented people in this country who gave huge tax breaks to billionaires and are fighting to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And I think they're being used as a punching bag, and I resent that."

The Republican behavior is embarrassing and very un-American. Luckily, we have a president who will not allow the promotion of hatred and bigotry without pushing back.

Scott Walker's Plan To Gut Unions Strips 5 Million Of Overtime Pay
By: Steve - September 18, 2015 - 9:00am

In a speech Monday in Las Vegas, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will try to rally his plummeting poll numbers by promising to take his war on labor unions to a national level. If elected president, Walker says he will enact a federal version of the controversial "right-to-work" law he signed in Wisconsin earlier this year, which caused union membership to plummet.

He also plans to take his elimination of Wisconsin's prevailing wage law nationwide, meaning lower pay for workers on public works construction projects.

In a multi-point plan he's calling "Power to the People," Walker is also promising to eliminate the National Labor Relations Board -- which investigates and protects workers from unfair labor practices. Calling the Board "broken beyond repair" and "a one-sided advocate for big labor special interests," Walker plans to divide up its responsibilities between federal courts and the National Mediation Board.

Walker could carry out some of his plan unilaterally, using executive orders, but some major pieces, such as the elimination of all unions of federal workers, would require approval from Congress, gutting laws that have been on the books since the Great Depression.

In the text of his plan, Walker makes several inaccurate representations of current law, such as saying "workers deserve to have the freedom to choose whether they want to be in a labor union or not" when such freedom is already in place. He also vows to reverse the Obama Administration's recent order giving 5 million more American workers the right to be paid for overtime hours.

And btw, the latest poll from Marquette University shows Walker's approval rating in Wisconsin at the lowest point ever during his time as governor, at 39 percent. Walker is 7th in the Republican primary race at 4.2 percent, so basically he is not liked by hardly anyone.

Even as more evidence accumulates proving labor unions shrink income inequality, increase social mobility, narrow the gender pay gap, and raise wages for everyone -- particularly workers of color -- Republicans in Congress and in state governments have made a concerted effort to reduce their power.

Over the past few years, Republican lawmakers have sought to weaken the NLRB by refusing to confirm any nominees to fill its empty seats, and they've been aided in that effort by the conservative members of the Supreme Court. Without a functioning labor board with at least three members, workers across the country have nowhere to report intimidation from their bosses or abusive work conditions.

Though he has been the loudest and most adamant, Scott Walker is far from the only GOP candidate in the 2016 race to make such promises. Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul have all taken time on the campaign trail to criticize labor unions and vow to strip them of various rights.

Walker's new plan to go after organized labor nationwide -- which labor experts have called draconian and unprecedented -- may be an attempt to stand out in a field of candidates steadily outpacing him in the polls.

In a nod to this Wednesday's GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, Walker compared his crackdown on collective bargaining to President Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic control workers, saying, "It was a bold move -- at great political risk -- but it was the right thing to do."

How the message will play in Las Vegas, a city with strong service industry workers unions, remains to be seen.

Note To Jeb Bush: The 9/11 Attacks Happened Under George W. Bush
By: Steve - September 17, 2015 - 11:00am

Dear Jeb, you are a fool. Your brother was the President from 1-20-2001 until 9-11-2001. In case you can not count, that's a full 8 months, which is 3/4 of a year. And during that time he had numerous meetings with people in the Government about terrorism, he even got a Presidents Daily Breifing that was titled "Bin Laden to strike in the USA" and he ignored it.

So your brother allowed the 9/11 terrorist attack that killed 3000 people, by doing nothing, even though he was warned to do something. That means he did not keep us safe, so you are not just a fool, you are a lying ignorant fool.

And not only did he not keep us safe, he made terrorism worse all over the world by invading Iraq and disbanding the Iraqi Army, which led to the formation of ISIS. And none of it was Obama's fault, because he was not even the President until 7.5 years later.

For once Trump got something right, he said Iraq was a disaster and he was against it. Your brother was a disaster, and one of the worst Presidents we have ever had. Then on top of all that, he destroyed the economy, the housing market, the jobs, the banks, and crashed wall street.

Your brother screwed up everything, and if he had been in office for another year we might have had a 2nd great depression. Oh, and one more thing, Obama won because of your brother. He was so bad the country elected a black man for the first time ever, and most of that was because your brother was so bad, and because Obama opposed the Iraq war.

Lawmakers Who Praised 9/11 Heroes Not Voting On Bill To Help Them
By: Steve - September 17, 2015 - 10:00am

Most members of Congress had something to say about never forgetting the heroes of 9/11 as the 14th anniversary of those attacks passed Friday, but by the end of the day, only about a third of federal lawmakers had signed onto new legislation to aid those ailing responders.

The old law to help those responders passed nearly five years ago. It begins expiring next month, yet legislation to extend that aid remains stuck in Congress. More than a dozen lawmakers threw their support behind the bill over the last week, but that brings the numbers to only 145 out of 435 House members and 37 of 100 senators.

That's far fewer than the majority required to pass a long-term version of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, and head off interruptions in care to more than 33,000 ill 9/11 responders around the country.

Yet many of the legislators who wrapped themselves in declarations of "Never Forget" on the Friday anniversary are among those who have not backed the bill, or even voted against the original measure.

Indeed, a quick search through Twitter on Friday found the only one of the Senate's 2016 White House aspirants who didn't declare "Never Forget," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is also the only one to back the bill helping sick responders.

The rest all declared their unfailing memories even though they have not backed the legislation.

Republicans Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, etc. praised the 9/11 first responders, while not voting for the bill to help them with medical bills etc. for what happened to them on 9/11, which is an outrage.

And it's not as if they have not had a chance to think about it. They've all been asked about it, and have been reluctant to explain their opposition. Advocates for the legislation have made dozens of trips to Capitol Hill -- often with their wheelchairs and oxygen tanks -- lobbying hundreds of lawmakers and their staffs over the past year.

And while many missed the opportunity of the grim anniversary to become bill supporters, the advocates are giving them another high-profile chance next week on Wednesday, when former "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart is set to hold a rally for the bill and visit reluctant lawmakers with 9/11 responders.

Stewart and company certainly noted the dishonesty of legislators who expressed devotion to 9/11 responders, but have not pushed for the permanent bill to help them.

"For those members of Congress who spent today [Friday] making statements about 'Never Forgetting,' who still do not go on the bill after learning the extent of the health problems faced by so many from 9/11, we know that Jon Stewart knows how to point out hypocrisy," said Ben Chevat, the executive director of Citizens for the Extension of the James Zadroga Act, which is pushing for the bill.

His group maintains a web tool that tracks congressional support, and lets users contact lawmakers about the bill directly.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) used the occasion of the anniversary to implore her party to back the legislation, although more than 100 House Democrats already have. There are only 33 House Republicans supporting the bill, with just six in the Senate.

Chevat put a positive spin on the slowly growing number of politicians who have backed the bill.

"As members of Congress get the chance to learn the size and scope of the health crisis facing 33,000 of their constituents, in every state, the disabling illnesses and cancers that afflict so many, they do remember 9/11, when the nation was united," Chevat said.

The part of the Zadroga Act that funds treatment for illnesses expires in October, although it is expected to have enough money in reserve to keep operating for a while longer. The portion that pays compensation expires on Oct. 3, 2016.

Anyone who develops one of the slow-moving cancers or lung ailments now afflicting responders after that date will not only lack a treatment option if Congress doesn't act, but they'll be ineligible for any compensation as well.

Trump Admits He Says Nothing In Speeches & Is Playing The Media
By: Steve - September 17, 2015 - 9:00am

During his rally in Dallas, TX Monday night, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump admitted that his speeches are about nothing. This is 100% proof the corporate media does not care about informing the American people, all they care about is ratings so they can charge more money for commercials. It's all about ratings and money, which is not the job the media was put in place to do.

Trump said this: "On Fox and CNN they call it all Trump all the time. And by the way, their ratings are through the roof. If they weren't, they wouldn't cover me, I'll be honest. It's a very simple formula in entertainment, in television. If you get good ratings. If you get good ratings, and these aren't good, they are monstrous then you are going to be on all of the time, even if you have nothing to say."

Trump is saying nothing in his speeches, except the word great and a promise that America will also be great if he is elected president. Donald Trump is scamming the media. He basically just gets in front of the microphone and babbles on about nothing.

For example, Trump announced his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare with "something great."

In case you missed all of the details that Trump was giving out, he just repeated that he was going to replace access to affordable healthcare with something great.

The media knows that they are being scammed, but they continue to cover Donald Trump's every move because they are have convinced themselves that Trump equals ratings.

The media even created Donald Trump's surge in the polls by giving him daily free media coverage. If the media stopped covering Trump tomorrow, he would most likely drop in the polls. While Trump's endless media coverage about nothing is annoying, he is doing Democrats a huge favor by taking away potential media coverage from more serious candidates.

The cable news network knows that Donald Trump's speeches are not newsworthy, they are not stupid, but they continue to give every one of them live coverage. Trump has no policy solutions, and is offering no answers. His campaign is based on the idea that America is bad right now, but he can make it great.

Trump admits that he is saying nothing, but the networks are still flocking to cover him. Because in America's corporate owned media, ratings are more important than informing the public. This is the problem with our media, and our elections, corporations and money control everything, and the people are pretty much powerless.

Ferguson Commission Report Comes Out & O'Reilly Ignored It
By: Steve - September 16, 2015 - 10:00am

As I predicted the Ferguson commission report came out Monday and O'Reilly never said a word about it, because it is at odds with everything he said about the protests and shows that he was wrong.

On Monday, the 16-member Ferguson Commission created by Governor Jay Nixon released its report about how race and economic inequality exacerbate problems within St. Louis criminal justice system -- and how to go about fixing it.

Citing previous findings from the Department of Justice reports about racist policing, the use of excessive force, and the broken court system in Ferguson and St. Louis County, the Ferguson Commission outlined 189 specific policy solutions for lawmakers to consider in the near future.

Counting police reform among its signature priorities, the commission details crucial steps to ensure "justice for all" in Missouri. It calls on police departments to direct their officers to use minimal force when protecting public and officer safety. It also suggests that the Attorney General take on use of force cases as a special prosecutor, and that a database of excessive force cases be created for public consumption.

With regard to the region's high incarceration rate, the commission calls on courts to prohibit incarceration for minor offenses and make nonviolent offenses civil, as opposed to criminal, violations. It recommends the establishment of justice centers, where people who cannot pay off their violations can participate in community service projects instead.

The commission concludes that judges and prosecutors should not be involved in court proceedings when there is a conflict of interest.

While the report outlines policies in direct response to DOJ findings, it also delves deeper into the systemic disparities in education, public health, and economic opportunities that create problems for black and brown communities and increase the likelihood of interacting with law enforcement.

The commission also points to the need for a higher minimum wage, and recommends the creation of financial empowerment centers that offer "community development banking, multi-generational financial education, and convenient financial services with reasonable interest rates."

Although the new policy guide addresses Missouri, specifically, it follows a similar set of national policy proposals released by Black Lives Matter (BLM) in August, shortly after Hillary Clinton implored BLM activists to develop a concrete policy proposals.

"There has to be some positive vision and plan that you can move people toward," she replied, after she was confronted by BLM representatives about police brutality and mass incarceration. Explaining that former civil rights movements had action plans, she told them that making specific policy asks is the way to make change. "The people behind that consciousness-raising and advocacy, they had a plan ready to go."

While less focused on economic and health factors that contribute to discriminatory -- and deadly -- policing that the Ferguson Commission put forward, the campaign narrows in on national law enforcement issues that the Ferguson team overlooked, such as broken-windows policing and police union contracts that make accountability near-impossible to achieve.

In addition to the Ferguson Commission report and Campaign Zero, presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley released their own criminal justice solutions in the last two months, including the enactment of ban-the-box laws, scrapping for-profit prisons, and the establishment of a national use of force standard.

Bill Maher Slams Trump And Palin For Racism And Stupidity
By: Steve - September 16, 2015 - 9:00am

Bill Maher pointed out on Real Time with Bill Maher that America has a long history of hating somebody, and then "blame them for all our problems," beginning, he said, with his people, the Irish in the mid-19th century.

He pointed out it was then "the Chinese, the Italians, the Mexicans, the Jews, the Swedes, the Japanese, the Russians, and now the Mexicans again."

Maher: "Everyone has heard of the Great Wall of Trump of course. Trump has made sure of it. It's his big foreign policy thingie after all, since he doesn't understand Ukraine at all."

Maher: "If Donald Trump really wanted to make America great again," he said, "he wouldn't build a wall, he'd build a mirror."

Maher: "Then maybe, we would see that no one can actually take a job. Someone has to give it to them. We could end our illegals problem tomorrow if we decided to stop hiring them but no, we talk of walls to protect us from people so dangerous that we can't stop ourselves from paying them to raise our children."

He should have also mentioned Trump's made in Mexico clothes and compared and contrasted them with his great popularity with white supremacists, but maybe he was feeling generous.

That did not stop Maher from revisiting Sarah Palin's most jaw-dropping episode of ignorance (well, if you exclude her lecturing Obama about unicorns):

Maher: "As Sarah Palin says, 'You wanna be in America? While you're here, let's speak American.'"

"Which begs the question," Maher concluded, "Why are the people who demand that everyone speak English always the ones who can't speak English?"

Finally The Republicans Are Destroying Their Own Party
By: Steve - September 15, 2015 - 10:00am

As an Independent liberal I have dreamed of a day when the Republican Party would end, leading the way for liberals to rule the country. A day when we would have a chance to implement the policies that we know will grow the middle class, and help everyone achieve success. That day has almost come, but it is a lot different than I had thought it would be.

The Republican Party that we have always known is in trouble, and the future does not look good. Gone are the days of country club Republicans, the Republicans that could debate policy with a liberal for hours. While little was agreed on, there were still some absolute truths that made a real debate possible. But those Republicans are becoming harder and harder to find.

The proof of the slow and painful death of the GOP lies in the fact that Donald Trump is leading in the polls. Anyone with an ounce of respect for the office of the presidency knows that Donald Trump cannot be seriously considered as a presidential candidate. While having zero actual policy proposals, Trump is very good at firing up the backwards, uninformed base of the conservative movement.

His racist rhetoric of building walls and deporting illegals is more than enough to get the support of the proudly and willfully ignorant electorate that other candidates like Bobby Jindal have desperately and painfully attempted to pander to. The interesting thing is, he is polling well with nearly every single group within the Republican base. He's polling well with the Tea Party, the racists, the gun nuts, the misogyny crowd, and even the evangelicals.

This really should not be a surprise to us on the left who have always labeled the conservative movement nothing more than a misinformation train of ignorance, speeding down a track that will inevitably end in a horrific crash. I believe we are witnessing the crash in slow motion. Donald Trump is doing a masterful job of trolling the uninformed base of the GOP.

Trump's empty and racist rhetoric about making America great again -- by getting rid of the brown people -- is really all it took to expose the Tea Party and GOP's real reason for hating President Obama: His skin color.

O'Reilly and his conservative friends go insane when confronted with the theory that racism is their main reason for hating President Obama. When it is the main reason otherwise sane and rational adults truly believe that President Obama is going to confiscate their guns, implement death panels, enact Sharia Law, and destroy America.

After six and a half years, there is still no evidence to support any of these ridiculous claims, yet here we are, still hearing these same scare tactics. The same uninformed conservative base continues to repeat these lies, and share fact-free memes that are based solely on some conspiracy rumor that Glenn Beck or Alex Jones decided to dream up.

Conservatives insist that their hate for the president has nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his policies. That's a nice fairy tale; unfortunately it isn't true.

When Republican voters were asked about President Obama's policies, they were against them. However, when they were led to believe that those same policies were Donald Trump's, their view became favorable.

The GOP of Lincoln and Eisenhower is a distant memory, having been replaced by the party of Sarah (Stupid) Palin and Ted (Lunatic) Nugent. The days of being able to debate with an informed Republican are all but over. And to be honest, the GOP started its downward spiral in November of 2008 -- right around the time we elected our first African-American president.

John Boehner Is A Far-Right Idiot Who Hates President Obama
By: Steve - September 15, 2015 - 9:00am

Since before he even took the Oath of Office, Republicans have been lying, fear-mongering and doing just about anything they possibly can to make the American people think President Obama is some evil boogyman who's out to destroy the United States.

In a lot of ways, their fear-mongering has worked. It really is astonishing to me how many conservatives honestly can't name a factual statement about this president. From polls showing that many blame him for Hurricane Katrina (even though that happened 3 years before he was even elected), to most Republicans doubting if he's even an American born Christian, the lies being told by the GOP concerning this president have been completely ridiculous.

So it comes as no surprise that the GOP has been losing its mind over the nuclear deal President Obama struck with Iran. From childish letters sent to the Iranian government, to blatant attempts to sabotage the deal, it's been absolutely pathetic how many of these congressional Republicans have been acting.

Then again, this is exactly what I would expect. If there's one thing that's predictable in government right now, it's that if President Obama supports something, Republicans will oppose it no matter what it is. As as he's done for the last 6 years, President Obama has once again outsmarted the GOP, securing the support in the Senate he needed to block any attempt by Republicans to kill this deal.

In fact, House Speaker John Boehner recently suggested that he might sue the Obama administration over the Iran deal. "If you read the provisions in the congressional review law, it's pretty clear that the president has not complied," Boehner said Thursday during his weekly news conference. "Because it makes clear that any side agreements and any other type of an agreement including those that do not directly involve us must be turned over as part of it. I do not believe that he's complied."

He also said the deal is "worse than anything I could've ever imagined."

Which is ridiculous, he says something ridiculous like that - even though 75 nuclear and arms control experts have endorsed the deal, including the Republican Colin Powell. Yet it's somehow worse than anything he could have ever imagined? Right.

Not only that, I love how he worded his support for a possible lawsuit as "I do not believe he's complied." Which is code for "I know this lawsuit will ultimately be pointless, because there's really no legal basis for it, but I'm going to waste taxpayer time and money anyway because I need to pander to far-right conservatives."

This is just another example of Republicans throwing a tempter tantrum because they're not getting their way. It really has reached a point where I have to ask myself, "Are we dealing with adults or children here?" When it comes to the Republican party these days, I can not tell the difference.

Varney Caught Lying That Seattle Minimum Wage Increase Cost Jobs
By: Steve - September 14, 2015 - 10:00am

Stuart Varney from Fox News said that when Seattle increased their minimum wage to $15.00 an hour they lost 1000 food service jobs after that, when the exact opposite happened, they gained 1,800 jobs.

Here is a partial transcript:
Stuart Varney: Okay. The writing is on the wall for you guys.

Zain Tankel: Well, obviously somebody working for me for $14 can go to McDonald's now and get a job for $15. What does that do for me? So the reality is we get the spill over affect, but it's not legislated to us. But you say what does it do? The data is in, they've let go of about 1,000 people just outside of Seattle where they raised it to $15, they did in April, April or May.

Stuart Varney: It was in April and I think they lost 1,000 fast food jobs in May.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, lies, lies, lies, and more lies. New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) disproves allegations promoted by Fox News that the 2015 increase in Seattle's minimum wage has destroyed restaurant jobs.

Earlier this month, Media Matters debunked an anti-minimum wage report produced by the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and promoted by Fox News that relied on cherry-picked data to allege that Seattle's decision to increase its minimum wage to $11 per hour in 2015 was negatively affecting the city's job market.

The report pointed to a less than 1 percent change in total food service employment after the wage increase went into effect on April 1 as proof of the right-wing media myth that raising wages hurts more workers than it helps.

Now, newly-released data from the BLS reveals that Seattle's food service industry has actually added 1,800 jobs since the start of the year, despite the higher wage.

Fox and other right-wing media sources have a long history of attacking federal, state, and local minimum wages laws, and have a particular affinity for misleading the public about the supposed downsides of Seattle's incremental increase to $15 by 2017.

The fact is, Seattle's minimum wage implementation was met with little anxiety in the business community, and has had no discernible effect on employment in the city.

Glenn Beck Finally Admits Sarah Palin Is A Clown
By: Steve - September 14, 2015 - 9:00am

This is what liberals have been saying for years, and Beck attacked them for it, now he is saying the very same thing, she is a stupid clown.

The conservative radio host had some choice words for the former Alaska governor during the Thursday broadcast of his nationally-syndicated program, "The Glenn Beck Radio Program," calling Palin a "clown" and saying he was embarrassed that he ever supported her.

"Yeah, I'm going to say it," Beck told his audience. "I don't care what Sarah Palin says any more. Sarah Palin has become a clown. I'm embarrassed that I was once for Sarah Palin. Honestly, I'm embarrassed."

Beck and Palin shared the stage at Wednesday's anti-Iran deal rally in Washington but apparently the one-time allies have had a falling out.

"Why do I say that about Sarah Palin? How can you say that about Sarah Palin? Because I don't know who she is any more, I don't know what she stands for," Beck said.

"I saw a clip of her talking to Donald Trump. What the hell is that? I don't even know who she is any more. I don't know what she cares for. I don't know. She doesn't know what I stand for. We had a falling out long ago because she listened to people who were lying to her about me. Fine. Don't care. I don't care."

Beck also had some nasty things to say about Trump, who co-headlined the rally with Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

"I'm telling you, dealing with Donald Trump is like dealing with a third grader. And I'm not dealing with a third grader anymore because the world is on fire," Beck said.

"You want to come on the show, great. You don't want to come on the show, great. I don't really care. Enough of the third grade politics. Grow up, Donald Trump. Grow up."

Shepard Smith Slams Kim Davis & Her Supporters On Fox News
By: Steve - September 13, 2015 - 10:00am

While those supporting Kim Davis have been very vocal, the truth of the matter is I have seen some conservatives who have spoken out against her. When it comes to this whole situation and the foolishness surrounding it, there really seems to be two types of people: Those who understand she has no legal ground on which to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses, and those who do not understand how the Constitution works.

This is an open and shut case, there is no middle ground when it comes to what Kim Davis is trying to accomplish. This is not a situation that's left up to interpretation or judicial review. We had the debate and the judicial review -- and she lost.

But you know things on the right are getting ridiculous when even some on Fox News are calling out the nonsense. Which is exactly what happened when Fox News Shepard Smith dropped a truth bomb on Kim Davis and those supporting her at her ridiculous rally after getting released from jail Tuesday: They set this up as a religious play, when it's not. This is the same crowd that says, 'We don't want Sharia law, don't let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.'

And now they ant religion in Government, so they oppose religion in Government when it's Sharia religion, but if it's a christian white person suddenly they support religion in Government, it's total bias and total hyposcrisy.

When this started, her lawyer said she needed an accommodation. She said she didn't want her name on a license for gay people. Now that they have come up with one, they've let her out of jail -- but it's not what they really wanted.

This is what they want, what you're hearing now (referring to the live clip being aired from the event itself) and this is what they're going to get: stirred up argument and a couple of days in the news cycle, and they're going to be able to make these claims. He then went on to point out that the Supreme Court overturning bans on certain types of marriages is not unprecedented because it's exactly what happened in 1967 when bans on interracial marriage were deemed unconstitutional.

"Haters are going to hate," Smith concluded. "We thought what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they've granted her, something that worked for everybody. But it's not what they want."

That last part was in reference to comments from Davis's lawyer stating that she plans to continue preventing marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples upon returning to work -- which would be in direct violation of the conditions of her release, and a violation of the constitution, which Republicans claim to support 100 percent.

The bottom line is this, their circus seems far from being over. Personally, I oppose any accommodations for Kim Davis. As an elected official, she either needs to do her job in accordance with the Constitution, resign, or be removed from office. And in my opinion, it's insane that this has been allowed to go on as long as it already has.

Leave it to the hypocritical religious right to find a woman who's been married four times, divorced three times and has had at least one extramarital affair to use as their "Christian hero defending the sanctity of marriage."

It's ridiculous, keep your religious views to yourself, go to church and worship in private, do not force it on other people, and keep it out of Government. You are not only wrong if you support her, you are stupid, because what she is doing is violating the constitution and the Supreme Court ruling on Gay marriage.

As O'Reilly and the right always say, you have to obey laws or we have chaos, and if you do not like a law change that law, or shut up and follow the laws.

More Proof O'Reilly Is Dishonest About Support For Iran Deal
By: Steve - September 12, 2015 - 10:00am

To begin with this is a 100% partisan issue, the Republicans oppose it because Obama is for it, and the Democrats support it, mostly because it is the best deal we can get, and because Obama is for it. But also because China and Russia would not agree to anything more, so this is the best deal they could get.

When you hear Trump and other right-wing idiots (like O'Reilly) saying they could have got a better deal, they are lying, because this is the best deal China and Russia would agree to, so a better deal is impossible.

Now think about this, O'Reilly says he is not a Republican and he never uses Republican talking points. While spinning out every single Republican talking point they have on the Obama Iran deal. And he is opposed to the deal, just like every other Repulican. As they say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

O'Reilly is 100% Republican and he hates Obama, he just will not admit it because he has to pretend to be an Independent journalist, even though anyone with a brain who watches his show for 10 minutes can see he is clearly a right-wing stooge, just as Hannity, Limbaugh, or any of them are. So he is lying about his Independence and his ideology, which means he can not be trusted as a so-called truth-teller.

Here is a perfect example, O'Reilly cited a recent poll that showed a small majority of the people oppose the Iran deal. But he cherry picked that poll, he did not report all the facts in it, only the ones he wanted you to see.

In the pew poll 49% opposed it, 21% support it, and 30% do not know anything about it. That is what O'Reilly reported, but here is what he did not report from the very same poll.

Only 36% said they know a lot about the deal, 32% said they know a little, and 30% said they know nothing at all about it. So basically 62% of the people know little to nothing about the deal, and of the 49% who say they oppose it, only 36% said they know a lot about it.

O'Reilly never said a word about any of that, it shows that the majority of the people know little to nothing about the deal, and yet, they took the pool anyway when they were unqualified to comment on it.

Folks, that is dishonest and biased journalism from Bill O'Reilly. The rules of journalism say many things, but the two most important things are report all the facts and give both sides of the story. O'Reilly failed at both, he left out many facts, and only gave one side of the story.

And of course the one side he reported was the Republican side, and after reporting that he had one biased right-wing guest on who agreed with him to discuss it. So he violated another rule of journalism, when reporting a story have guests from both sides on to discuss it, and he failed.

Now on top of all that, there are polls that explain the terms of the Iran deal so the people who take the poll can give an informed answer, and guess what, in those polls the majority support it. Yes, you heard me right, when the people know the details of the deal they support it, something O'Reilly never tells you.

O'Reilly only reports what the uninformed people think about it, while ignoring what the informed people think about it, which is about as dishonest as you can get, and he does it while telling you he is a truth-teller, as he is spinning, and lying to you.

FACT: Majority Supports The Iran Deal When Its Terms Are Explained

CNN asked half of the respondents to its poll a question that explained the agreement on major restrictions on [Iran's] nuclear program" and provisions for "greater international inspection of its nuclear facilities." The other half of respondents were asked a question that provided no details about the deal but simply asked whether Congress should approve or reject it. CNN's poll found that 50 percent of respondents supported the deal when its details were provided, while 46% opposed it, and only 4% had no opinion.

Another thing O'Reilly failed to report is the partisan breakdown in the polls, the only reason 46% opposed it is because 90% of the Republicans said they were against it. The vast majority of Democrats and Independents (who were informed of the details) support it. So the only majority who oppose it, even after knowing the details are Republicans, which skews the data in the poll.

Not to mention this: Twenty nine of the nation's top scientists with an expertise in nuclear weapons issues wrote a letter to President Obama praising the merits of the nuclear deal and calling it "innovative" and "stringent."

Another poll found the same thing as the CNN poll. A poll conducted by the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies found that when respondents were provided with background information about the terms of the deal, a majority favored congressional approval.

Almost all the non-partisan nuclear experts support the deal, these are the actual experts who know exactly what the deal is, not partisan hacks on tv or in Congress. Republican Colin Powell even supports it, but of course O'Reilly will not have him on his show to discuss it, because he is a biased right-wing hack who does not want you to know the truth.

Clueless Sarah Palin Talks Unicorns While Getting Iran Deal Wrong
By: Steve - September 12, 2015 - 9:00am

Someone should tell Stupid Sarah that she needs to go away because she is making Republicans look bad, and reminding people how dumb she is and why the people did not vote for her.

Sarah Palin is back and still devoted to making sure all Americans know just how far the Republican party has fallen.

Wednesday at a rally full of conservatives saying shockingly misinformed things -- even for them -- in an effort to "stop the Iran deal," Palin called the Iran deal a "treaty" in yet another screw up. She also accused President Obama of being on a unicorn and some other insane stuff that made no sense.

Palin seems to have been overtaken by her bitterness and gone over some kind of cliff from which there is no return.

She said this: "Only in an Orwellian Obama world full of sprinkly fairy dust blown from atop a unicorn as he's peeking through a really pretty pink kaleidoscope would he ever see victory or safety for America or Israel in this treaty,"

Palin also said this: "You don't reward terrorism. You kill it!"

And now some reality: To begin with the Iran deal is Not a treaty. A treaty would require a different approval process, one which would give Republicans more power to kill it.

Which explains why Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who vowed to "quit Congress and await 'nuclear Holocaust' if Iran deal passes" saying he wants the deal to be treated as a treaty. If Congress will treat it as a treaty, Gohmert will take his toys and go home.

Several days ago, he introduced a resolution to call the Iran Deal a treaty.

But even the Republicans have agreed it is not a treaty. They gave that up when they passed the Iran Review bill. Conservatives are also angry at Republican leaders over this, so they are just pretending none of it happened. I mean, why not deny reality and go back on their word? Isn't that what they do?

Their argument was that the Senate has the constitutional prerogative to ratify treaties (the Senate technically approves a resolution of ratification) with a two-thirds majority and that senators forfeited their role in the process by passing the Iran review bill.

Under that bill, just 34 votes will be needed to uphold a presidential veto of a disapproval resolution, just more than half of the 67 needed to ratify a treaty.

So Republicans, facing their own defeat on the Iran deal, want a do-over and Sarah Palin is just climbing on her "Orwellian unicorn" to pretend that her dream is real.

To be fair, Palin most likely does not actually know that the Iran deal is not a treaty. Someone probably told her it was and she decided it proves Obama wrong, so off she went.

President Obama does not reward terrorism. He is the one who got Osama bin Laden, while George W Bush said he didn't spend a lot of time thinking about Osama. No, Republicans don't get to rewrite this part of reality either.

While Sarah Palin may be an expert in aerial wolf hunting and killing things, she has never actually done one thing to kill terrorism. Not from a land in Alaska from where she may or may not have tracked Putin, and not even when she quit her job as governor half way through her term.

In fact, Palin doesn't kill terrorism, if anything she has carelessly fed the growing domestic terrorism and record breaking threats against this president.

She is in part responsible for the rise of the violent tea party in 2010, due to her accusations that Obama was someone who "sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?"

Palin accused Obama of trying to kill her child with affordable healthcare with his "death panels."

For more conservative fun, cops roughed up a protester while Palin was speaking (maybe someone who doesn't believe in Palin's Unicorns?).

For Palin it's all unicorns and pretty sparkles until the edges start to fray and give way to the bitter reality that everywhere she has turned since her 2008 mega-stardom morphed into her being the short lived Queen of the Angry insane far-right white People in 2010, Sarah Palin has been nothing but an unwanted failure.

Bush Tax Plan Crashes & Burns For Being The Same Old Trickle Down
By: Steve - September 11, 2015 - 10:00am

If Jeb Bush wants people to forget about his last name, this is not the way to do it.

Bush unveiled his tax plan and it's basically the same old same old Republican Trickle Down nonsense, full of tax cuts for the rich and corporations that did not work, and just like his brother former president George W Bush, Jeb Bush has not explained yet how he would pay for these tax cuts.

We are to presume that a booming economy would result, but his brother's own eight years in office under the same failed plan is a reminder of that failure.

For someone who might have forgot, the George W. Bush tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, was a massive failure. All it did was make them richer and crash the economy, while adding massive debt that Obama had to fix.

That said, slashing individual and corporate tax rates; eliminating the estate tax, Alternative Minimum Tax, and taxation of foreign business income; increasing the standard deduction; and making it easier for businesses to deduct investments are all changes that will cost a lot of money.

Bush claims, "These policies will unleash increased investment, higher wages and sustained 4% economic growth, while reducing the deficit."

Which is exactly what George W. Bush said when he was the President, and that turned out to be all lies. And remember this folks, George W. Bush was maybe the worst President we ever had, do we really want another Bush?

Matthew Yglesias at Vox dissected the options and none of them are looking too great. He noted that there are basically three options, "The Paul Ryan Model, the Mitt Romney Model, and the George W Bush Model." That are all bad, unless you are rich or a corporation.

Democrats can claim a much more fiscally conservative approach to governing than Republicans, with plans to pay for the proposals they push. (No one is claiming the plans are perfect, but it can't be argued that Republicans are actually fiscally conservative or responsible.) And also, Democrats tend to actually do the math for the proposals they push, which Paul Ryan (R-WI) has still avoided doing.

Bush's claim that his policies resulted in Florida leading the nation in job creation has been given four Pinocchios by the Washington Post Fact Checker, who wrote this: "We initially thought this might be worthy of Three Pinocchios, but the total package of mendacity tipped us to Four."

Yes, all politicians cherry pick numbers and Bush is no different, but he took off a bad year completely and just acted like the numbers cited represented his leadership, when the Fact Checker notes that actual job creation numbers are led by national economy.

This is the problem Republicans have trying to get the White House again. While regional candidates can run on propaganda and lies, a national candidate for the White House is going to be called out. It's surreal that Republicans are still trying to sell unpaid for tax cuts for the rich as the solution for the middle class.

If they want to sell unpaid for tax cuts because it benefits their donors, that's one thing. But to suggest this leads to prosperity for the middle and lower classes is simply ridiculous. The public hasn't forgotten yet about the Bush recession. It's a bit too soon to be selling this stuff again, and unfortunately for Jeb Bush, he doesn't have the charisma to distract the public from his family policies.

But any time Republicans pick someone with charisma, they pay dearly because reason dictates that if someone is wiling to sell their soul to the top 2%, they are either too ignorant to understand they are being used and will be discarded when outed as a poster person for propaganda or they are delusional about their purpose on this planet (see Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, who cite God wanting them to succeed).

So it always comes down to the policy and this is the one thing Republicans will not change. They keep changing the dressing and tossing rhetorical bombs and accusations to distract everyone from their policies. But that doesn't work in a long, national election in the age of social media.

Republican Colin Powell Says Iran Deal is Pretty Good
By: Steve - September 10, 2015 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly says nothing about it, let alone have Powell on his show to discuss it, because he does not want you to know some Republicans support it.

During a segment of NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed the Iran Deal on the table. "It's a pretty good deal," he said.

He addressed the concern that the deal would allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon faster saying that people "forgetting the reality that (Iranian leaders) have been on a superhighway, for the last 10 years, to create a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program, with no speed limit."

Powell thinks the deal will move forward even if Congress doesn't end up agreeing. "Even if we were to kill the deal -- which is not going to happen -- it's going to take effect anyway, because all of these other countries that were in it with us are going to move forward," he said.

Dick Cheney Caught Lying About Obama & Iran Over Centrifuges
By: Steve - September 10, 2015 - 9:00am

This guy is nothing but a low-life piece of garbage, who could not tell the truth if you paid him. Iran went from 0 to 5,000 centrifuges while Bush and Cheney were in office, and he tried to lie that Obama was to blame, but even the right-wing stooge at Fox Chris Wallace would not allow it.

Fox News host Chris Wallace forced former Vice President Dick Cheney to admit that Iran's centrifuges went from zero to 5,000 under his watch, not President Barack Obama's.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Immigrant Study From Biased Group
By: Steve - September 9, 2015 - 10:00am

As usual, O'Reilly was caught reporting unproven facts about immigrant and welfare, based on a flawed study from a known immigrant hating right-wing group. The Southern Poverty Law Center even has CIS on one of their hate group lists, something O'Reilly also failed to disclose.

Numerous conservative media outlets are parroting the misleading conclusions of a September 2015 report by an anti-immigrant nativist group, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which claims that "immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households."

Like previous flawed and biased CIS studies, these findings have been called into question by immigration experts for failing to account for the economic hardship of some immigrant families, lumping American-born beneficiaries into "immigrant household" categorizations, and conflating numerous anti-poverty programs with so-called "welfare."

Many conservatives have cited this flawed and biased study, and here is what O'Reilly said, which parrots what they are saying.

Fox's O'Reilly: "It's Not Hard For Illegal Aliens" To Get "Entitlements." On the Sep. 2nd edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox correspondent Shannon Bream discussed the CIS report, uncritically repeating its findings.

O'Reilly concluded by focusing his attention on the supposed ease with which so-called "illegal aliens" can access means-tested "entitlement" programs:
O'REILLY: The illegal alien, who comes to the United States, can get -- and when we say means-tested, that's food stamps and direct payments, not Social Security and Medicare -- they can get those entitlements, right? It's not hard for illegal aliens to get them, correct?

BREAM: It's easier than people would think. And it used to be, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, that you had to attest if you were coming here -- and that's legally -- that you wouldn't be dependent on welfare programs. And so, many of them used to have some sort of gateway that would block people, especially if they weren't here legally. [The O'Reilly Factor, 9/2/15]
And now the facts O'Reilly and Bream never told you about. Many Immigration Experts And CIS Itself Have Questioned their Current Findings. According to immigration experts interviewed by Fox News Latino, the CIS study "vastly over exaggerates immigrant welfare use compared to natives."

"The immigrant-headed household variable CIS uses is ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in a lot of modern research for those reasons," wrote Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. "Immigrant welfare usage could be higher but if the value of their benefits is lower, then the picture changes."

Nowrasteh cites a 2013 Cato report that found that the cash value of immigrant-received welfare benefits is far lower than it is for similarly poor natives, with native-born Americans on Medicaid consuming $3,845 of benefits in 2010 compared to just $2,904 for immigrants as one example.

According to a March 21, 2013 post by the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, the CIS methodology for it's study includes "everyone in a so-called immigrant-headed household regardless of citizenship status -- especially U.S.-born children and spouses" which leads to vastly overstating the data.

In response to the 2011 version of CIS "welfare" report, Jonathan Blazer of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) pointed out that the CIS data were a "trick" intended to "make it look like immigrant households are welfare users and dependents and especially likely to be on welfare programs." Blazer concluded that the inflated welfare numbers serves the "express agenda" of CIS.

PolitiFact: "Looking At Individuals Would Produce A Different, Lower Percentage." In a PolitiFact write up of comments made by Bill O'Reilly about the welfare use of immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, immigration experts explained that CIS methodology allows its study to include American citizens in addition to immigrants thereby creating a higher percentage than if the measurement was just of individual immigrants' welfare use.

Even CIS has acknowledged that the use of welfare programs is "very low" among undocumented immigrants. In 2004, CIS found that among undocumented immigrants the use of assistance programs "tends to be very low" and compared to other households, the use of Medicaid is also less.

According to a 2009 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), CIS has been tied since its foundation to nativist organizations that have been listed as hate groups and the organization has "manipulated data" to push its anti-immigrant agenda.

In response to a 2009 CIS report that lauded a series of 2006 immigration raids at meat-packing plants around the country as best-practice models for immigration enforcement, the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) union noted that CIS research was "a perfect illustration of the misinterpretation and manipulation of data" that immigration advocates have come to expect from the anti-immigrant research group.

And btw folks, all this information is easy to find with a simple google search on the internet, but O'Reilly and Bream never mention any of it, even though the rules of ethics in journalism say you must report both sides of the story and all the facts, not just the ones you like to back up your argument.

Basically, O'Reilly cherry picked the facts he wanted you to see, and ignored all the facts that did not agree with his ideology and that is not journalism, it's partisan hack garbage.

Lindsey Graham Says Trump Is Stealing All His Angry White Guys
By: Steve - September 9, 2015 - 9:00am

Three years ago about a month before the general election, South Carolina Senator and current Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham complained that the Republican Party "was not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

It was a stark admission of the obvious that without the 'angry white guy' base there would be no Republican Party. Three years later and it could not possibly be argued by any sane human being that the GOP is not an angry white guy party. Graham did not mention the epically-angry evangelical guys, but likely because they are a major component of the angry white guys.

Now that he is running for president, and admittedly not winning over the angry white guy base to support his kind of candidacy, it appears that Graham is complaining that Trump is stealing all the angry white guys support that are crucial for Graham to have a relevant campaign and chance for success.

He will never get the angry white guy support unless he changes his tune and stops making derogatory remarks about them just because they support his rival Donald Trump.

This week, Graham admitted again that the angry white guy vote still exists, and then complained that they are flocking to the GOP's angry white-guy presidential candidate Donald Trump and not Lindsey Graham. In fact, Graham complained that Trump appeals solely to the angry white guys in Republican ranks that the South Carolina senator said represented the dark side of the GOP; as if it was something bad.

According to Graham, that dark side, only represent a small minority of the Republican Party. However, it is true that there is a dark side of the GOP, but it is not a small minority by any estimation; or the loudest angry white guy pulling in the most Republican support would not be dominating the presidential race.

It is something that Graham, Trump, and every Republican presidential candidate knows is true. Trump is the only candidate audacious and savvy enough speak the angry white guy language because really, he has nothing whatsoever to lose and a Republican presidential nomination to gain; just by appealing to the very substantial Republican dark side made up entirely of very angry white supremacists.

The past few months have not been about Donald Trump the candidate; they have been about Trump exposing the Republican base as inherently racist and Trump as a master at manipulating the entire GOP into jumping on the white supremacist bandwagon.

It is not that the Republican Party, or its politicians were not representative of their racist base prior to Trump, they certainly were. But with Trump's blatant appeal to white supremacists garnering significant support, the candidates have had to abandon their cloak of tolerance and reveal what Trump has exposed about the base and its representatives in government; rank racism and white supremacy.

A few days ago, as if to highlight the white supremacist mindset Trump is appealing to, renowned former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Dukes endorsed Trump for president because he is "the best of the lot of presidential candidates, he has a good sense of what people want to hear, and he understands the real sentiment of America. He has really said some incredibly great things recently."

Lindsey Graham hardly says anything worthwhile, but he has fairly assessed how Trump represents the racist base of the GOP. Graham said "a Trump nomination would 'kill' the GOP" and condemned Trump's immigration plan as "Joseph McCarthy-like."

Graham even took a swipe at Reince Priebus and complained that "Trump is digging a big hole and the chairman of our party said Trump was a net positive. Let me tell you, he's hurting our party." He also said Trump's plan to get rid of birthright citizenship was constitutionally unsound, and although Graham is completely correct, no-one else in his white supremacist party remotely agrees with what is possibly the first sane thing Graham has said in ages.

It is telling that on one hand, Graham has no problem condemning Trump's white supremacist appeal to the GOP's angry white guy base, and yet he obviously lusts for their support because he ended his rant against Trump with an invitation for the reality show star to "Come to South Carolina. I'll beat his brains out."

In a battle to win over the GOP's angry white guy base, it is too late for Graham and he knows it. Trump owns the white supremacist base and unless Lindsey calls for an all-out race war to "make America great (white) again," those diminishing numbers of angry white guys are going to continue giving Trump all their support.

Fact Check: A Lot Of Republicans Are Just Stupid
By: Steve - September 8, 2015 - 10:00am

Notice that O'Reilly never mentions this, or the fact that it is a big problem, when you vote while ignoring reality because of partisan hatred.

One of the biggest issues there is when dealing with Republicans is not debating the best way to go about running this country, it's dealing with people who don't believe basic and indisputable facts. It's really difficult to have an conversation with someone about serious political issues when you can not even get to that point in a discussion because they refuse to believe indisputable and easy to verify facts.

They are people who refuse to believe anything unless they hear it directly from the right-wing media, like O'Reilly and Fox. That's a serious problem when many aspects of the conservative media simply refuse to report facts. Take for instance a recent survey I saw that showed only 29 percent of Republicans believe that President Obama was born in the United States.

So almost seven years into his presidency, and less than one-third of Republicans believe he was born in this country. Basically, 71 percent of Republicans believe that President Obama faked two forms of his birth certificate.

Then again it could be possible that they have been so poorly informed by the conservative media that they do not even know that he provided two forms of his birth certificate to the public, and that his newspaper birth records in a Hawaii newspaper were found.

But it gets even better. In that same survey, more than 40 percent of Republicans believed Sen. Ted Cruz was born in the United States. Of course, that is not true - Cruz was born in Canada.

So, more Republicans believe Ted Cruz was born in this country (even though he wasn't -- and he will fully admit to that fact) than believe President Obama was born here -- the individual who has provided two forms of his birth certificate proving he was born in this country.

To me, this shows a lot of Republican stupidity and ignorance. Not only does it show that the overwhelming majority of Republicans still don't even know (or believe) the fact that President Obama is a United States citizen who was born in Hawaii, but nearly half aren't even aware that a leading figure in their own party wasn't actually born in this country.

It should also come as no surprise that in that same survey, 54 percent of Republicans believe the president is a Muslim. And these are the people who often call President Obama an idiot, when they are clueless and misinformed.

It's like I've said many times, I can not take these people seriously anymore. These numbers literally show that more than half of the Republicans in this country honestly believe President Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in the United States.

With those results it's no surprise that Donald Trump is the leading Republican presidential candidate. Sadly, I am sure none of the information in this survey shocks anyone on the left. The Republican party has been pandering to the lowest rungs of society for years and now we're finally seeing those people take over the party.

From Donald Trump as their leading presidential candidate, to bogus conspiracies about Jade Helm being a plot to declare martial law, the Republican party seems to have fully embraced the label of the party of the stupid. Republican Bobby Jindal even gave a speech saying they need to stop being the party of the stupid, but it did not work, because they got even more stupid.

Obama Slams Republican Lies On Labor Day
By: Steve - September 8, 2015 - 9:00am

And btw, O'Reilly says the exact same things the Republicans are saying about Obama and the economy, even though he claims to not be a Republican and never use Republican talking points, as he does both every day.

President Obama praised workers on Labor Day while calling out the lies from Bill O'Reilly and the Republican Party. The President all but called Republicans delusional on the economy and said, "They don't let facts or evidence get in the way."

The President discussed the best economic recovery since the Great Recession. He said, "When I came into office business leaders said the place to invest was in China. They don't say that no more"

Later President Obama dropped a truth bomb on Republicans as he called out their ability to deny facts and reality.

The President said this:
OBAMA: There are some folks in Washington, and some folks who are trying to get to Washington, who don't want to face these facts. No matter whether we're supporting working families, or signing up folks for healthcare anything else that we do we keep on hearing back from them.

Well, you're gonna destroy jobs. You're going to crush freedom. You can't have a minimum wage for people. It's bad for business. Bad for jobs. You can't provide people with healthcare. It's going to destroy the economy.

In their world, the only way to help the country grow and help people get ahead is to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, loosen up rules on big banks and polluters, then you just wait. You look up at the sky and prosperity will just come raining down from whatever the top is of the high rise of the biggest building in your city.

But that's not how the economy works. That's not how working people get ahead. And that mindset, that ideology is what's been shrinking wages and increasing inequality and wrecking the economy for a long long time.

We're fighting to reverse it, but these folks are pretty stubborn. I will give them credit. They don't let facts or evidence get in the way.

They really don't. And as I said, Republicans in Washington are trying to rebrand themselves as the party of the middle-class. I'm glad they're doing it. Really. I want them to start rethinking their positions on issues.

I'd love to work them on stuff. But you can't just talk the talk, you gotta to walk the walk. You can't talk middle-class and then do things that hurt the middle-class.

You can't say you care about working people then do things that hurt working people.
President Obama called out Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans for being wrong about every single prediction of doom that they have offered, being tied to an ideology that makes the economy worse, not caring about facts and reality, and pretending to care about the middle-class and workers when they are doing things that hurt the middle-class and workers.

Everything the Republicans said was wrong, and O'Reilly was saying the very same things, in fact, he still is, just last week O'Reilly said Obama has not helped the country, when every economic measure is up, and some at record levels, except wage growth, something Obama has no control over.

Obama demonstrated why he has been beating Republicans for years. He understands that Republicans don't care about facts and reality. He can't negotiate with them. He can't work with Republicans in Congress because they are playing an ideological zero sum game. It is their way or the highway.

President Obama wants bipartisanship, but he realizes that unless Republicans change, it isn't going to happen. He has learned how to beat the ideologues by using their own inflexibility and reality denial against them.

The President is coming down hard on Republicans, and this is just a taste of what awaits them if they try to shut down the government at the end of this month.

President Obama is calling out the broken ideology and dishonesty that fuels Bill O'Reilly and the Republican Party.

Fox Ignored Trump-Inspired Assault & Blamed Democrats For Violence Against Police
By: Steve - September 7, 2015 - 10:00am

Fox News has spent days manufacturing a connection between the Black Lives Matter movement and the murder of a sheriff's deputy in Houston, scrambling to blame the Obama administration and Democrats for violence against police officers.

Yet last month, when two Boston men explicitly told police that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump inspired their brutal assault on a homeless Hispanic man, Fox completely ignored the story.

Boston police arrested two brothers on August 19 for allegedly attacking a Hispanic homeless man as he slept outside of a train station. The Boston Globe reported that "his face was soaked, apparently with urine, his nose broken, his chest and arms battered."

One of the suspects told the police that "it was OK to assault the man because he was Hispanic and homeless," claiming that "Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported."

Fox News has not mentioned the attack of the Hispanic man on-air, according to a Media Matters review of Fox's programming. Media Matters searched IQ Media and Lexis Nexis transcripts for mentions of "Boston OR Trump OR Homeless" on Fox News Channel over the last month.

Trump initially responded to news of the attack that his rhetoric partially inspired by telling The Boston Globe, "'It would be a shame ... I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.'" [Time, 8/21/15]

Fox Has Repeatedly Blamed Democrats For Houston Sheriff's Murder, Inventing Connection To Black Lives Matter

Sheriff: Deputy Killed "Because He Wore A Uniform." Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth was assassinated on August 28 while pumping gas in Houston.

A 30-year-old Houston man was arrested Saturday in the fatal shooting the night before of a sheriff's deputy who was filling the gas tank of his patrol car.

As Deputy Goforth pumped the gas, the gunman approached from behind and began firing, continuing to shoot after the officer fell to the ground, the authorities said. Investigators have not found any provocation that might have set off the attack.

"We have not been able to extract any details regarding a motive at this point," Sheriff Hickman said. "As far as we know, Deputy Goforth had no previous contact with the suspect. It appears at the outset to be completely unprovoked."

Deputy Goforth "was a target because he wore a uniform," the sheriff said. [The New York Times, 8/29/15]

Fox Contributor Keith Ablow: Obama "Started This" When He "Put A Target On The Backs Of American Police Officers."

Kimberly Guilfoyle: Idea That Obama Started A War Against Police Is "Backed Up" By Black Lives Matter Protests.

Sean Hannity: Democrats "Endorsed" The Movement That Inspired Deputy Sheriff's Murder.

Hannity: Democrats "Have Aligned Themselves With A Radical Group With A Racist Agenda."

Megyn Kelly And Contributor Katie Pavlich: Democrats Are "Trying To Tie Themselves" To A "Group That Promotes The Execution Of Police Officers."

Outnumbered Host: With Murder Of Police Officers, "Democrats Have Created A Monster In This Black Lives Matter Situation."

Despite There Being No Evidence Linking Black Lives Matter To The Deputy's Murder

Vox: Fox News Blames "Black Lives Matter For Inciting Violence Against Both Police And Civilians -- Despite The Lack Of Evidence For The Claims."

In a September 2 article, Vox blasted Fox personalities such as Bill O'Reilly and Pavlich for pinning violence against police officers on the Black Lives Matter movement without any evidence backing up their claims:

On Tuesday, conservative pundit Katie Pavlich told Fox News's Megyn Kelly that Black Lives Matter is now "a movement that promotes the execution of police officers."

The day before, Bill O'Reilly and a Fox & Friends segment suggested Black Lives Matter is "a hate group." And last weekend, a Texas sheriff linked a deputy's death to "out of control" rhetoric from Black Lives Matter.

This criticism of Black Lives Matter, which aims to squash racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and its protests is becoming increasingly standard, with pundits on Fox News and elsewhere blaming Black Lives Matter for inciting violence against both police and civilians -- despite the lack of evidence for the claims.

Currently, there is also absolutely no established connection between the Black Lives Matter movement and the Harris County deputy's death.

It's just blind speculation at this point. By the sheriff's own admission, there's nothing establishing a motive or linking Black Lives Matter to the shooting. [Vox, 9/2/15]

Proof O'Reilly Was Wrong To Blame Obama For Low Wages
By: Steve - September 6, 2015 - 10:30am

Monday, Bill O'Reilly said Obama and the Democrats have not made America better because wages are flat and not going up, even though that is crazy, he said it anyway. The truth is, it has nothing to do with Obama, it's about greedy corporations getting more work from their employees and not giving them raises.

For anyone to say that is Obama's fault, they are either biased, or stupid, or both.

Here are some facts that Bill O'Reilly totally ignores.

Americans keep working harder and harder and producing more economic growth. But they're not getting rewarded with any extra pay for it.

After the end of World War II, the country experienced decades of steady economic growth that also translated into steady increases in pay for the workers who were fueling it. For decades following the end of World War II, inflation-adjusted hourly compensation (including employer-provided benefits as well as wages) for the vast majority of American workers rose in line with increases in economy-wide productivity.

Starting in 1973. Between then and now, productivity, or the amount of economic output generated by an average hour of work, grew 72.2 percent. On the other hand, pay for the typical worker rose just 9.2 percent.

Notice that O'Reilly never mentions any of that, while Blaming Obama for something he has nothing to do with, corporate pay increases for their workers.

Compensation for the median worker, or the person making exactly the middle of compensation, adjusted for inflation, grew just 8.7 percent between 1973 and 2014, or a 0.2 percent annual rate. Yet net productivity grew at a 1.33 percent annual pace in the same time.

Things have gotten even worse since 2000: net productivity has grown 21.6 percent since then, yet inflation-adjusted compensation for the median worker grew just 1.8 percent.

What this means is that just 15 percent of the extra growth workers generated between the early 1970s and the present has translated into higher wages and benefits for them. Since 2000, just 8 percent of productivity growth has gone back to workers.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that means the greedy corporations are not giving their workers enough raises to keep up with their increased productivity. Which has nothing to do with President Obama.

And it means that stagnating wages aren't the workers fault. "People have been told that the economy isn't doing well and therefore that's why people haven't done well," Lawrence Mishel, president of EPI told ThinkProgress. But economic growth has kept increasing at a healthy rate.

"Everybody's wages could have grown substantially. But they didn't."

And Mishel also argues that income inequality has resulted from deliberate government policy choices by wealthy Republicans, "policy decisions made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power that suppressed wage growth."

Research has consistently shown that the government is more responsive to the desires of the rich than everyone else.

The policies Mishel points out are those that undercut labor standards, such as allowing unemployment to remain too high, failing to raise the minimum wage, letting overtime protections erode, and the corrosion of collective bargaining rights. But since these policies didn't come about by accident, they can also be reversed with similar efforts.

"What men create, men and women can reverse," Mishel noted. EPI has previously laid out its recommendations for raising American workers pay, including lowering unemployment, improving labor standards, and reining in the richest 1 percent.

At the same time, any proposals that increase economic growth without also finding ways to make sure that growth translates into higher wages won't benefit the vast majority of Americans. Otherwise, the current break between productivity and pay will simply continue.

And think about this folks, O'Reilly supports more tax cuts for the wealthy, which is a big part of the problem, they do not trickle down. O'Reilly has it backwards, the people at the bottom and the middle should get the tax cuts and the wealthy should be paying more.

If the corporations paid their workers more we would not have this problem, and O'Reilly is opposed to it, then he blames Obama for low wages. Which is insanity, because Obama is trying to get the minimum wage increased and the Republicans keep blocking it.

More Proof O'Reilly & The GOP Are Lying To You About Police Deaths
By: Steve - September 5, 2015 - 10:30am

Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans are saying police shootings are an epidemic and out of control, O'Reilly and some Republicans even blame BlackLivesMatter for it, even though all they do is protest police abuse. Yes they yelled at some police at a protest, but to this day not one police death has been linked to anyone in the BlackLivesMatter group.

So basically, it's all bull. The fact is, police deaths have dropped every year since Reagan was the President. They have dropped from 576 under Reagan to 314 under Obama. This is something O'Reilly and the GOP never tell you, because if they did you would know the truth.

And now the Republican Scott Walker has joined in with the lies. Thursday, in a guest column in the aptly named Hot Air, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker blamed President Obama for the "disturbing trend of police officers being murdered on the job."

Walker, frantically trying to catch-up to Donald Trump in the not-so-thinly-disguised racism department, says that Obama's "anti-police" and racially-divisive "attitude" is "not the America I grew up in."

All this, according to Walker, is causing police officers to be murdered on the job like never before.

Let's take a closer look at this "disturbing trend" that is, in Walker's words, "not the America I grew up in."

When Walker was growing up, there were nearly twice as many police shooting fatalities at this point in President Reagan's second term. In fact, police shooting fatalities are down from last year and are also lower than at this point in Presidents Clinton and Bush's second term in office.

Jorge Ramos Schools Bill O'Reilly On Human Rights
By: Steve - September 5, 2015 - 9:30am

From Gabriel Arana:

Despite his lucrative career as a political commentator, Bill O'Reilly thinks Fusion host Jorge Ramos should play the impartial journalist when it comes to Donald Trump's proposal to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants.

On "The O'Reilly Factor" Wednesday, the Fox host asked Ramos, "How can you possibly cover immigration fairly when you're a proponent of allowing them amnesty?"

"You should excuse yourself from it or recuse yourself from it," he added. While it is indeed a reporter's job to be truthful and fair, Ramos told O'Reilly that it's unethical to sit idly by in the face of injustice.

"Sometimes, as a reporter, you have to take a stand when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public lies, dictatorships and human rights," he shot back. "What Donald Trump is doing is very dangerous. He's proposing the largest mass deportation in recent history. And who's going to challenge him?"

"That's our job as reporters," Ramos added.

And what's really funny is that Bill O'Reilly is also an activist reporter, when a judge makes a ruling he does not like he goes after that judge and makes his life hell, that is activism.

As I've written before, it's hard, if not impossible, for any reporter to be objective -- all journalists bring a worldview to their work. The idea that journalists should be impartial is an invention of corporate media, which requires reporters not to take any stand that would ruffle the feathers of advertisers or limit one's audience.

But "he said, she said" journalism has the ultimate effect of letting those in power off the hook. In the interest of impartiality, scores of "objective" journalists at legacy media outlets have simply reported on Trump's proposal to deport the entire undocumented population without noting that it would cost between $420 and $620 billion over 20 years, and shrink our GDP by $1.6 trillion.

Few but Ramos have challenged Trump on the disastrous proposal.

Journalists who simply transmit information are of less and less use in the age of social media, when politicians can communicate directly with the public and the Internet gives anyone a platform. The role of news organizations is to add value and contextualize news. At the most basic level, that means challenging politicians on ludicrous proposals and standing up for human rights, as Ramos does.

Roland Martin Calls Out O'Reilly For Slamming BlackLivesMatter
By: Steve - September 4, 2015 - 10:30am

TVOne's Roland Martin called out Bill O'Reilly on NewsOne Now today for his attacks this week on #BlackLivesMatter.

This week O'Reilly called the movement a "hate group" after the death of a Texas deputy that led the county sheriff to issue a warning about "dangerous" anti-cop rhetoric. He said he wants to put them out of business.

Martin devoted some time on his show today to discussing O'Reilly's attacks, and ended by looking into the camera and calling him out.

He told O'Reilly maybe he should start talking about the issues that the group is trying to pay attention to, pointing to multiple examples of police brutality, including the shooting of John Crawford.

Martin said O'Reilly should be talking about police brutality and police corruption and encouraging good cops to start speaking out against the bad ones, and "until you do that, shut the hell up!"

He challenged O'Reilly to have him on his show to debate the issue "any time, any day."

Note to Roland Martin, Bill O'Reilly will never have you on his show, bet on it.

O'Reilly Talks Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth On Influence On People
By: Steve - September 4, 2015 - 9:30am

We all remember Dr. Geoge Tiller the abortion doctor, or as O'Reilly and the right called him a million times, Tiller the baby Killer. O'Reilly did segment after segment on Dr. Tiller, calling him Tiller the baby Killer, over and over.

O'Reilly even said he didn't call Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, as liberal groups charge, but was merely reporting what "some prolifers branded him."

Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder.

O'Reilly said this:

O'REILLY: "Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was 'hateful,'" O'Reilly wrote. "Chief of among the complaints was the doctor's nickname, 'Tiller the baby killer.' Some prolifers branded him with that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources."

O'Reilly went on to criticize media outlets for glorifying Tiller in order to silence those who oppose abortion, especially late-term abortion.

We wanted to see what O'Reilly had said about Tiller, to see if O'Reilly was indeed being criticized for his reporting on other groups characterization of Tiller as he said.

The non-partisan website rated that as 100% false. So basically, O'Reilly was lying, here is what they found.

We searched transcripts of The O'Reilly Factor, and we found at least 42 instances of O'Reilly mentioning Tiller by name, going back to 2005. In 24 instances, we found that O'Reilly referred to Tiller specifically as a "baby killer."

Most of the time, O'Reilly would simply refer to the Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" or as "Dr. George Tiller, known as Tiller the baby killer" without attributing it to anyone.

We found four times when O'Reilly said that "some" called him Tiller the baby killer. We did not find any instance where O'Reilly named an individual or a particular antiabortion group that referred to Tiller that way.

These instances and others we reviewed clearly show that O'Reilly was not reporting the views of others, but was expressing his own views on the doctor.

O'Reilly said in his column that "Some prolifers branded" Tiller a baby killer, "and I reported it," as if he were reporting the views of others. But the transcripts show O'Reilly repeatedly referred to Tiller as a baby killer without attribution.

So we find his statement that liberal groups are targeting him for his reporting of what others said to be False.

So once again we have proof O'Reilly did it, 42 times, not 2 times, or 5 times, or even 10 times, 42 times. And yet, he claims he only did it a few times and he was just quoting what someone else called him, which is a flat out lie. O'Reilly called him Tiller the baby Killer over 40 times, and I saw him do it, so he is a liar.

And when liberals argued that a right-wing anti-abortion nut could have seen his many many shows where he called him Tiller the baby Killer and that could have partly influenced him to go kill Dr. Tiller, O'Reilly was shocked and outraged. He said it was ridiculous to claim something he said could lead anyone to go kill Dr. Tiller. Even though other right-wing anti-abortion nuts have killed other abortion doctors in the past, so it happens once in a while.

Now, on Tuesday night during a segment about the black lives matter group O'Reilly said this:

O'REILLY: "Every time there is a controversy about an officer shooting a black man, Black Lives Matter is out there stirring the pot. You don't feel that disturbed individuals watch this and act out?"

Do you see what he did, now he is saying that disturbed individuals could see what black lives matter is saying about the police and act out on it by killing them. Which is the exact opposite of the argument he made when liberals said the things he said about Dr. Tiller could have caused a disturbed individual to kill Dr. Tiller.

When it involved something O'Reilly said, more than 40 times on a national tv news show, he claims it in no way led to anyone killing Dr. Tiller, while now arguing that something the black lives matter group is saying could lead to someone killing police officers.

He is now making the opposite argument he made when he said it, proving that he is a biased fool. If he were an honest journalist he would admit that when he called Dr. Tiller Tiller the baby Killer over 40 times it could have led to some anti-abortion nut killing him. Which is possible, hard to prove, but possible.

Instead O'Reilly is now saying that something the black lives matter group says could cause police to die, which is possible. But they are not calling for people to kill the police, they are simply protesting police abuse and the killings of unarmed black men and black kids. Which is their right under the 1st amendment.

Now if they called for police to be killed, O'Reilly would have a better argument, but they are not doing that, they are simply protesting an injustice, which is the American way, we protest against wrongs and try to get them to stop doing it. It's called a Democracy, and it is how we get things done.

Anti-Gay Nut Taken Into Federal Custody By US Marshals
By: Steve - September 3, 2015 - 11:30am

Note to Bill O'Reilly, this is how crazy your anti-Gay right-wing friends are, and you never even reported on it, because you are a biased hack.

Kim Davis, the defiant anti-gay Kentucky county clerk, was found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ordered Davis, the Rowan County clerk, to be jailed on the contempt charges until she agrees to comply with multiple court orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The judge ordered her held indefinitely because he did not believe fines would be enough to compel her to follow the law.

Davis, an elected official, has argued that she should be exempt from following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges because she objects to same-sex marriage for religious beliefs.

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly Lied About Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - September 3, 2015 - 11:00am

For weeks, O'Reilly and the right-wing liars at Fox reported that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts, even though it was a lie and what they were doing was 100% legal. Now we have proof O'Reilly was part of the right-wing propaganda machine he claims to not be a part of.

Here are the actual facts, now compare this to what O'Reilly said. From, who O'Reilly himself has said is a good and honest website.

Several Republicans (including Bill O'Reilly) have claimed that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts and profiting from abortions. But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research.

Republicans made their claims following the release of a secretly recorded video showing Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, discussing the procurement of fetal tissues when conducting abortions.

The edited video, released July 14 by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, leaves the impression that Nucatola is talking about Planned Parenthood affiliates making money from fetal tissue. But the edited video ignores other things Nucatola said that contradict that idea.

Nucatola's comment, though, isn't evidence that Planned Parenthood or its affiliates are selling "body parts" or fetal tissue for profit. The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues. Nucatola talks about "space issues" and whether shipping would be involved.

Planned Parenthood statement, July 14: At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.

There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

In more recent years, the use of stem cells for therapeutic and research purposes has taken a more central role than fetal tissue. As Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University, told Buzzfeed News, "fetal cells are not a big deal in science anymore."

In spite of the waning interest, it remains legal to donate tissue from a legally aborted fetus, and for that tissue to be used for research purposes.

Insane O'Reilly Says Obama & The Democrats Have Not Improved America
By: Steve - September 3, 2015 - 10:00am

Which is just more proof he is nothing but a right-wing propagandist, because almost all the economic and financial measures say O'Reilly is wrong. Almost everything has improved, the economy, jobs, wall street, unemployment, etc. etc. And yet, O'Reilly pulls out a few stats to claim Obama and the Democrats have been a total failure and have not improved America.

O'Reilly said this one Monday night:
O'REILLY: Donald Trump's flamboyant, sometimes bombastic, personality has overshadowed every other person running for president. His style has captivated millions and his campaign has been very successful thus far, so successful that it has almost obliterated the fact that the Democratic president and party have failed to improve America.

Consider this - about two million more citizens live in poverty since President Obama took office, poverty among women has increased by one million, and among blacks the poverty rate is up nearly 1.5%. Median income for all Americans has dropped an average of $2,000 since 2009. That is an economic disaster, yet few Americans really know the stats.
And now the actual facts. Poverty among women went up because of Republican policies, and because the Republicans voted down the equal pay for women bill that the Democrats tried to pass, how is that Obama's fault?

The poverty rate for blacks went up 1.5%, which is very low, and lower than it went up under Bush or any other President. O'Reilly never mentions that, or the fact that Obama has tried to help blacks but the Republicans keep voting down bills he tries to pass to help them. Again, this is not the fault of Obama, and yet, O'Reilly blames it all on Obama.

Median income has dropped because the Republicans refuse to pass the $10.00 an hour minimum wage bill Obama and the Democrats tried to pass, and because greedy corporations are not giving their employees very big raises, if any raises at all. Again, this is not the fault of Obama, it is the fault of the Republicans and the corporations, but O'Reilly blames it on Obama anyway.

O'Reilly is a liar, and a right-wing stooge, because almost nothing he said is true, it's all right-wing propaganda. Here are some other facts.

The good thing about facts is that they're real whether or not you want to believe in them. Take for instance the indisputable fact that President Obama has been a successful president. But O'Reilly and his Republican friends still say he's the worst president in U.S. history -- which is absurd. If someone doesn't like the president, that's fine -- but to honestly suggest that he's the worst president in our nation's history is ridiculous.

So, while I won't call him the best president ever, I will say that he's been very successful and one of the better presidents we have ever had. And the facts back it up as well. Just take a look at the Obama record-setting streak of private sector job growth.

210,000 new jobs were added in July, and 13 million new jobs were added in the last 65 months. That 65 months (soon to be 66), shows that no other president in U.S. history has presided over a job creation streak that long.

Then there's unemployment, currently at 5.3 percent, which has been nearly cut in half from its high of 10 percent when Bush left office.

Next up is the stock market. While August wasn't kind to stocks (mostly due to Chinese instability), they're still at record levels when compared to President Obama's predecessors. When Bush left office the DOW was at 9,000, under Obama it went up to 18,000.

Then there is the deficit. While O'Reilly and his Republican friends like to act as if President Obama's spending has been out of control, that's just not true. In fact, this president has massively reduced deficits from their highs at the peak of the recession. Deficits have went down every year since 2011, from 1.4 Trillion to 500 Billion.

And unless you are a massive partisan hack, it is really difficult to blame President Obama for the massive amounts of spending that were clearly triggered by the economic crash -- caused by the Bush administration. Obama had to do some spending to pull us out of the recession Bush caused, then he cut that spending down after the economy recovered, which is what any President would have done.

And yet, O'Reilly claims that was a bad thing and blames it on Obama, when it was Bush who crashed the economy.

These are just his economic successes, we haven't even gotten into anything else. During his time in the White House he's also: Done more for gay rights than any other president in history. Ordered the killing of Osama bin Ladin. Saved the American auto industry. And he has been a strong advocate for combating climate change.

Obama also Pushed the United States more toward green forms of energy than any president before him. Been a strong advocate for pay equality for women. Passed historic credit card reform. Brokered a historic nuclear deal with Iran. Championed health care reform that's provided health care to millions of Americans, dropping the uninsured rate to a historic low of 11.9 percent.

Just to name a few of the many things he's done while in office. So, when O'Reilly and the Republicans say "President Obama has been the worst president in history" -- they are clearly lying and don't know what in the hell they're talking about.

And btw, when Bush was in office and liberals tried to rank him or say how bad he was, O'Reilly said you can not rank a President until after he has been out of office for at least a year. But here we have O'Reilly saying Obama is one of the worst while he is still in office, and when it is a clear lie from Republicans who hate him and think if they say it enough people will start to believe their lies.

Criminology Professor Tells O'Reilly It's Wrong To Link BLM To Cop Killings
By: Steve - September 3, 2015 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly would not listen, those pesky facts keep getting in the way. Which is funny, because O'Reilly claims to only deal in the facts, when the facts are put to him he just ignores it and continues on with his biased and dishonest arguments.

This professor handed O'Reilly his rear end, and O'Reilly had no answer to it.

Dr. Peter Moskos said this: "There's Not A Result Of Cops Getting Killed From Black Lives Matter. There Are Fewer Cops Shot This Year Than Last Year. Are You Willing To Give Black Lives Matter Credit For That?"

And for the record, here are the actual facts:

"In total, 126 officers were killed in 2014."

And O'Reilly himself said that so far this year there have been 22 police officers killed.

Insane Hack Bill O'Reilly Calls Black Lives Matter A Hate Group
By: Steve - September 2, 2015 - 10:00am

And he wonders why a lot of people think he is a right-wing nut, because of insane statements like this. O'Reilly said that Black Lives Matter is a "Hate Group" That Wants Police Officers Dead. Which is just laughable, and not true at all.

They are simply a group of blacks that want the police to stop killing unarmed black men and black kids. They do not want any police officers dead, O'Reilly is a flat out 100% liar when he says that. Nobody wants police officers killed, they just want them to stop abusing their power and killing unarmed blacks.

Not only did he lie that they are a hate group, he says he is going to put them out of business, which is not possible, and it's like Trump saying he will get rid of all the gangs, or deport all the illegals, it is not possible.

O'Reilly: "They're A Hate Group And I'm Going To Tell You Right Now, I'm Going To Put Them Out Of Business"

O'Reilly Is Lying About Public Support For Iran Nuke Deal
By: Steve - September 2, 2015 - 9:00am

Here it is, 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a lying, dishonest, piece of garbage right-wing hack. Here is what he said in his Talking Points Memo on Monday night, these are his words, and an exact quote:
O'REILLY: As far as Iran is concerned, most Americans are opposed to the nuke deal the Obama administration wants approved.
Lies, Lies, Lies, and more lies. Almost all the experts support the deal, including some Republicans. And a lot of the polls say the majority of Americans support the deal, so O'Reilly is flat out lying.

The Washington Post:

Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation's nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

An Economist/YouGov poll from last month also showed that a small majority of Americans support the deal.


Fifty-six percent of Americans support the agreement, which would significantly cut back Iran's nuclear program to prevent the country from building weapons in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Here is what O'Reilly did, he cherry picked the polls run by conservative news sources and a couple other pollsters that found a slight majority oppose the deal, depending on how the question was asked. Basically, the places that found the slight majority who opposed it asked the question a specific way, to get the answer they wanted.

So then O'Reilly only cited those polls, while ignoring all the other polls that show the majority support the deal. Then he went on tv and claimed he was right and it was a fact, case closed. Which is a total lie, because some polls show the majority support it, and some do not.

O'Reilly just ignored all the polls that say the majority support it, which is about as dishonest as a journalist can get. But that is what O'Reilly does, he is a biased dishonest partisan hack. Then on top of that he said it was a fact, when it's not a fact, it's up in the air depending on what poll you read.

This is what Bill O'Reilly does folks, and it is 100% proof he is a biased right-wing spin doctor and not a fair and balanced journalist as he claims he is.

O'Reilly Ignores New Poll Showing GOP At Record Low Approval Ratings
By: Steve - September 1, 2015 - 10:00am

Almost every night O'Reilly reported on the dropping Obama poll numbers after Bush ruined the economy, but when they slowly went back up as the economy improved, the stock market set record highs, and the jobs came back, O'Reilly suddenly went silent. And now that the GOP has record low approval numbers, O'Reilly says nothing, as he promotes and tells people they should vote for Republicans.

Think about it, O'Reilly wants you to vote for Republicans who only have a 12 percent approval rating. That is how biased he is, especially when he is still denying he is a Republican, which is just laughable.

A new Quinnipiac Poll has revealed that disapproval of Congressional Republicans has reached a record high and voters will blame the GOP if the government shuts down.

According to the Quinnipiac poll, "Voters disapprove 81 to 12 percent of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job and give the Republican Party a negative 31 -- 58 percent favorability."

The Congressional Republican disapproval rating today is 14 points higher (88%) today than when they shut the government down in October 2013 (74%).

Republicans have managed to register their lowest approval rating since in since the question was first asked in February 2009. The previous low for Congressional Republicans was 76% disapproval in January 2014.

Boehner and McConnell could drive their party even deeper into the hole if they don't prevent a government shutdown at the end of September. The Quinnipiac poll found that by a margin of 41%-33% Republicans will be blamed if the government shuts down.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner's leadership has taken the Republican Party to new lows. Voters are not supporting the Republican agenda, and they have little to no confidence that Republicans in Congress will do the right thing.

O'Reilly and the Republicans have long treated the American people like they are not paying attention, but results like this demonstrate that while the vast majority of American voters don't follow the day to day details of politics, they have a general sense of what is going on.

If Boehner and McConnell believe that they can survive a government shutdown by blaming President Obama, they are in for a big surprise. A Republican-caused government shutdown could be the tipping point where a fed up electorate takes control of the Senate away from the Republican Party.

Republicans Worried Trump Will Give Democrats The White House And Senate
By: Steve - September 1, 2015 - 9:00am

Many Republican leaders have expressed concern that nominating Donald Trump could squander their opportunity to win back the White House in 2016. However, that is just part of the damage a Trump candidacy could inflict upon the party. Republican insiders also worry that Trump may cripple their chances of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate, especially since many key races are being held in states with a significant population of Hispanic voters.

Latino voters represent a special danger for Republican candidates. Because Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric places GOP politicians on the defensive, as they must distance themselves from Trump, or risk alienating Hispanic voters. In an interview with The Hill, a Nevada Republican strategist noted the potential dilemma Trump's extreme rhetoric poses for Republican Senate candidate Joe Heck:
I think it's pretty clear that some of Trump's more dramatic proposals on immigration will certainly affect races like the Nevada senate race in particular...In a state like Nevada, the Hispanic element is absolutely essential.
Heck's task is magnified by the fact that he would likely face Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, a well-known Latina politician who could energize Hispanic voters.

Voters make decisions based on a wide range of factors, rather than through a one-dimensional prism of identity politics. But there is no question that Cortez Masto would present an added pull factor for many Latino voters, which would amplify the push factor already provided by Trump, potentially driving them to the polls in record numbers.

With Republicans defending 24 of the 34 Senate seats up for re-election in 2016, they have little margin for error if they wish to keep control of the U.S. Senate. The GOP's two best pick-up opportunities are in Nevada and Colorado, but both those states are off the table if Trump drags down the GOP contenders with his xenophobic campaign.

Competitive Republican-held seats in Florida, Arizona and Illinois -- all states with significant Hispanic populations, are in jeopardy of turning blue if the Republican Senate candidates are in any way associated with Trump.

Republican strategists are growing increasingly uneasy that having Donald Trump at the top of the GOP ticket, would not only undermine their chances of winning the White House, but that it would also cost them the U.S. Senate as well.

And those fears are legitimate, because while Trump is dominating the Republican field, his toxic message is unappealing to a wide segment of the general electorate. Not only would Trump be almost certain to lose a general election campaign, but in all likelihood, he would drag a lot of Republican Senate candidates down with him.

Notice that Bill O'Reilly never reports any of this, while even saying Trump is good for the Republican party. And that's because O'Reilly is a friend of Trump, a Republican, and biased. He does not want to admit the truth, and he is helping cover for Trump, because he is his friend.

Remember that O'Reilly has been seen sitting with Trump at Yankees games, and he is biased towards Trump. Which is why you can not believe anything O'Reilly says about Trump.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: