O'Reilly Lied About Liberals And Illegal Immigration
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 11:30am

Last week O'Reilly said all the liberals want open borders and think everyone should be able to come here any time they want. And that is a massive lie.

I am a liberal, and I do not support that. What I am opposed to is a massive waste of time and money wall on the border, because it will not work. I want the border enforced, and I want people to only come here legally.

I support more border patrol officers, more drones, and more security cameras, because that is what the border patrol wants, they have even said that is what they need. But O'Reilly and Trump ignore all that to spew out this nonsense about a wall.

O'Reilly and Trump treat a border wall like the most visible symbol of effective border security. But the individuals who live and work along the border don't see eye to eye with them. According to Reuters, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency support more reinforcements to ensure border security, but not in the form of a wall.

The agency wants 23 more miles of fencing along the U.S. southern border, but would prefer to focus on better radios and aerial drones. Much of CBP's budget has been allocated for a "virtual wall" of drones, blimps, and tower-mounted cameras, the report found.

So the actual Border Protection Agency does not want a wall, they want a few miles of fencing, some better radios, and more drones. Funny how O'Reilly and Trump never mention that, while lying that liberals want open borders, when most liberals do not want open borders, including me. I support a few more miles of fencing, more radios, and more drones, but you never hear that from O'Reilly.

Because he is a dishonest right-wing hack. And he tries to misinform his viewers with what liberals want to make them hate liberals, even though he is lying.

What's more, nearly six in ten Americans oppose building a wall along the southern U.S. border, according to a March 2016 Pew Research Center poll. And apprehensions along the border have been steadily dropping over the past five years.

So illegal immigration is down, but if you listen to O'Reilly and Trump you would think it is up and a massive number of illegals are crossing the border. The facts show that illegal immigration is down and deportations are up, and Obama had deported more illegals than Bush did. But you never hear any of this from O'Reilly or Trump.

They are using the wall talk and scary illegals doing crimes talk to scare the clueless into voting for them. And O'Reilly is helping Trump by promoting his stupid wall idea, it's a bad and expensive idea that will not even work. People will just tunnel under it, or go over it, it's like drugs, you can not stop it.

Paul Ryan And The Republicans Failed To Pass A Budget
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 11:00am

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who inherited his Speakership and made grand promises of his leadership returning the House to "regular order", has fallen flat on his face as the House was unable to pass a budget by the April 15th deadline, as mandated by law.

The budget Republican leadership was trying to pass made cuts to mandatory spending, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP. But it did not pass, because the far-right loons in the Republican party said it did not go far enough.

While Democrats have done all they could to assist former Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and now Speaker Ryan when their own party refused to work, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) won't be rushing to assist Ryan pass his 'Road to Ruin' budget.

So he is left with his own party, with the same folks who caused the government shutdown in 2013 now trolling Ryan's 2017 budget.

Nancy Pelosi was not impressed, but not just because Republicans missed the deadline, but because of why they missed the deadline. Pelosi said in a statement, "The Republican Leadership proposed the most devastating Ryan 'Road to Ruin' budget in history, and even that wasn't brutal enough for the radical forces that have taken control of the House GOP."

Why is Pelosi being so harsh. "Because this budget would have ended the Medicare guarantee and demanded $6.5 trillion in cuts was too mild for House Republicans. This is the cruel reality of the Republican Congress today: a Ryan Budget that severe, that destructive to working families doesn't go far enough to pass in the Republican majority."

This is the same budget drama the Republican-led House of Representatives has been struggling with in recent years. They can't get anything done because even when they are super cruel to the vulnerable with their budgets, the radical right objects because it's not brutal enough.

Paul Ryan brought the lofty promises of the naive, but when it came time to deliver, all he had on his plate was empty promises and inexcusable dysfunction.

All is not lost for the nation because John Boehner did a solid on his way out of dodge by negotiating a two-year fiscal deal, however Republicans won't be able to do anything about the dozen annual appropriations bills -- aka, "regular order."

Paul Ryan said he could do what John Boehner could not, and yet he is relying on an accomplishment of Boehner to save his political hide. Republicans mocked Democrats when they couldn't pass a budget, and ran a No Budget, No Pay campaign against them.

Any takers on that now, after years of Republican-led failure?

Speaker Ryan is the guy Republicans want to run as their 2016 presidential candidate. The Republican attraction to failure boggles the mind.

And btw, O'Reilly has not said one word about this Republican failure. But when Democrats failed to pass a budget under Bush, O'Reilly flipped out and reported on it a hundred times, slamming the Democrats for not doing their job. But when Republicans do the exact same thing, O'Reilly not only does not slam them, he ignores the story to cover for them.

Waldman Explains How Trump & The GOP Are Lying About The Economy
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 10:00am

The Washington Post's Paul Waldman described how GOP front-runner Donald Trump and conservatives are spreading misinformation about the economy to downplay economic success made during the Obama administration.

Trump's misinformation has been fueled and perpetuated by right-wing media outlets like Fox News.

In an April 28 op-ed, the Washington Post's Paul Waldman explained how Republicans are misleading about the health of the economy while dishonestly ignoring positive economic trends. Waldman specifically highlighted Donald Trump's misinformation and how it drastically contrasted with reality:
Here's Donald Trump's economic story:

The economy is an absolute nightmare. Americans are living in such misery that they're practically eating their own shoes in order to survive. If we cut taxes on the wealthy, reduce regulations on corporations, renegotiate trade agreements, and deport all illegal immigrants, then our economy will be spectacular and working people will experience American greatness again.

Trump's story is the same one other Republicans tell, with the addition of the idea that "bad deals" on trade have had a crippling effect on the country. For the moment we"ll put aside the merits of Trump's claim that imposing enormous tariffs on Chinese goods will cause all those jobs sewing clothing and assembling electronics to come pouring into the United States, but the political question around Trump’s story is whether people will believe his over-the-top description of both what's happening now and the transformation he will be able to produce.

Today, the objective reality is a lot closer to the way Democrats describe it, in large part because they aren't offering an extreme version of their truth. If Obama and Clinton were more rhetorically similar to Donald Trump, they'd be saying that this is the greatest economy in the history of human civilization, everybody has a terrific job, and there's so much prosperity that the only question any American has is whether to spend their money on everything they could ever want or just roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck.

But they aren't saying that. Instead, they're attempting the tricky balancing act of emphasizing the progress Obama has made while acknowledging the long-term weaknesses in the economy. Both of those things are real. Since the bottom of the Great Recession early in Obama's first term, the economy has added 14 million jobs, and unemployment is now at 5 percent.

On the other hand, income growth has been concentrated at the top and Americans still feel uncertain about their economic futures.

Donald Trump has chosen to pretend that the good things about the American economy don't exist, and weave a laughable fantasy about what his policies will produce.
Trump's lies mirror what O'Reilly and the right-wing media are saying, who often stoke fears and downplay positive changes in the U.S. economy.

Poll Shows 19% Of Republicans Will Support Hillary If Trump Wins Primary
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 9:00am

A new Suffolk University poll has found that 19% of Republicans say they will support Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination.

The poll contained some numbers that should scare Republicans. 40% of Republicans polled said that they would not support the party's nominee if Donald Trump wins. 25% of the anti-Trump Republican vote would consider voting for a third party candidate. 19% of the never Trump Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, and 18% would stay home and not vote at all.

By gender, 10% of men, and 9% of Republican women would vote for Clinton over Trump. 18% of very likely Republican general election voters would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

These numbers provide a look at the potential devastation that nominating Donald Trump could bring to the Republican Party. If Trump's disapproval ratings continue to climb, it is possible that he could lose half of the Republican electorate. Trump was known by 99% of the voters that were polled, so it is not likely that any kind of image makeover will be effective when he is already universally known.

The Republican Party is deeply fractured, and Donald Trump is not the candidate that will bring them together. Trump's unpopularity will cause many Republicans to stay home, which will result in the GOP losing seats in both the House and the Senate. Trump could cost Republicans state legislatures and governor's races.

Donald Trump is a disaster for the Republican party. And the door is open for Hillary Clinton to build a general election coalition by attracting nearly 20% of Republicans to her campaign.

Klein: Boehner Just Confirmed Everything Liberals Suspected About The GOP
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 11:00am

In an April 28 piece for Vox, editor-in-chief Ezra Klein noted that former Republican House Speaker John Boehner recently validated the critique that the Republican Party is no longer a healthy political party devoted to governing.

During a speech at Stanford University, Boehner harshly criticized Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh," called the conservative House Freedom Caucus "knuckleheads" and "goofballs," and said Ronald Reagan "would be the most moderate Republican elected today."

Klein wrote that "Boehner is validating one of the most persistent and controversial critiques of the modern Republican Party" -- that they are the central problem in politics today.

He concluded:

Zoom out, and here is the condition of the modern Republican Party. Despite significant down-ballot strength, it has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and it looks likely to lose this one, too.

The party has completely lost control of its own nominating process, and its choice now is to either elect Donald Trump, a candidate who isn't really a Republican and might be a historic disaster for the party, or risk a schism by trying to rip the nomination away from Trump amidst a contested convention.

Meanwhile, John Boehner, the most powerful Republican elected official from 2008 to 2015, resigned in frustration last year and is now saying his party has been captured by idiots and zealots.

Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have repeatedly warned the media and political observers that the core of Washington's dysfunction "lies with the Republican Party."

Mann and Ornstein issued their warning years ago, but many have been slow to adopt their conclusions.

Bill O'Reilly Defends Trump's Sexist Attacks On Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 10:00am

Once again O'Reilly defends Trump, as he says he is not biased for Trump, when is just laughable. Trump is a racist and a sexist, but O'Reilly says the attacks on him for being a racist and a sexist are out of control.

When it is Trump who is out of control, but O'Reilly defends it and attacks the people who call Trump out for being a racist and a sexist, it's insanity, and 100% proof O'Reilly is in the tank for Trump.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): The other thing is the women's issue. The sexism thing, don't you think this is out of control a little bit, along with the racism thing?

DANA PERINO: Well, the racism thing yes, I agree. The feminism thing, yes I agree. However, the other night, when Donald Trump said that about her only getting 5 percent of the vote --

O'REILLY: If she were a guy.

PERINO: if she were a man, I -- that struck me. I don't say I was offended, but I thought that's going to be a headline.

O'REILLY: Well, it was an extreme statement but that's what Mr. Trump does.

PERINO: It's because some women will hear that and say, you know, they've probably heard that, like "She only became the White House Press Secretary because she was a woman." And there are -- people say those kind of things, I know that's not true. But that's what people hear.

O'REILLY: OK, so you feel that putting her in a classification that she doesn't have any other accomplishments, which she does --

PERINO: She does.

O'REILLY: -- Was a bit sexist? But I think he --

PERINO: It is, however --

O'REILLY: He would have said that about anybody, any competitor.

Millennials Are Flocking To Democrats Because They Hate Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 9:00am

The Harvard IOP Spring Poll found that millennial support for Democrats keeping the White House has doubled as Donald Trump is despised by younger voters.

Young Americans prefer that a Democrat win the White House over a Republican in the 2016 presidential race. More than three in five (61%) prefer that a Democrat win the White House, while 33% prefer a Republican. The divide of 28 points is nearly double what it was in Spring 2015, when the divide was 15 percentage points (55% Democrat; 40% Republican).

Among young white voters, Democrats now have a 2-percentage point advantage (-12: Spring 2015), among African American voters, that advantage grows to 78 percentage points (79: Spring 2015) and among Hispanics, the advantage is 55 points (41: Spring 2015).

Among Likely Voters, Clinton Leads Trump by 36 Points; Trump Underperforming Among Young Republicans. Among likely voters, Clinton maintains the same 61% that a "generic Democrat" receives, while Donald Trump receives 25%, 8 percentage points lower than the current "generic Republican" White House preference.

Among young Democrats, Clinton leads Trump by 78 points (83%: Clinton; 5%: Trump), but among Republicans, Trump leads by only 44 points (57%: Trump; 13%: Clinton). Among Independents, Clinton has a 23-point lead (43%: Clinton; 20%: Trump), with 36% undecided. Clinton leads significantly with both men and women.

Among men, it’s 47% for Clinton, 29% supporting Trump; and the lead expands among women, with 57% for Clinton and 15% for Trump. Clinton has a narrow 6-point lead among 18- to 29-year-old whites (38%: Clinton; 32%: Trump), but polls into the 70s with both the black and Hispanic communities.

Among African Americans, Clinton leads Trump 76% to 5%, and among Hispanics, she has a similar-sized lead at 71% to Trump’s 9%.

Bernie Sanders is the only one of the five presidential candidates with a positive net approval rating among millennials (+23), but Donald Trump is putting up some negative numbers with younger voters that are astounding. Overall, Trump has a net negative approval rating of (-57), and a net negative rating among millennial Republicans of (-20).

The numbers suggest that millennials can't stand Trump. Donald Trump is the presidential candidate embodiment of Fox News. It is striking, but not a coincidence that Trump pushes millennials away to the same degree that younger people tend to avoid the top-rated cable news network.

The Donald Trump campaign is all of the talking points and tactics that Fox uses to scares to the grandparents of millennials implemented in a presidential campaign. Donald Trump's views represent the kind of intolerance and bigotry that millennials across the political spectrum oppose.

There has been a great deal of media chatter about Hillary Clinton's struggles with younger voters in the Democratic primary, but if Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz, it won't matter.

Millennials aren't stupid. They are going to vote for the candidate who best represents their positions, and that candidate is not Donald Trump.

Tom Nichols: Trump Foreign Policy Speech Is Gobbledygook
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 11:00am

Notice that Bill O'Reilly did not have Professor Nichols on to talk about the Trump foreign policy speech, because he would tell the truth and destroy Trump. O'Reilly does not want that to happen because he does not want you to know the truth about his friend Donald Trump. So he had two Trump supporters on to discuss it Wednesday night, with nobody to provide any balance.

Tom Nichols is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. So he is an actual expert on foreign policy, which is why O'Reilly did not have him on the show, here is what he wrote about the Trump speech.

So, we now know what Donald Trump thinks about foreign policy.

Actually, we don't. Once again, a Trump speech about policy turned out to be just another word salad of rehashed campaign slogans. And once again, all we learned is that Trump has no idea what he's talking about, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Trump's speech, highly anticipated and no doubt crafted by his advisers in an attempt to make him look sensible, was probably as uncomfortable for him to give as it was for us to watch. Like a child who's been told he has to give a book report on a subject way over his head, Trump dutifully read a script, slogging through concepts he does not grasp and stumbling over words he cannot pronounce.

He touched on many subjects, all of them wrapped in the ignorance and magical thinking that characterizes every Trump speech. America's nuclear forces? He'll modernize them. Why? Who knows. This is the man who couldn't explain the nuclear triad, but that didn't stop him from throwing a trillion-dollar program into a speech.

Foreign competition? He'll punish companies that leave. How? There will be unspecified consequences - of some sort.

Our allies? We'll repair our relationships with them by telling them they must pony up more for their safety, like shopkeepers paying protection money.

Our rivals in the world? They'll respect us again. We know this because Trump very clearly offered this detailed solution: "This will change when I am President."

What about Russia, our chief rival? Trump's on it:

"If we can't make a deal under my administration, a deal that's great - not good, great - for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It's as simple as that."

Well, what a relief. (A deal? Over what? Don't ask. Only elitist intellectuals ask questions like that.) But whatever it is, if it's not great, we'll walk. Our allies in Europe, of course, can't walk away, but losing NATO to show we're tough, the toughest, about deals is part of the price to be paid when we're Making American Great Again.

How about the Middle East? Trump swore that peace is the first priority, Israel is our friend, and he won't do whatever Obama did. He even said that the sign of a superpower is restraint, which is exactly the kind of thing Obama says on a regular basis.

Of course, Trump has already promised to "bomb the s--t" out of ISIS, and to kill the wives and children of terrorists. But fear not, because as Trump assured everyone yesterday, he is staunchly opposed to unnecessary foreign entanglements, and was completely against the Iraq War.

Except he is on record, repeatedly, supporting the Iraq War, as well as the Obama intervention in Libya.

North Korea? Trump will make China take care of it, or he'll start a trade war, assuming he hasn't already started one over everything else.

And our military? It'll be stronger than ever, but it'll cost less. And Trump will use it less, except when he's using it at will to commit war crimes.

Trump also promised to bring in new people whose resumes might not be perfect but who are not stained by the foreign policy failures of the past. This part of Trump's speech, of course, explains much of his support among a certain class of pundits and third-string, would-be policy analysts: They think they're going to Washington with Trump.

Perhaps Trump intends to bring in fresh faces like advisor Paul Manafort, a guy who's been around Washington for 40 years and was previously an adviser to Ukraine's deposed president, Viktor Yanukovich. What a breath of fresh air that would be in the fetid swamps of the District.

There were many more inconsistencies in Trump's speech, but there's no point in highlighting them. This wasn't really a speech about foreign policy. It was a campaign event, meant to reassure Trump's emotionally-driven, low-information voters that he gave a foreign policy speech.

And so he did. Some Republicans, facing Trump's mounting primary victories, have even embarrassed themselves by praising it already. And of course, it was more than enough for Trump's loyalists, as anything Trump does or says, no matter how stupid or incoherent, always is.

But it is not enough to reassure any thinking American. We deserve better. In this election, unfortunately, we are unlikely to get it.

O'Reilly Admits His Plan To Help Poor Students Is Racist
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 10:00am

And btw, the economy is rigged for the corporations and the wealthy, and everyone knows it, no matter how many times O'Reilly and Krauthammer deny it. The main thing is a college education, if you can not afford it you do not get one, so it is not a level playing field.

The wealthy can afford to send their kids to college, most of the middle class and the poor can not, that is a rigged economy. And the most rigged part is the money in politics, that corporations, the wealthy, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups use to legally bribe Congressman and Senators to pass laws that benefit them.

The whole system is rigged for the wealthy, the corporations, and the people at the top. And that is a fact, no matter what O'Reilly and Krauthammer say about it. And it's getting worse, because the Congress will not stop the corporations and the wealthy from moving all the money and jobs to offshore tax havens, Ford is even doing it, they are moving 2,500 jobs to Mexico, which is why I will never buy another Ford product for the rest of my life.

And btw, O'Reilly had two old rich Republican white guys (that work for Fox) on to debate it, with no Democrats, no liberals, no actual economists, and no Independent experts, just O'Reilly and Krauthammer. That alone tells you how biased they are about it, and how they spin it, because they did not have anyone on to provide the balance in the debate.

One last thing, BILL O'REILLY WAS NOT POOR AS A CHILD. His Father was upper middle class making $80,000 a year in the 80's as an oil company accountant, that is not poor, it was in the top 5% of income earners at the time. His Father even paid for Bill and his sister to go to private schools, they were not poor, they were just not as wealthy as the super-rich kids they went to school with.

O'Reilly lies about this all the time, he was not poor. The other kids mostly had parents who were multi-millionaires so O'Reilly thinks he was poor, when he was not, his Father just had far less money than most of the other parents. That is not being poor, and an oil company account was not a working class citizen, like a dock worker, a factory worker, or a garbage man, it's a cushy high paying job pushing papers around in a building with central air.

Here is what the corporate stooges O'Reilly and Krauthammer said about it, O'Reilly is totally lying, and Krauthammer is partially admitting the truth.

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So let's deal with the economy first, do you think it's rigged?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: No, because I think the word rigged implies some kind of conscious will on the part of those who control the economy to put down the poor. I do think, however, that a large percentage of what determines if you're poor or not, is a matter of the lottery, the human lottery. Who your parents are, where you're born to, at a simple level if you are born in the United States, that is six out of a hundred humans, you won the lottery.

You have a better chance than if you were born in the Congo. If you were born to people, to a single mother out of wedlock, without a man in the family, with poor educational system around you, you are -- that's the lottery, and you have lost it. It's very hard. So to some extent, it's true that your life chances are not entirely in your hand. I think they are largely out of your hands. Nonetheless, there are things that you can do, politically, by changing society, Changing the culture is extremely hard, -- nobody has a good answer for that.

O'REILLY: But here's my -- I do, I have a good answer for it.

KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, you do? Let's hear it.

O'REILLY: OK, here's the answer. I think you're right about the lottery of life and determining economic success in most cases, but not all. I'm an example, I mean, I was born to responsible parents. We didn't have any money, and you know, there was a pathway that I was shown. That is the key. So, my theory is that public schooling has to lay out a pathway to little children.

I mean, 5, 6, 7 years old. And say look, here is where you are in life, alright? This is what you have to overcome, and this is how you do it. And that has to be drummed, inculcated, boom, boom, boom, that's got to be a course, along with math and spelling. and English. That's got to be a course, you see what I'm talking about? That --

KRAUTHAMMER: No, I don't. And I'll tell you why.

O'REILLY: If you did it, you'd be called a racist, but I think it's got to be a course.

KRAUTHAMMER: It's not a course, it's not something you teach. It's something that you get by the lottery of life. I didn't say that the lottery means you have to be -- you have to have rich folks if you want to do well in life. What I said is you have to have the human capital. Two parents, married, who inculcate the values you're talking about --

O'REILLY: But you can overcome that, the society can help the kids who don't, to overcome it --

KRAUTHAMMER: With a course?


KRAUTHAMMER: Come on, are you kidding me?

O'REILLY: I did it, I did it when I was teaching high school. I taught high school, in a -- you know, they weren't poor, but they were working class. And I basically would come in, I would say okay, here is two houses, alright? Here is the nice house, and here is the shack, where do you want to live? OK?

And of course, they would say haha, and I said well here is what you need to do to get it. And you have to do a, and b, and c, and D, and this is what you have to do, alright? And this is not taught in school, it's not taught anywhere. It's -- they come in, and the society is already making them victims. Oh, you can't succeed. Oh, look at your circumstance, oh, you have to be treated differently. What is it, The soft expectation of bigotry? That is what is in play. We can't change that.

KRAUTHAMMER: Why aren't you still teaching it?

O'REILLY: Because I have a greater mission to teach people like you about how society can come back, and help these people who don't -- you know, who fall into the poverty precincts. You can help them, but you have to be honest with them.

Experts Slam Trump's Fact-Free Foreign Policy Speech
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly loved it and defended it. He also did an unfair and biased segment about it Wednesday night, with two people who liked the speech, while having nobody on who did not like it to provide the balance. It was basically three Trump supporters all saying they liked the speech. That is not fair or balanced, which is what O'Reilly claims to do.

Foreign policy experts and media fact-checkers highlighted the numerous false claims and contradictions in Donald Trump's April 27 foreign policy speech, noting that his speech was "fact free" and "incoherent."

Trump Claims His Foreign Policy Will Put "America First." On April 27, Trump gave a speech on his vision for foreign policy, criticizing President Obama and Hillary Clinton for what he described as "missteps that have disillusioned the nation's allies and emboldened its rivals."

Politifact Gives Trump Two "False" Ratings For Statements He Made During Speech. On April 27, Politifact discredited Trump's claims that he warned war in Iraq would "destabilize the Middle East" and that ISIS is "making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil."

Foreign Policy's David Rothkopf: On the April 27 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, Foreign Policy CEO and editor David Rothkopf derided Trump's foreign policy speech as incoherent and fact-free, and pointed out Trump's factual errors in his foreign policy proposals.

NY Times Reporter On China: Trump Falsely Claimed Obama Has "Allowed China To Continue Its Economic Assault" On The United States. The New York Times Michael Forsythe noted that Trump's criticism of the Obama administration's foreign policy toward China ignored the fact that the "administration has launched a volley of punitive trade actions against imports from China since 2009, including on tires, and, last month, on certain types of steel."

NY Times Moscow Bureau Chief: Trump's Plans To Cooperate With Russia Are "Easier Said Than Done." Neil MacFarquhar explained that Trump's call to have Russia and the United States "cooperate in fighting terrorism globally" ignored that "the Obama administration has been trying to figure out for months whether the Kremlin sincerely wants to fix the problem in Syria, or is merely trying to shore up its main Middle Eastern ally" and that question of whether to cooperate with the country remains ambiguous.

Politico's Michael Crowley reported that "even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn" from the very audience it aimed to persuade.

The Guardian reporter Dan Roberts pointed out 10 contradictions in Trump's foreign policy speech, including criticisms of Obama's humiliations on the world stage and Trump's tension between its isolationism and its interventionism.

O'Reilly Promoted Racist Myths About Incarceration Rates For Drugs
By: Steve - April 27, 2016 - 10:00am

During a segment on drug incarceration, Fox News Eric Bolling suggested the higher incarceration rates for African Americans are not about race, but instead because "blacks committed more of the same crimes."

Partial transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I feel very strongly that if my children were addicted to heroin and I knew who was selling them the heroin, I would not consider it a nonviolent action. How about you?

ERIC BOLLING: No, I think you have to go hard on the drug dealers, distributors.

O'REILLY: Even the punks on the street?

BOLLING: Even the punks on the street. I don't think it has anything to do with race, it has to do with what they are doing. They are providing access for kids, people to hurt themselves.

O'REILLY: Why does the left see it differently and is trying to diminish the harmfulness of their actions?

BOLLING: Well Russell Simmons tried to make it about race. He said more blacks are incarcerated than whites therefore --

O'REILLY: Well it's a big issue.

BOLLING: Because maybe more blacks are committing more of the same crimes. It's still illegal to sell heroin. It's still illegal to sell opiates.

O'REILLY: May not be much longer, the way the trends are going in this country.
Notice that both O'Reilly and Bolling agree that drug dealing is a violent crime, even though that is just their opinion and almost everyone else says it is not a violent crime, and they are not put in jail under the violent crime laws. They both just basically say it is, as if it is a fact, when it is just the opinion of two right-wingers that work for Fox News.

Notice that they both also want everyone locked up for non-violent drug crimes, but they do not want pay higher taxes to cover the cost of housing them in prison. We already lead the world in the percentage of people in prison for every 100,000 citizens, and spend billions housing them in prisons.

And they want more of them locked up, when it does no good at all, and the drug war has been a total failure. No matter how many drug dealers you lock up it will never ever stop drug use, it just will not happen.

As long as there is a demand for drugs, someone will sell it to them. You lock up a drug dealer, and two more replace him. In fact, friends my age that still do drugs today, tell me drugs are easier to get now than they were 20 years ago, and they are better, they even laugh at you when you ask them about the drug war, they literally laugh in your face at the words drug war.

This Is How Bill O'Reilly Covers For Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 27, 2016 - 9:00am

I publish examples of O'Reilly covering for his friend Donald Trump all the time here, but there are other people who see it the same way, Erik Wemple from the Washington Post also wrote about O'Reilly covering for Trump, here is what he wrote:

Once again defying the warnings of this blog that he has no credibility to critique the media, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly addressed the over-addressed topic of Donald Trump's treatment by the media.

"Scorn" is the animating response from many folks in the national press, argued O'Reilly.

Next came a very O'Reilly-esque attempt to account for just why the media may have accorded the real-estate mogul some skeptical coverage. One of the reasons, he said, was that Trump has "mobilized support by mentioning ethnic groups like Mexicans and Muslims in negative ways."

At this point, O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" should be renamed the "Euphemism Prism": "Negative ways," really? Checking the record, Trump last June said that Mexico was "sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

On the Muslims front, he advocates a temporary halt to their entry into the United States. Would that Trump's comments about these groups were merely negative. Instead, they're bigoted spasms of stereotyping that commentators like O'Reilly shouldn't even attempt to abridge in their commentary; they should just repeat them.

Somehow "negative" doesn't capture Trump's bigotry as effectively as the "rapists" line. Of course, the media propagates a lot of euphemistic short-handing of Trump's comments. How many times have we seen media outlets characterize them as "controversial," for starters?

As if O'Reilly's "negative" characterization weren't enough to prop up a vanilla-milkshake-sipping buddy who's vying for the Republican nomination, O'Reilly did more.

Namely, he essentially co-opted a strain of Trump's own defense: "The root cause of the media's disdain for Donald Trump," said O'Reilly, "is not his policy or behavior on the campaign trial. It's him, who he is: A wealthy man who's not politically correct who has made an enormous amount of money by selling himself in high-profile ways."

From where did O'Reilly get this insight about Trump not being politically correct? Oh, from Trump, Trump and Trump.

"In the end, Donald Trump will not -- will not -- get a fair shake from the press," said O'Reilly, adding as a coda that the candidate needs to "prepare himself for the onslaught."

No need to worry too much about that, Mr. Trump: The King of Cable News has you covered.

Crazy Republicans Of The Week
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 11:30am

The Media Covers The Economy Without Economists
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 11:00am

Here is proof the cable news media is dishonest, they report on the economy, but they have almost no economists on to discuss it. They give you their spin on it, with political hacks and biased stooges, instead of giving you the facts from actual economic experts.

Economists Accounted For Just 1 Percent Of Cable News Guests.

Of the 245 guests who appeared during prime-time cable news discussions of economic news and policy, just 3 -- or roughly 1 percent -- were economists. The number is by far the lowest on record, and it represents a consequential drop from the second half of last year, when economists appeared 22 times and accounted for 6.4 percent of guests.

Former Obama Adviser Austan Goolsbee Was The Only Economist Featured During Discussions Of The Economy. Yes, he was the only one.

The only economist to appear during a qualifying economic news segment in the first quarter of 2016 was Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Goolsbee appeared twice on Fox News and once on MSNBC.

Political Guests Accounted For Nearly Six In 10 Weekday Guests.

The proportional representation of political guests reached an all-time high in the first quarter of the year, as outlets played host to elected and former politicians, political appointees, strategists, and the remaining Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and their surrogates.

Economists Were Completely Ignored On The Sunday Shows.

The five major Sunday political talk shows performed even worse than their weekday counterparts in terms of presenting economic expertise from actual economists. Of the 80 total guests who appeared during qualifying segments on the economy in the first quarter of 2016, zero were economists, none.

Political Guests Accounted For Nearly Eight In 10 Sunday Guests.

Of the 80 guests who appeared during Sunday show discussions of economic news and policy, nearly 80 percent were political guests. Policy debates between the Democratic and Republican parties, and among the candidates themselves, provided the bulk of the content of these segments. The five Democratic and Republican presidential candidates still in the race at the end of March accounted for 48 of those appearances, led by Sanders, who accumulated 20 Sunday appearances.

Crazy O'Reilly Tells Donald Trump Who His Vice President Should Be
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 10:00am

This shows how stupid O'Reilly is, and by stupid I do not mean he is stupid, I mean his ideas are stupid, he is what I call an educated idiot. Bill O'Reilly is a smart man, but he has a lot of stupid and idiotic ideas because his bias gets in the way of clear thinking.

O'Reilly told Trump who his Vice President should be, even though she does not want the job. And of course it was a woman, a hispanic woman, and a conservative woman. In O'Reilly's biased mind he thinks that if Trump picks a conservative latino woman it will fix everything, and Trump will suddenly get the latino vote and the womens vote.

It's insane, and O'Reilly is an idiot. Besides that, she does not want the job. And This also shows how stupid O'Reilly thinks voters are, he actually thinks that if Trump picks a latino woman he will get the latino and women vote, it's crazy.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, latinos and women are not going to forgive and forget for Trumps insults, racism, and hate against them just because he puts a latino woman on the ticket, you simpleton. It's a stupid idea that will never work, and even Dana Perino thinks it is a bad idea.

Even with an endorsement from Bill O'Reilly, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is not interested in a vice presidential bid.

Michael Lonergan, the governor's press secretary, said Martinez has no intention to enter the national campaign as a presidential running mate. Martinez, the nation's first Hispanic female governor, had endorsed Marco Rubio as the Republican nominee for president but has not endorsed another candidate after the Florida senator got out of the race.

"As the Governor has said repeatedly, she isn't interested in serving as Vice President. She appreciates that such attention puts New Mexico in the spotlight, but she is fully committed to serving the people of our state," Lonergan said.

On his Fox News Channel program, "The O'Reilly Factor," the conservative pundit called Martinez the "only choice for vice president" should Donald Trump win the Republican nomination for present, Politico.com reported.

"That is the only choice if Mr. Trump, with all due respect, wants to be president. He must give it to the governor of New Mexico," O'Reilly said. "Martinez cuts across all ethnic boundaries that he's weak in. She's very bright. She is a Republican conservative in a state that would go, you know, it's not a lot of electoral votes, but if he can persuade Governor Martinez to be on the second, that will help him immensely."

And that is where Republicans make a massive political mistake, they think you can insult people, be racist against them, and have policies that hurt them, and then add a latino woman to the ticket and hope it gets you votes from latinos and women, it's insane and it does not work.

The answer is do not insult them, do not be racist against them, and have some policies that help them. That is how you get votes from latinos and women, not by trying to pander to them by simply putting a latino woman on the ticket. In fact, it's an insult to latinos and women to do that, and only makes it worse. But the idiot O'Reilly actually thinks it is a good idea.

Dana Perino, a former White House press secretary under the Bush administration, said during the segment on O'Reilly's show that Martinez may not be the best VP candidate for Trump.

"It's not a bad one. I don't know if it's a good fit," Perino said.

The Truth About How Sean Hannity Covers Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 9:00am

A few days ago, a real journalist at Think Progress reviewed all of Hannity's interviews with Donald Trump since he announced his campaign last June. His conclusion: the dozens of interviews Hannity gave Trump amounted to "a serialized infomercial spanning nearly an entire year."

Hannity was not pleased about the article. In a 7-minute rant on his radio program, Hannity called the article a hit piece that cherry picked questions to make him look as bad as possible. He also said the piece was part of a high-level political conspiracy to marginalize him.

But he didn't dispute the charge that his questions were all softballs; instead, he justified his conduct by saying he's "not a journalist" and doesn't have "much disagreement" with Trump and other Republicans.

Neil Cavuto addressed the controversy on his show in an interview with Hannity. Cavuto claimed that Hannity asked Trump edgy question that "elicit a great deal of news."

This is a claim even Hannity doesn't make on behalf of himself.

Hannity is also particularly sensitive about a claim that the original piece never made: that Trump got more time on his show than other candidates. He insisted that all candidates were given equal time and he had no preferences.

This, however, is not true. From the time each campaign announced their candidacy to the end of March, Trump has appeared of Hannity's prime time show more often than any other candidate and, more importantly, has spent hours longer on air than any other candidate.

Over the duration of the primary season, Trump has appeared on Hannity's TV show for over three hours longer than Ted Cruz, according to data Media Matters compiled for Think Progress.

Hannity often airs his interviews multiple times. More than three hours of Hannity's show have been repeats of Trump interviews, far exceeding any other candidate.

Overall, Trump has enjoyed over 14 hours and 30 minutes of airtime on Hannity's TV show while Cruz received just over 9 hours.

The time Trump receives on Hannity's show is extremely valuable. Media Matters calculates that Trump received 23 hours of air time on Fox News in 2015. That time is worth an estimated $30 million, based on advertising rates and the viewership of each program. No other candidate received more than 10 hours of coverage on Fox in 2015.

Trump has been able to rocket to the top of the Republican field while spending very little money on the strength of free air time, sometimes referred to as earned media. Much of Trump's time on Fox was spent on Hannity's show.

Some of Trump's appearances on the show literally double as campaign events. Hannity travels to a state that is voting soon and interviews Trump for an hour in front of a local audience.

Hannity's interviews with Cruz can occasionally get more contentious. Early this week, Hannity blew up at Cruz, saying he was getting sick of Cruz avoiding a legitimate question. Hannity had been asking Cruz if his efforts to woo delegates were undermining the integrity of the election, a claim frequently made by Donald Trump.

On thing that hasn't changed is Hannity's approach to interviewing Donald Trump, who has appeared on his TV show three more times already in April. In an appearance Thursday night, Hannity noted that "Newt Gingrich said you are now the presumptive nominee. And he said to the establishment Republicans they better now get used to the idea."

Former Bush Official Slams Grassley For Not Doing His Job
By: Steve - April 25, 2016 - 11:00am

People can say I have a bias, which I do, but this is not what I said, it's what a Republican who was a former Bush official is saying, and we both agree. The Republicans are hypocrites with double standards on this issue.

One of the most important constitutional responsibilities of the president is to nominate qualified people for senior positions in the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. One of the most important constitutional responsibilities of the U.S. Senate is to provide advice and consent for these nominations in a process known as confirmation.

Unfortunately, some senators resort to extreme measures to politicize the confirmation process. I have first-hand experience dealing with this as the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. Senators sometimes filibustered, delayed hearings and made unfounded ethics accusations against the president's nominees. Most nominees persevered and were confirmed, but it was frustrating to see such an important constitutional power and responsibility of the Senate be abused.

But senators knew better and did better on nominations for the Supreme Court. Precedent was clearly on our side. The Senate has held hearings for Supreme Court nominees since the 1916 hearing for Justice Louis Brandeis, and not once in 100 years has the Senate refused to hold a hearing for a nominee. The Senate has turned down several Supreme Court nominees in a floor vote, but there has always been a vote.

President Bush's nominees included two justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. The Senate Judiciary Committee promptly held hearings for both of them (I helped each of them prepare for those hearings) Both were confirmed in votes in committee and on the Senate floor.

Some senators voted no on Roberts or Alito or both, but these senators also acted honorably. They had the decency to show up for the hearing, to vote according to their conscience, and to allow their colleagues to do the same.

At least with respect to the Supreme Court, senators realized that they must treat the president and his nominee fairly, and that they must hold hearings and vote. There also has never been an election year exception to this rule. The United States is not a banana republic; we do not take a time out from orderly government every four years simply because we are going to have an election.

Now, in 2016 a Democratic president has nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland is a moderate with strong support among conservatives as well as an extremely impressive record as an appeals court judge and as a prosecutor.

With respect to Judge Garland, we expect that Grassley will do what he has always done: insist that Garland be given a fair hearing and then a vote. Senator Grassley might vote for or against Garland's nomination, but as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he should hold a hearing for Garland. After that, in the words of Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Grassley and the other senators will man up and vote.

The vast majority of voters in the nation want Judge Garland to receive a hearing now, and even though the Supreme Court cannot effectively conduct its business with only eight justices, Grassley says that he will refuse to have a hearing for Garland until the November election.

He says that he will use his position as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to prevent his colleagues from voting on Garland's nomination. Perhaps for the first time ever in his Senate career, Grassley may refuse to do his job.

Senator Grassley will have to choose between what he has said in the last few weeks about this particular nomination and what he has said and done steadfastly for decades. The right choice is clear: Grassley should give Judge Garland a confirmation hearing and then allow a vote in the committee and on the Senate floor.

It is time for the people of Iowa to insist that Senator Grassley do his job. If he does, it will be important to support him in November against the narrow and selfish interests that seek to destroy any man who does what he knows is right.

If, however, Grassley can no longer stand up to special interests and extreme partisanship, and can no longer do his job the way he has always done it, voters will have to recognize this reality. It will be time for voters to do themselves and the nation -- and Senator Grassley himself -- a favor. It will be time for him to come home.

Richard W. Painter is former associate counsel to the president and chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.

Insane O'Reilly Claims Obama Leading The Way For Hard Narcotic Use
By: Steve - April 25, 2016 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is saying all this because Obama spoke out about all the people we have in prison in America for non-violent drug crimes. In most of the other countries they treat drug use as a medical problem, not a crime, America is one of the few countries that have all drug use as crimes.

Obama simply said we should not be putting so many people in jail for drugs, because it cost us a fortune every year and they are non-violent crimes. So O'Reilly flipped out, said drug dealing is a violent crime, when nobody else thinks that, and that Obama sent a message that drug dealing is ok, which is not what Obama said, and O'Reilly is wrong that it is a violent crime.

O'Reilly said this: Obama "Sends A Signal To The Country" That Drug Dealing Is "Not That Bad"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Over the years there have literally been millions of stories like that one, and it is simply stunning that our culture has evolved to a point where the sale and use of hard narcotics is now acceptable. President Obama's leading the way on this, classifying drug dealing, hard drug dealing, as a, quote, "nonviolent crime." That sends a signal to the country that, you know what, it may be illegal to sell drugs, but it's not all that bad. And the left is generally supporting the madness.

Trump Institute Illegally Fired Veteran After Military Deployment
By: Steve - April 25, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly. Senior Master Sgt. Richard Wright was fired a few days after he returned from a 2007 deployment.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has been vocal about the need to take care of U.S. veterans. He's said that if elected, he'll "put our service men and women on a path to success as they leave active duty."

But that's not what the Trump Institute, a get-rich-quick real estate seminar, did for Richard Wright, a senior master sergeant in the Air Force reserves who worked for the company in 2006 and 2007. Wright was deployed to Afghanistan in the spring of 2007.

When he came home to his job, the Trump Institute fired him. "All of your absences," Wright's boss at the Trump Institute told him, had forced the company to "reevaluate your position with the Trump Institute."

It is a violation of federal law to penalize an employee for absences caused by military service. When Wright accepted a job at the Trump Institute in December 2006, he thought he'd be working directly with Trump.

Dozens of former customers of the Trump Institute and Trump University, a real estate instruction program, have also described being told that Donald Trump was personally overseeing the programs that bore his name, and that instructors were "hand-picked by Mr. Trump." Judging from the information on the Trump Institute's (now defunct) website, it's easy to see why.
Br> It was only after Wright started the job that he realized Trump had little to do with the day-to-day operations of the Trump Institute.

Trump provided his name, along with his image, his reputation, his video endorsements and his promises to help the Trump Institute lure potential customers and employees.

But like many of the hundreds of businesses and real estate projects that have had Trump's name, the Trump Institute was actually a joint venture between Trump and an outside company -- in this case, a Florida-based business called National Grants Conferences. Trump was paid franchise fees, but the details of his profits from the schools are a well-guarded secret.

Michael and Irene Milin, NGC's founders, spent decades in the get-rich-quick business before linking up with Trump. NGC promised to teach its clients how to access millions of dollars in "free money" from the government. In reality, NGC seminars were little more than elaborate sales pitches for yet more NGC events, and the company, which has since been dissolved, had a long history of legal troubles and fraud investigations that spanned multiple states.

NGC's free-money seminars provided the framework for the Trump Institute's signature offering, the Donald Trump Way to Wealth Seminar. Trump Institute clients paid as much as $35,000 to learn the "Donald Trump Way To Wealth," and to receive coaching from mentors like Wright.

In an infomercial that appears to date to 2006, Trump tells potential customers how important it is that they enroll in the Trump Institute. He also hits on the woman interviewing him.

That same year, the Trump Institute hired Wright as a tele-consultant. His job was to speak on the phone with clients who had purchased memberships in the Trump Institute, and give them advice about investing in real estate.

Two months into the job, Wright was called up for active duty, and in early February 2007, he wrote to his boss, Jay Shavin, to say he would be deployed to Afghanistan starting around March 1st.

In Afghanistan, Wright was assigned to the 451st Air Expeditionary Group at Kandahar Airfield, near the country's southern border with Pakistan. Wright was awarded three different medals for outstanding service in the six weeks he was overseas.

Wright arrived home to Florida on Monday, April 16, 2007. He asked his boss to approve two personal days for him to get his bearings, do laundry and so on. Before Wright left for Afghanistan, he had approximately 40 different clients whom he was advising on how to buy real estate "the Trump Way."

Like the other Trump Institute mentors, Wright was promised commissions on his clients deals -- $250 each time a client bought property and rented it out using Trump methods, and $750 each time a client bought and then sold a property, a process known as flipping.

In his first week back home, Wright emailed some of his clients to let them know he was "back safe and sound," according to court documents.

On Monday, April 23rd, Wright got this note from Shavin:
I specifically told you NOT to contact your old clients. Jeff was in the office when we had the discussion. I also emphatically stated that you were not to contact your old clients. You are so concerned about your closings that do not exist, that your employment is in jeopardy. I told you that I put your former client into a deal that has not closed and would give it to you.

It is apparent that you do not listen to instructions. You are to report to my office tomorrow before you do anything. You have been here less than three months (deducting your time off for the Air Force Reserve). I find it insulting that you would make a request to be paid for time you did not work and/or personal time you did not earn.

You are still on probation. With all of your absences and inability to adhere to specific instructions, you force me to reevaluate your position with the Trump Institute.
Wright replied with this: "I don't think your previous comments were called for or appropriate. I am a good mentor & have always been a team player & do not appreciate being spoken to that way."

"You needn't be offended by my remarks," Shavin wrote back. "Your employment is hereby terminated."

In subsequent emails, Shavin denied that Wright was fired because of his time in Afghanistan. He also said that any further emails from Wright would be considered "harassment."

A year later, Wright sued the Trump Institute and its parent company, Xylophone, for wrongful termination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. That law, passed in 1972, requires that military service members called up to active duty from civilian jobs "be restored to the job and benefits you would have attained if you had not been absent due to military service."

Under the law, the burden falls on the employer to prove that it did not fire a service member for absences related to his or her military service.

The Trump Institute ultimately reached a settlement with Wright that forbids him from talking about the case. Shavin died in 2014. Lyn Miller, another former Trump Institute employee, said Shavin was "a knowledgeable and awesome guy."

And btw, Trump's attempts to distance himself from the companies that paid him money and bore his name haven't shielded him from lawsuits over their conduct.

In 2013, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Trump and Trump University for civil fraud. Included in his case filings were scores of complaints from Trump Institute clients. In California and New York, Trump University is facing allegations of fraud, and in the California case, the company faces a class action lawsuit with more than 5,000 plaintiffs.

NY Elections Official Suspended Over Loss Of 100,000 Democrats Votes
By: Steve - April 24, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though New York is O'Reilly's home state and where he does his show from.

A longtime New York City elections official was suspended without pay Thursday, for removing the names of more than 100,000 Brooklyn Democrats from the voter rolls.

The massive purge -- which caused huge problems at polling sites this past Tuesday -- was the result of an epic screw-up by a long-time official expected to be forced out over the debacle.

Borough Office Chief Clerk Diane Haslett-Rudiano's immediate suspension will remain in place pending an internal investigation.

Sources told the New York Daily News that Haslett-Rudiano would be forced out of her position over the voter roll debacle, which saw a staggering 8 percent of Brooklyn's more than 1.2 million registered Democrats, or 102,717 people, purged from the city's election rolls between Oct. 31st and April 2nd.

Kings County (Brooklyn) was the only one in New York state that had voters purged in that period.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced Wednesday that his office was going to investigate. He issued a statement Thursday following the suspension.

"The administration of the voter rolls in Brooklyn is of major concern to our office and is a focus of our investigation," Schneiderman said.

New York City's Comptroller Scott Stringer kicked off the first investigation Tuesday night. Stringer said the biggest issue appeared to be that some eligible voters were removed from voter-registration rolls and some that had their party affiliation changed.

Other issues included polling sites not opening in time for voting, incorrect primary notifications being mailed out and training of the poll workers.

Here is Proof That Bill O'Reilly Is An Old Fool
By: Steve - April 24, 2016 - 9:00am

This is funny, but also sad. O'Reilly is so clueless he does not even know that most men think if you buy a woman a lobster dinner they expect her to sleep with them. He is so clueless he had to have the super moron Jesse Watters explain it to him. And this guy has the #1 show on cable news, wow!

And btw folks, how the hell is this a news topic on a so-called hard news show, it's a joke.

Here is the transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): That's my question. Here's Watters. What happens when you take a woman to -- give a woman a lobster? I don't know what happens.

JESSE WATTERS: It's the most expensive thing on the menu.

O'REILLY: Yeah? And they're impressed? Women are impressed?

WATTERS: Bill, I can't believe you of all people don't know this.

O'REILLY: No, I mean, I know that lobster is fairly expensive.

WATTERS: It's the most expensive thing on the menu. If she orders it and you're paying --

O'REILLY: Yes, yes. Then what?

WATTERS: I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

O'REILLY: Then what? She's a gold digger? What? What are you, I don't --

WATTERS: I'm going to let the audience figure it out.

O'REILLY: You don't even know!

WATTERS: Of course I do!

O'REILLY: Then tell me what it is!

WATTERS: I mean, then maybe she might be indebted or maybe interested later --

O'REILLY: Oh, I see. A payoff for the lobster.

WATTERS: You spent a lot of money at dinner!

O'REILLY: The lobster payoff.

Crazy O'Reilly Claims Selling Drugs Is A Violent Crime
By: Steve - April 23, 2016 - 11:30am

Which is just insane, because selling drugs is not a violent crime.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, shooting someone is a violent crime, stabbing someone is a violent crime, beating someone up with a baseball bat is a violent crime, and on and on.

Selling a bag of weed, or coke, or whatever, is not a violent crime. There is no violence, they give them something and they get money for it, and there is no violence. Only a crazy person would say selling drugs is a violent crime, it's crazy talk.

It's illegal, and it is a crime, but it is not violent. And when you disagree with O'Reilly and tell him he is wrong he refuses to admit it is not a violent crime. It's what insane people do, they refuse to admit reality, even when everyone else is telling them they are wrong.

Friday night kirsten Powers tried to tell O'Reilly he is wrong, but it did no good.

POWERS: "I agree with a lot of what you said, but I disagree about whether it is a violent crime to deal drugs. It is definitely a crime, but I don't think the person selling the drugs is responsible for what happens after that. Just as doctors who are over-prescribing medications are not engaging in a violent crime. If someone wants to take heroin, I think it's a bad idea, but they can do it."

O'Reilly then told Powers she is 'giving a pass' to evil people who cause destruction and death. And all during the segment he argued with her trying to come up with reasons why drug dealing is a violent crime, but none of them proved his point, they were just stupid arguments that sounded like a 10 year old came up with them.

Biased O'Reilly Is Still Ignoring The Flint Water Crisis Story
By: Steve - April 23, 2016 - 11:00am

Even after the attorney general had a press conference (that all the media covered) saying 3 state officials would be charged with crimes in the Flint water crisis, and more to come, O'Reilly ignored it. He did not say one word about any of it, while he claims to be an Independent journalist with a no spin zone, he will not report on the story.

And the reason O'Reilly has ignored it is because it involves a Republican Governor and the people he appointed to control the water. O'Reilly has ignored the story because it makes Republicans look bad, these are the very same Republicans he tells people to vote for, saying they are better for the country than Democrats.

But the truth is this, the Flint water crisis is the kind of thing that only happens when you elect Republicans, and they put cost ahead of the health of the people. It's as simple as that, the Republican Governor decided it would be ok to poison poor people to save the state some money.

They knew the water was bad, the car plants even stopped using it because it was ruining car parts. And yet, they let people drink it and use it, while telling them it was safe to drink. This is a crime, and they should all be charged with something, then convicted and put in jail for a long time.

This is the worst kind of Government corruption and what the media was created for, this is the kind of story a journalist was given his job to do, report on stories like this, and O'Reilly has not said one word about the story on his show, not a word.

For that to happen O'Reilly not only has to ignore the story, he has to tell all his guests not to even mention it, because none of them have even mentioned it.

Now what are the odds O'Reilly would have ignored this story if the Governor who did it was a Democrat? He would have been all over it with segment after segment slamming him and calling for him to be impeached. But when a Republican does it, he ignores the entire story, proving beyond a doubt that he is nothing but a right-wing Republican hack who is no better than Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity.

Bill O'Reilly Defends His Right-Wing Friend Donald Trump Once Again
By: Steve - April 23, 2016 - 10:00am

Now he says the media only hates Trump because he is wealthy and politically incorrect. Which is insane, because it's not just the media who hate Trump, it's everyone, except the loons that support him. Even 30% of the Republican party hate Trump, and that is his own party, conservatives have even started two groups against him, Stop Trump and Never Trump.

O'Reilly acts like only the media hate Trump, when the entire country hates him, or at least 65 to 75 percent of them. Trump is hated because he is a far-right idiot and a racist who says insulting and stupid things, and he acts like a spoiled 5 year old rich kid.

Once again O'Reilly is showing his bias for his friend Donald Trump, and wasting time on his show sticking up for Trump. O'Reilly even acts like Trump could be the next President, which is just laughable. O'Reilly said Trump knows that if he wins the White House, he will have to make some kind of arrangement with the press corps. Which is ridiculous, because he is NEVER going to win the White House. You can not win anything when 65 to 75 percent of the people hate you.

Here is what the insane O'Reilly said:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Donald Trump and the media, that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

From the very beginning, Mr. Trump's run for the White House has been met with scorn from many in the national press. There are a number of reasons, he is obviously a non-liberal candidate, he has mobilized support by mentioning ethnic groups like Mexicans and Muslims in negative ways, Also, he has used a variety of personal attacks against his opponents, although the media is no stranger to that technique.

However, the root cause of the media's disdain for Donald Trump is not his policy or behavior on the campaign trail. It's him, who he is, a wealthy man who is not politically correct, who has made an enormous amount of money by selling himself in high profile ways. Mr. Trump knows the press is against him, and uses that to stoke up his supporters.

If that sounds like a mixed message, it is. Trump understands that many people who support him loathe the press, so he takes advantage of that. But he also knows that if he wins the White House, he will make some kind of arrangement with the press corps, thus he tempers his remarks somewhat, he was sarcastic at the end.

But make no mistake, Trump knows the media will support Hillary Clinton and will denigrate him at every turn, sometimes savagely. Here in New York, The Daily News, a rank tabloid, will do just about anything including denigrating those who vote for Donald Trump. Philadelphia Daily News, another down market tabloid, same kind of situation. There are no limits for those people.

But the network news and cable operations like CNN will be a bit more measured, knowing they will lose audience if they attack Trump outright. In the end, Donald Trump will not, will not get a fair shake from the press. As the campaign against Hillary Clinton unfolds, things will become brutal and the press will try to rattle Mr. Trump.

They see him as personally unworthy, beneath them, and destructive to their ideology. Mr. Trump needs to begin preparing himself for the onslaught. And that's the Memo.

O'Reilly Puts Biased Frank Luntz On With No Disclosure
By: Steve - April 23, 2016 - 9:00am

O'Reilly was up to his old tricks Wednesday night, he had the biased Republican pollster Frank Luntz on to discuss a possible match up of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. And not once did O'Reilly disclose the fact that Luntz is a Republican pollster who has been caught many times in the past with rigged panels for his so-called focus groups.

O'Reilly also never had a Democratic pollster on for balance, with Luntz, before him, or after him. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a liar when he says he does a fair and balanced show with a no spin zone. It was all spin with a known dishonest right-wing pollster, and no balance anywhere to be found.

Here is a perfect example of the bias from Luntz, he said this:

"I give Hillary Clinton a slight 4 - 3 advantage. Trump picks up blue collar workers in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, but he loses Latinos, 18-29 year olds, and women under 50. You can not win as a Republican if you are losing young people by a 2 - 1 margin.

On the other hand, some African Americans, who won't vote for any other Republican, may vote for Donald Trump. They like his tone, he is against 'the man,' and he is tough on Washington."

Luntz said Hillary has a 4 - 3 advantage, which is ridiculous. At 270towin.com they have an electoral college map that shows Hillary with 260 right now, and Trump only has 109. That's not a 4 - 3 advantage, it's more like 4 - 1.

Obama beat Romney 332 to 206, and Hillary is ahead of where Obama was in his race with Romney, Trump will be lucky to get to 180, let alone 270, and Hillary only need 10 more to get to 270.

The Latino vote alone will doom Trump, on top of the women mostly voting for Hillary. To say it's only 4 - 3 is laughable, because everyone else has Hillary crushing Trump by 8 to 10 points, and the RCP average has her winning by 9.3 points, which is a landslide in a Presidential election.

Luntz does not want to tell the truth, that Hillary is going to crush Trump, because it will depress the vote with Republicans who will stay home if they think he has no chance to beat her. Not to mention 30% of the Republican party even say they will never vote for Trump.

And btw, Vegas has the odds at -275 for Hillary and +350 for Trump. So it's not even close to a 4 - 3 as Luntz claimed. If Trump runs against Hillary he will get crushed, and it will not even be close.

Remember this, in the 2012 Obama/Romney race O'Reilly and everyone at Fox had Romney close or beating Obama. Karl Rove even said Romney would win big, and it would not even be close. Then the people voted and Obama crushed Romney, 332 to 206. They were all wrong, all of them, especially O'Reilly and Rove.

Romney got 27% of the Latino vote, and he lost big because of it, Trump will get less than that, probably 10%, if he's lucky, so he will lose. Election experts say you now need at least 40% of the Latino vote to win a Presidential election. Obama got 71%, and Hillary will get about the same, if not more.

So Trump can not beat her, and if the Republicans nominate Trump he will lose big.

Trumps Real Message Was The Guy Standing Behind Him
By: Steve - April 22, 2016 - 11:00am

In the wake of a victory in Tuesday's New York primary, Donald Trump delivered a victory speech that was subdued by his standards. In a sign that he's possibly toning things down ahead of the general election, the Republican frontrunner avoided the incendiary rhetoric that has characterized his campaign to date.

But Trump made a more subtle incendiary statement by choosing to deliver his victory speech while standing next to 2010 New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.

Paladino, a real estate developer who rode the tea party to a victory in that year's Republican primary before he was crushed by Democrat Andrew Cuomo in the general election, who is mostly remembered for a series of ridiculous and offensive things he said and did (during and before his campaign), including this:

-- Saying he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

-- Forwarding emails containing racial messages about President Obama, birther claims, pornography, and bestiality. When confronted about his emails, Paladino blamed Democrats.

-- Receiving $3 million in state tax breaks to revive the economy of Buffalo, but then pocketing the tax refunds while delivering very few jobs.

-- Opposing the construction of a "Park51" Islamic community center in the area surrounding the fallen World Trade Center towers in New York City. Paladino promised in a campaign ad to "use the power of eminent domain to stop the Park51 community center and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country."

Six years later, Paladino became an outspoken surrogate for Trump in New York, recently telling Fox News that if party insiders deny Trump the nomination during the Republican convention in July, Republican voters should "stay home in November and put the Republican Party to bed, once and forever."

Paladino claims he scheduled Trump's campaign appearances throughout the Empire State, and highlighted his similarities with the Republican frontrunner in a Buffalo News report.

"There's no question about it," Paladino said. "We're unfiltered and speaking what other people are thinking."

Trump attempted to try to use his victory speech on Tuesday night to moderate his tone and pivot to the general election. But if you were wondering whether Trump has really changed, just look behind him at who is right behind him on the stage.

Fox Dishonestly Promotes Karl Rove Anti-Clinton PAC Ad
By: Steve - April 22, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, but when CNN or MSNBC do something similar O'Reilly loses his mind and slams them for it, while being silent when Fox does it. Karl Rove is even a regular on the Factor, and O'Reilly still does not disclose the fact that he has an anti-Clinton PAC.

If a Democratic analyst for CNN or MSNBC had an anti-Trump or Cruz PAC and was a paid analyst O'Reilly would call for them to disclose it and fire them. But when Fox does it he is silent.

Fox News promoted an anti-Hillary Clinton ad created by American Crossroads, a conservative Super PAC co-founded by the Fox News contributor Karl Rove.

On the April 14th edition of Fox News The Five, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle praised a new American Crossroads ad, comparing Hillary Clinton to Richard Nixon. After playing the ad, Guilfoyle claimed the "dramatic attack ad" came from the "conservative Super PAC American Crossroads," but did not disclose any other information about the group.

Partial transcript:

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Sanders got some unsolicited help today from conservative Super PAC American Crossroads. They put out a dramatic attack ad, depicting his opponent as a modern day Richard Nixon.

ED HENRY: I think it is important that you mentioned the context of the general election in terms of that American Crossroads ad, that's a conservative group who will undoubtedly be pounding Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, talking about the e-mails. But that's a stark contrast to what we are likely to see tonight.

Bernie Sanders said at the very beginning of the first debate, he was taking the e-mails off the table. Very few debate moderators have pressed Hillary Clinton over the course of the last several months on that issue. Although there was a little hint from the Sanders camp today that you had both of these candidates yesterday on the picket lines with striking Verizon workers in the New York City area and the Sanders camp was saying, wait a second.

It turned out Hillary Clinton was with the workers yesterday. But back in 2013 she gave one of those big paid speeches, over $200,000 paid for by, yes, Verizon. So she was standing up to the company yesterday, on behalf of the workers, but it turns out a couple years ago, was making big money from the company.

Guilfoyle failed to disclose that American Crossroads was co-founded by Fox News political contributor Karl Rove. He joined the network in 2008, and helped create the Super PAC in 2010 where he still serves as an "informal adviser."

Fox News has a history of failing to disclose the ties of its hosts and contributors. During the September 21, 2014 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace invited Karl Rove to discuss the 2014 midterm Senate races, without disclosing Rove's super PACs that poured millions into influencing the outcomes of the Senate races Rove was invited to discuss.

Larry Wilmore Slams O'Reilly For his Racist Forehead Tattoo Comment
By: Steve - April 22, 2016 - 9:00am

Wilmore: Tattoos Aren't The Problem, But Rather "Separate But Unequal Education, Red Line Housing, Banks That Will Not Provide Us Loans, And A Criminal Justice System Designed To Keep Us In Chains"

Here is a partial transcript:

LARRY WILMORE (HOST): So last week Bill O'Reilly was trying to explain why poor blacks couldn't get jobs and he blamed it on the tattoos on their foreheads. Yes, it was a horrible, racist statement, and a bunch of people took offense to it. And Bill O'Reilly actually doubled down on that last night.


O'REILLY: Now, the race hustlers who apparently have not walked the streets of poor neighborhoods lately, immediately accused me of "racism."


WILMORE: No, regular people accuse you of racism.

Now you preach a message of lack of hard work and motivation, Mr. O'Reilly, but what you fail to see is that black people who work twice as hard to get half as much.

It's not tattoos on our foreheads that condemn us, it is separate but unequal education, red line housing, banks that will not provide us loans, and a criminal justice system designed to keep us in chains. Those are the proverbial forehead tattoos that consecrate the beast for black people in America.

We don't need tattoos on our foreheads when all people like Bill O'Reilly see is our inky black skin. Did Eric Garner have a tattoo on his forehead when he was strangled in the street? No. Did Trayvon Martin have a tattoo on his forehead when George Zimmerman decided to end his life?


WILMORE: Now lead not into temptation, but away from Bill O'Reilly. Let us cast him out from these airwaves, cast him out. Cast him out. You don't hear me. Cast him --


WILMORE: Or just don't watch Fox News, even though I realize your option of quality news programs are limited.

Trump Caught In Lies About Ronald Reagan & Jimmy Carter
By: Steve - April 21, 2016 - 10:00am

It looks like Trump never tells the truth about anything, and yet, he is leading the Republican primary. It just goes to show that Republican voters do not care if you are a liar or not, they have no values.

Trump doesn't just lie -- he basically makes up entire alternate realities that lack any regard or concern for being remotely factual. Watching his speeches, it really does seem like something pops into his head and he'll just state it as fact without a care in the world for whether or not it's true. From outrageous unemployment numbers to ludicrous lies about 9/11, facts really don't matter to Trump or those who support him.

So it should come as no surprise that when he tried to compare his dismal polling numbers against Hillary Clinton to Ronald Reagan's numbers in 1980 against Jimmy Carter, he was telling a fairy tale.

This week at a campaign rally, Trump said this:
"My numbers are better right now than Ronald Reagan's numbers were with Jimmy Carter."
And that is a lie. Trying to compare himself to Reagan is just Trump's sad attempt to try to link his campaign to a Republican party icon.

As Politifact wrote, Trump's numbers are much worse than Reagan's were:
We found that Trump's deficit against Clinton during March and April 2016 was twice the size of Reagan's deficit against Carter in March and April 1980. We also found that Trump's favorable/unfavorable ratings are much worse than Reagan's were during that same period. We rate his claim False.
Not only is he currently trailing Clinton by twice as much as Reagan trailed Carter, but his favorable/unfavorable numbers are far worse than Reagan's around the same time during his campaign in 1980. Another way to put it is, absolutely nothing about what Trump said was even close to being true.

Then again, practically nothing Trump says is true. In the 126 comments Politifact has investigated as of writing this, a grand total of three have been rated as True and seven as Mostly True.

While, 96 of his statements have been rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire - that's 76 percent.

It really is a testament to the absurdity of the modern-day Republican party that a candidate who lies as much as Donald Trump does has managed to become such an overwhelming frontrunner for the party's presidential nomination.

O'Reilly Says Trump Making Up With Kelly Will Fix Ratings With Women
By: Steve - April 21, 2016 - 9:00am

This is how far in the tank for Trump O'Reilly is, now he claims that just because Trump has made up with Megyn Kelly women will start to like him more. It's just insane, as if his 75% unfavorable rating with women is just going to get better because he is no longer at war with Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a total fool just to say that. And it shows that O'Reilly will say and do anything to defend his friend Donald Trump. Nobody believes that, except for maybe O'Reilly, Trump probably does not even believe it himself.

On Thursday's O'Reilly Factor we saw O'Reilly's startling pronouncement that:

"Among women, 24 percent favorable among the ladies, 75 percent unfavorable. So that's hold firm, but now that Trump is friends with Megyn Kelly again, this has gotta go way down, right?"

Ahhhh, no. Idiot! I predict the Trump approval rating with women will not get any better at all, especially due to him making up with Megyn Kelly, and it's a stupid thing to even say.

It was reported by Kelly Wednesday on The Kelly File, that she met with Donald Trump at Trump Tower for an hour as a "chance to clear the air." A meeting requested by Kelly, not Trump.

Goldberg called this an "unfavorable that's off the charts" and admitted "this can't end well" for the Republican Party if the numbers hold. And there is no reason to suppose they won't given Trump's refusal to moderate his tone.

The problem for the Trump campaign is that not only is Kelly not the barometer for all American women (far from it), but it is too late to repair the damage already done.

Even if the Republican establishment rallied behind Trump at this point, the demographic problems -- not to mention Sarah Palin speaking for him -- will remain.

Flint Officials Get Federal Charges & O'Reilly Is Silent
By: Steve - April 20, 2016 - 11:00am

More than a dozen criminal charges were filed Wednesday against three officials in Michigan as part of a months-long probe into the tainted water crisis in Flint. The charges are the first to stem from the catastrophe -- which potentially exposed nearly 100,000 residents to water tainted with lead -- but could mark only the beginning of a broadening investigation.

The felony and misdemeanor charges were approved Wednesday morning by Genesee County District Court Judge Tracy L. Collier-Nix, and are expected to be formally announced later in the afternoon by Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette.

Think about this folks, this is what happens when you elect Republicans to run your State. They try to save a little money by poisoning their citizens, and to hell with their health. They did not care about the kids, or the elderly. To save a few dollars they let them drink and use poison water, end of story.

It was done by a Republican Governor and his appointed officials. And O'Reilly has been silent about the whole story, to this day he has not reported on it one time, not once. It's an outrage, that it happened, and that O'Reilly refuses to report on it, simply because a Republican did it and he does not want to make him look bad.

This is what you get when Republicans run your State and put money ahead of the peoples health, and you also get O'Reilly helping them to cover it up by not reporting on it. The Governor should be impeached and put in jail, now.

Fox News barely covered the press conference, and then they moved on to other political news as fast as they could. And the Republican Governor on tv drinking filtered Flint water is a joke, he should be put in jail, not on tv doing bogus publicity stunts drinking filtered water. People in Flint are still using bottled water for everything, how can you shower with bottled water, it's ridiculous.

The Republicans in Congress are not helping either, they should have given them emergency federal money to fix the problem, but they are not, the city is doing it with very little money.

And btw, as of right now O'Reilly has no plans to talk about this story on his show tonight, his pre-show website page says nothing about it. I would not be shocked if he still does not report on it tonight.

O'Reilly Goes On Insane Rant After Being Called A Racist
By: Steve - April 20, 2016 - 10:00am

I wrote yesterday that O'Reilly made a racist statement, then he was called a racist, then he attacked the people who called him a racist, when all they did was tell the truth about him. Many blacks and whites saw what he said as racist, but not O'Reilly, he denies he is a racist, even though he is, and when you say he is he gets mad and slams the people who are right.

I posted an opinion from a black person at afro.com who says O'Reilly is a racist, and here is an opinion from a white person, Allen Clifton wrote this about O'Reilly Tuesday.

Without a doubt, Fox News Bill O'Reilly is one of the most arrogant and egotistical media personalities on television. The guy's whole show is basically a shrine dedicated to how amazing everything he thinks and says is.

While I wouldn't say he's more vile than someone like Rush Limbaugh, he's definitely pretty close. He's mostly a total and complete hack for the Republican party. He'll claim that he's just "telling it how it is" - as long as you agree that his opinion is the standard-bearer for defining "how it is."

But one thing O'Reilly is known for is some rather controversial remarks about the African-American community. His basic feeling is that "racism" is no longer really an issue, and that black people themselves are mostly responsible for holding themselves back.

Recently the Fox News host experienced quite a lot of criticism when, during an interview with Donald Trump, he asked the leading presidential frontrunner how he was going to employ African-Americans when "many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads."

Shockingly, O'Reilly didn't think what he said was racist. He doesn't comprehend that generalizing one entire race to a very specific, degrading stereotype (especially when all races could actually fit his description) is, in fact, extremely racist.

This triggered a rather unhinged rant on Monday night where he basically said that he finds it absurd that people won't call out black culture and that it's ignorant to say that he's a racist for saying very racist things.

"The race hustlers immediately accused me of racism," O'Reilly said. "And that is why the acute problem of cultural deprivation among under-class children of all colors is never addressed. The smear merchants hammer anyone who does so."

According to O'Reilly, if you're someone who thinks generalizing African-Americans as "ill-educated" with "tattoos on their foreheads" is racist, you're nothing but a smear merchant and a race hustler.

He also went on to say that the only path to success is the "conventional road" and anyone who charts a different course will fail. Then he mumbled his usual rhetoric about personal responsibility and motivation.

So, not only are African-Americans "ill-educated" with "tattoos on their forehead," but apparently anyone who isn't successful just isn't motivated or driven enough to take personal responsibility for themselves or their families.

You hear that... the millions of Americans working full-time jobs who still rely on government assistance to help them survive? It's time you people "take personal responsibility" for yourselves and get motivated to work.

Clearly your lack of success is entirely based upon your work ethic, not the fact that, for many people in this country, the deck is stacked against them from the moment they're born.

I can tell you, as someone who grew up dirt poor, my path in life has been much more difficult than someone who was born into a well-off family where much of their life was handed to them on a silver platter. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but I've always found it ludicrous that there are people who really feel that everyone in this country is born equally and with the same opportunities.

Anyone who really believes that is living in a fantasy land.

I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and check out the whole rant. You can tell by his tone and body language that he really doesn't get how ignorant he is about racism in this country - especially structural racism.

Then again, Bill O'Reilly has based a good part of his career on showcasing what a fabulously successful ignorant jackass sounds like.

Trump Uses Eric Garner's Dying Words To Mock Mitt Romney
By: Steve - April 20, 2016 - 9:00am

Republican front-runner Donald Trump decided a visit to New York would be a good time to try out his offensive comedy routine by delivering a stunningly tasteless joke at the expense of a man who had been recently choked to death nearby by New York police.

In July of 2014, Eric Garner was killed by New York City Police, who were arresting him on a simple case of suspicion of selling cigarettes, when they put him in a choke hold. It was ruled soon after that he died due to compression on his neck.

Basically, the cops choked him to death, even though the NY police department had banned the choke hold they used.

His last words were "I can't breathe," reverberated around the nation following his death, becoming a rallying point for racial inequality.

It is because of this that when Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump mocked Garner's last words during a campaign rally in New York, that some people became furious.

"The last election should have been won, except Romney choked like a dog. He choked," Trump said while putting his hands around his neck in a choke position. "I can't breathe, I can't breathe," Trump said.

And btw, Romney never choked, he just lost. Obama kicked his butt with 335 electoral votes to 206, it was not even close, that is not choking, it's just losing because you are a Republican running against a Democratic President who is doing a good job.

In a performance that recalled the time he mocked a physically disabled reporter, Trump cast Mitt Romney in the role of police brutality victim Eric Garner because, as Trump tells it, both were known for "choking."

The so-called joke stunned reporters on scene, but what was perhaps even more surprising was the response Trump got from his fans. Rather than find the idea of using the words of a man who recently died just a few miles away repulsive, the crowd of Trump supporters roared with laughter.

For many in New York, the story of Eric Garner's senseless death is still raw and infuriating, but the small but vocal Fox News crowd has always taken a different opinion on it. In the aftermath of Garner's death, Fox repeatedly booked guests who pushed the idea that Garner deserved it.

Roland Martin Slams O'Reilly For His Racist Statements
By: Steve - April 19, 2016 - 11:00am

Martin: Bill O'Reilly Promotes A "Cultural Norm That Black Folks Aren't A Part Of This American System"

What's really sad is that O'Reilly said people who slam him have never walked down the street in a poor area. But I would bet the farm O'Reilly has never walked down a street in a poor area either, as if that had anything to do with him being a racist anyway, it's a distraction tactic.

Martin said this:

ROLAND MARTIN (HOST): Alright, so that was Bill O'Reilly last week, and of course last night on Bill's show he was a little upset because people had criticized him, and so he decided to fire back. Y'all want to hear what he had to say? Ok, here we go.

Really? Blank stare? No, the blank stare is for you making up some stuff, because this is what you did. Last week, you said "most." Yesterday you said "some." So which is it Bill? Is it "most" black youth? Is it "some" black youth? But you're also going to also love this one here, because he continued, and there's a great line about walking communities -- walking the streets of certain communities that you've got to listen to.

Now, here's what's interesting, last week they were discussing black youth. Now, all of a sudden it's all poor people. You notice how he didn't want to just say "black broke folks," because now it's a lot of poor people. But you never hear Bill O'Reilly actually say "poor white folks." You never hear that. It's always this cultural norm that black folks aren't a part of this American system.

But see, that's sort of what he promotes, because he has the largest cable audience, it's largely white, and so they're buying into what Bill O'Reilly has to say. See, the problem with that is, it doesn't pass the smell test. It's interesting having Bill O'Reilly question people, saying they haven't walked certain neighborhoods, when you actually arrive at Fox News everyday in a chauffeur-driven town car.

See, I don't think you've talked to many people walking down the streets of Manhattan. Have you actually decided to go to these communities? See, Bill O'Reilly loves to talk about Chicago, but when was the last time he left his studio? When was the last time he actually did his show from Chicago? From Detroit? From Houston? From New Orleans? From Flint? See, it's real easy to sit in your studio and talk about what needs to be done. Because, see, Bill, unlike you, when I go to Union Station coming from New York, I actually walk back to the building.

I actually talk to the bus drivers, I actually talk to the brothers and sisters who I'm walking by. When I'm going to different communities, I actually talk to them. See, Bill, I was in Akron two weeks ago for their Black Male Summit. Were you? So, you love talking about black folks and what they're doing, so I got something for you.

So you were talking about Trump, you were talking about what y'all should do, so here's my challenge to you, Bill. Since you're so concerned about black people and you're so concerned about black youth, I want you to launch this.

I want you to launch the Bill O'Reilly Black Youth Summer Jobs Program. Since you're talking about stuff stamped on the head, I got "get paid" stamped on your forehead. See, I want you, Bill O'Reilly, to challenge your audience to create 100,000 summer jobs for black youth across the country. I don't want you to partner with the NAACP or Reverend Al Sharpton. I want you to call Marc Morial, the CEO of the National Urban League, because that's what they have.

See, you keep saying "big government," so how about this here. Forget big government, I want you, Bill O'Reilly, from now until the end of May, to call on your audience to say "we're going to create 100,000 summer jobs for black youth." And so this is what I want you to do, Bill. Here's the deal. If black youth don't show up, if they don't come there ready, I will shine your shoes in front of the Fox News building.

So yeah, if black youth don't show, I'll shine your shoes, and Bill, I've never shined the shoes of any other man but my own. See, I'm willing to bet on black youth. I'm willing to bet they're ready.

But see, you want to sit in your studio and talk about the culture and how folks are rejecting American norms. Bill, here's the deal, black folks have always held up the highest ideals of America when white Americans didn't. Black youth have always been there. And I can tell you right now, I know thousands of black youth have nothing stamped on their forehead, they have no tattoos, they're ready to work, but America does not have any opportunity for them.

So since you're big and bad, Bill O'Reilly, since you love talking about black youth, since you love talking about opportunities, do this, create the opportunity. Create it. Call Marc Morial and say "I'm going to partner with you to create," pull it up Shelly, "The Bill O'Reilly Black Summer Jobs Program." And I want to see you do that. And so I want to see you start in Chicago, and I want to see you go to Detroit and go to New Orleans and go to all of these cities where you're always lamenting crime.

We understand, Donald Trump said that the way to solve a lot of these issues is with a job, and in fact, what I want you to do is call Donald Trump and say "how many jobs will you put up at your hotels and at your various businesses all across America?" Bill, if you so-called "care about" black youth, put your money where your mouth is. Put up, or shut up. Because as I always believe, I always bet on black. I just don't talk about them like a dog and then all of a sudden say "oh, I'm the one who can save."

And the last thing is this here Bill. It's a whole bunch of us talking about personal responsibility. It's a whole bunch of us talking about bootstraps. It's a whole lot of us who are challenging African Americans. We do this every single day. That's why we have America's wealth coach, Deborah Owens. That's why we talk about the critical issues. But see, you don't want to do that.

What you want to do is lament what's happening among black youth. You want to impress me? Fine. Call on your followers, call on your viewers to create 100,000 jobs across America for black youth. You say they're not ready, I say they are. What are you going to do, Bill? Keep running your mouth? Or you're going to do something about the problem. See, I'm willing to do something about the problem. Bill, put up, or shut the hell up.

Republican Consultant Files Libel Suit Against Trump & Lewandowski
By: Steve - April 19, 2016 - 10:00am

A longtime Republican consultant who has been harshly criticized by Donald Trump filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit on Monday accusing him and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, of making false statements that harmed her professionally and personally.

The consultant, Cheri Jacobus, accused Trump and Lewandowski of libeling her by depicting her as a disappointed job-seeker who turned on Trump after he declined to hire her.

When Jacobus criticized Trump on CNN in late January and early February, Trump branded her on Twitter as "a real dummy who had begged my people for a job." Lewandowski described her in similar terms on television.

But in the legal filing, Ms. Jacobus claims those accusations were false and caused "enormous damage to her career and reputation, significant emotional distress" and held her up to public ridicule.

The lawsuit seeks at least $4 million in damages from Trump, Lewandowski and the Trump presidential campaign.

The legal filing from Jacobus also offers a window into the early atmosphere of the Trump political operation. It details a series of interactions with the Trump operation late last spring, stating that Jim Dornan, a Trump aide who has since left the campaign, had sought to recruit Ms. Jacobus.

Lewandowski, the lawsuit says, boasted in one meeting about Trump's friendships with major television news personalities, including Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC.

In a second meeting, Ms. Jacobus claims, Lewandowski bragged about "yelling at Megyn Kelly, a well-known journalist."

Lewandowski, the lawsuit says, "then took a printed copy of an email from his desk drawer sent by Ailes to Trump in which Ailes communicated to Trump that Trump should let him know what FOX could do to help."

Jacobus also claims that Lewandowski openly discussed plans to form a super PAC supporting Trump's campaign. In one meeting, the lawsuit says, Lewandowski and another Trump adviser "explained that while Trump was ostensibly self-funding his campaign, there would still be a pro-Trump super PAC."

Afro.com Writer Slams O'Reilly For Being A Racist
By: Steve - April 19, 2016 - 9:00am

O'Reilly claims he is not a racist, when blacks think he is, and it really does not matter what he thinks about it. If black people think you are a racist, they have a good reason to think that, because you are a racist.

O'Reilly makes racist statements, then after being called out for it he slams them as race hustlers, when all they are doing is telling the truth about him. This is real simple, stop making racist statements and people will stop calling you a racist.

Zenitha Prince, the Senior AFRO Correspondent wrote this about O'Reilly after his racist comment about blacks being uneducated with tattoos on their foreheads.

In a recent interview, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly revealed his own bigoted views while questioning Donald Trump about his strategy for courting Black voters who view the Republican presidential frontrunner as racist.

"Now, the minorities, let's talk about the minorities," O'Reilly said in his lead-up to his questions. Citing a recent interview in which Black activist and pundit Tavis Smiley called Trump a "racial arsonist," O'Reilly added, "That's the perception in the African-American precincts that you are a racial guy that doesn't like them. Is there a strategy that you have or your staff has to negate that?"

Unsurprisingly, Trump denied his disfavor among African Americans, saying, "I don't think it's the perception at all I just don't. I think we are going to do fantastic with African-Americans and Hispanics."

Asked about his message to Black voters, the business mogul echoed a familiar refrain: "My message is, I'm going to bring jobs back... The jobs have been taken out of the United States like we're a bunch of babies."

The answer, however, seemed insufficient for O'Reilly, who pressed: "But what about the grievance industry ran by your friend Al Sharpton where, you know, not only do you have to bring prosperity to all Americans, not just Blacks, but we owe them. We owe the African-Americans because of the historical atrocities that they have had to live through, their families, their ancestors, how are you going to deal with that?"

As Trump tried to respond, O'Reilly talked over him, finally asking, "But how are you going to get jobs for them? Many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads...how are you going - and I hate to be generalized about it but it's true. If you look at all the educational statistics, how are you going to give jobs to people who aren't qualified for jobs?"

O'Reilly's statements has drawn a barrage of criticism of commentators such as Smiley, who called the Fox News host a "race baiter."

"You almost feel sorry for them when you see that kind of White supremacist language on display," Smiley told MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell. "I just pushed them higher on my prayer list."

The African-American activist also pointed out O'Reilly's tunnel vision.

"These White supremacists who have tattoos on their forehead, they do not factor into Bill O'Reilly's equation," he said. "But, yet you can choose a few brothers with tattoos on their foreheads, and that becomes the mantra, that becomes the quintessential example of what all Black life is about."

Such ignorance is the reason why Black Lives Matters exists, he concluded, "because the respect and dignity and the humanity of Black life just does not exist."

Clay Aiken Fires Trump And Calls Him A Loser
By: Steve - April 18, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is an article Clay Aiken wrote recently about Donald Trump, it is a little long, but it is a very good read so I am posting it here:

Dear Mr. Trump,

You are a loser.

I took the liberty of looking up the word "delusion" for you since your advisors clearly haven't. According to the dictionary, delusion is "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." Frankly, I can't think of a better word to describe your campaign.

You can't win. The majority doesn't like you.

That being said, I'm going to do something that you have absolutely no capacity to do. I'm going to apologize. Not to you. I'm apologizing to anyone who may have heard me over the past few months imply that you are an inherently good person.

You are not. You are an awful, egomaniacal, attention-seeking fool.

I wish I could remember the gracious person I met while doing Celebrity Apprentice.

Unfortunately, the blabber and idiocy that has dribbled from your mouth over the last eight months has completely wiped any positive memory away. Most unfortunately, perhaps, is that it has been wiped away for many millions who at one point may have had some degree of respect for you. You are now virtually impossible to listen to without screaming at the television.

Admittedly, it took me a while to come to my senses. You of all people can certainly understand how difficult it is to see another point of view. The truth is, I didn't want to accept the arguments that you were a danger to this country.

I did not want to believe that you were the hate spewing, violence-inciting demagogue that so many have seen you as from the moment you announced your candidacy. I wanted to believe that, deep down, you were a good person who was just incredibly caught up in the adoration of a very vocal group of supporters.

I wanted to believe that you were saying the things you were saying, not because you believed them -- not because you truly thought Mexicans were ruining this country or that we should ban Muslims from the United States -- but because you were so hungry for attention and power that you would say whatever was necessary in order to get people to cheer for you.

And while that in and of itself is a pretty disgusting and narcissistic trait, I hoped it was all for show and not representative of your core values.

I was wrong. I hate saying that, but at least I can say it.

Campaigning is very difficult. One of the interesting things that I discovered during my campaign two years ago is that often times it's very easy for a candidate to live in a "bubble."

When you're surrounded by staff who are optimistic, and you're always speaking to excited audiences, it's very easy to miscalculate the level of support that you have among the general population. I will be the first to admit that my run for Congress was an incredible long shot. It was not a race that I necessarily expected to win and I certainly lost by a large margin.

But even though it was a long shot there were many moments when I would speak to a Republican voter who would tell me how much they liked me and how much they were looking forward to voting for me instead of the Republican. In moments like those it's very difficult not to get enthusiastic and believe that you can win.

What I failed to recognize was that for every voter who came up to me and told me they were going to vote for me there were 10 other people who were absolutely not supporting me.

It's that damn bubble.

Donald, rest assured, your bubble is about to burst. For every voter who comes to you and enthusiastically cheers on your campaign, there are hundreds that find you revolting. And according to your 68 percent unfavorable rating, the people hate you. They really, really hate you.

If you think you are still in control of this campaign, you are delusional. Uh-oh, there's that magic word again.

People should not be injured physically when attending one of your rallies. Taking that thought one step further, you should not be condoning brutality at your rallies! The fact that you encourage supporters to punch protesters in the face and then insist you never have -- despite video evidence to contrary -- is completely... well... you know the word.

If you are scared of Megyn Kelly, how the hell are you going to take on our enemies. Tweet them into submission?

That's not how the real world works.

The only one committing atrocities against your First Amendment rights is you -- inciting violence, offering to pay legal fees for anyone arrested for cruelty in your name, harboring woman abusers like your campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, priding yourself in endorsements, some of which come from hate groups like the KKK and bigots like Jerry Falwell Jr.

Your supporters turned to you because they are against establishment politicians who are "on the take" and so easily bought and sold. They want change. What they fail to recognize is that you are one of the ones doing the buying and selling!

I don't know what's worse, the fact that you believe you answer questions intelligently or the fact you can lie so easily to voters. I have watched all the debates and town halls and it baffles me that you can rattle off untruths with such ease.

You look into that camera and tell Americans that the unemployment rate is in the 40th percentile without even the slightest bit of evidence. (Sort of ironic coming from a guy with name recognition linked to the phrase, "you're fired" and a clothing line that's manufactured overseas.)

The latest statistics show that America's unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. This isn't a guess. This is a fact. Remember those?

What does it matter, though? You'll say something entirely different tomorrow anyway. You change your positions more often than the canisters in your spray tan gun. However, unlike most of your platform, you can't walk back the hateful things you've said to offend vast swaths of the American public -- women, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, Latinos, Muslims, pretty much anyone with any common sense.

The damage has already been done. Congratulations. You once had a vast and respected empire, and the name "Trump" was once synonymous with luxury and quality. Now it's just synonymous with BS. This is the vile legacy you leave your grandchildren.

And it's only a matter of time before the American people see to it. "You're fired."

O'Reilly Lied About The Democratic Party Again
By: Steve - April 17, 2016 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly lied to his viewers once again, about the Democratic party and how much support they have with the people, and how far left their policies are. According to O'Reilly the Democratic party, including Sanders and Clinton, are running a far-left liberal campaign that is promoting policies that are out of the mainstream.

This is all lies, and the facts show it. But O'Reilly does not cite any polls or surveys, nothing, it's all just his biased opinion and right-wing talking points. O'Reilly said this last week:
Both candidates want few limits on abortion; they say 'white privilege' is a major problem; and they want income redistribution. It's a litany of the liberal playbook.

In the end, the Democrats are hoping to hold together a coalition of liberal Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and voters below the age of 30, who may not be as well informed as they should be. No political party is perfect, but right now Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are running very far-left campaigns. No question about it.

Many of the Democratic Party's leading lights are radically left-wing. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, these are real bomb-throwers on the left.
Lies, lies, lies. Bill O'Reilly is flat out lying to you. Because all the polls show that most Americans support almost every Democratic party policy, with very few people supporting Republican party policies.

So in reality, it is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly said, most Democratic party policies are in the mainstream and most Americans support them. It is the Republican party that has policies that are out of the mainstream, but O'Reilly will never admit that, because he is a Republican and he does not want you to know the truth.

Here is the headline from a story at the Washington Post:

Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue

The stats I will list are from a poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News. But you can look up almost any polls, and you will see the same results, even most Fox News polls show the same results.

Here are some quotes from the article:

When it comes to the issues, voters prefer Democrats on nearly everything -- including the minimum wage, over 70% favor raising the minimum wage, even a majority of Republicans support it. Forty-nine percent of registered voters think Democrats align more with their views on minimum wage than Republicans. Thirty-four percent think Republicans mirror their view more closely.

Democrats have an advantage when it comes to health care. Democrats have a small lead on who the public trusts on the economy. More people agree with Democrats on the issue of immigration. And way more people trust Democrats to do a better job helping the middle class.

Democrats also have a big lead when it comes to which people Americans trust to do a better job helping women. When it comes to the "main problems facing the country," the public trusts Democrats more. The list goes on and on.

Americans agree more with Democrats when it comes to abortion, gay marriage and climate change too. The only issues Republicans have an edge in are balancing cuts to government programs, the federal budget deficit and gun control.

Most Americans support the Democratic party policies over the Republicans, and on a lot of issues it is by a lot. Out of the 12 major issues facing America the majority support the Democrats on 9 out of 12 of them. The Republicans only win on the military, taxes, and Government spending.

And Republicans being the low spending party is a myth, they spend more than the Democrats, they just will not admit it and they lie about it. Bush came into office with a surplus, when he left we had an 8 trillion dollar debt.

CIA Would Ignore Torture Orders From Trump And Cruz
By: Steve - April 17, 2016 - 10:00am

CIA chief John Brennan says in no uncertain terms that he would refuse to comply with any order from a future president that would force his agents to engage in torture, like waterboarding, during interrogation of terror suspects.

"I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I've heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure," Brennan told NBC News. "I would not agree to having any CIA officer carrying out waterboarding again."

The CIA engaged in harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding -- during which water is poured over a person's face in order to simulate the sensation of drowning -- when questioning terror suspects in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Critics describe the interrogation method as torture, and President Barack Obama banned such practices, which also included rectal feeding, sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation, soon after taking office in 2009. And just last year, a ban of such techniques was overwhelmingly passed in the Senate.

But billionaire demagogue Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the two leading Republican presidential candidates, have opened the door to the possibility of bringing back some forms of so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques in the fight against terrorism.

Republican front-runner Trump has pledged that he would seek to broaden the nation's laws so that torture, including but not limited to waterboarding, would be allowed. Following the Brussels attacks in March, Trump said if laws were expanded, he would "do a lot more than waterboarding."

Former CIA director Michael Hayden also said he believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump or Ted Cruz if either one of them become president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges.

Hayden, who also headed the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, made the statement on Friday during an appearance on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." Trump, fresh off a string of primary victories, has yet to secure his party's nomination, but Hayden said the candidate's rhetoric already raises troubling questions.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have condemned their use, both strong supporters of Obama's torture ban.

Sanders also voted in favor of last year's Senate amendment banning the tactics. Clinton recently said that the practice is counterproductive in the fight against terror and that, if elected president, her administration would not "condone or practice" torture anywhere in the world.

Sean Hannity Admits He Is Not A Journalist
By: Steve - April 17, 2016 - 9:00am

Now here is my question, if he is not a journalist why is he working for a news network that claims to be fair and balanced. I may be wrong, but I would think news networks should be hiring journalists.

The answer is real simple, Fox is not a news network, they are a propaganda network and Sean Hannity proves it.

Hannity Attacked His Critics For Calling Out His Softball Interviews With Trump. Hannity Also Said He Gives Softball Interviews To All The Republicans Because He Agrees With The.

In an April 11th piece, ThinkProgress pointed out that Trump has appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show "an astonishing 41 times since he announced his campaign, giving him a year long platform to target GOP voters.

Conservative website RedState claimed the report showed that Hannity "has become, for all intents and purposes, part of Trump's campaign apparatus."

Now think about that, Hannity is basically working for the Trump campaign, admits he has a right-wing bias, and says he is not a journalist, but they claim it's a fair and balanced news network.

Hannity admitted that he would interview Hillary Clinton "a hundred times harder than any Republican, because I believe the Republicans represent, and have a far better vision, one that I agree with, I just have less disagreement with them," concluding "I'm not a journalist, I'm a talk show host."

Here is a partial transcript:

SEAN HANNITY: Here's a website, ThinkProgress, remember they did the structural imbalance of talk radio so many years ago? And then they did this hit piece, "Hannity Interviewed Donald Trump 41 Times, And Never Made News," or something to that effect, which is just not true.

And they picked some of the easier questions that I asked Donald Trump, which they could have done with any other candidate that I have interviewed.

I'll be honest, I'm not sitting here -- If I'm interviewing Hillary Clinton, it's gonna be a hundred times harder than any Republican, because I believe the Republicans represent, and have a far better vision, one that I agree with, I just have less disagreement with them.

I'm not a journalist, I'm a talk show host. I can't think of any question that has come up, that I have wanted to ask these candidates, that was relevant to ask these candidates, that I haven't asked them. I've asked them everything.

And now the facts:

A Media Matters study found that in 2015, Hannity hosted 35 percent of all total interviews of Trump on Fox News. Hannity also gave Trump the vast majority of interviews compared to other GOP candidates in 2015 at 35 percent with over 8 hours of total airtime.

Bill O'Reilly Still Ignoring The Flint Michigan Water Crisis Story
By: Steve - April 16, 2016 - 11:50am

Can someone, anyone with some guts who is a guest on the O'Reilly Factor, ask the corrupt and biased Bill O'Reilly how he can claim to be a journalist when he has not said one fricking word about the water crisis in Flint Michigan.

Anyone? Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about the Flint water crisis, can someone call him out for it.

Donald Trump Is Actually Right About One Thing
By: Steve - April 16, 2016 - 11:30am

I never thought I would say this, but Trump is actually right about something. This whole delegate/electoral vote election process is un-American, un-Patriotic, and rigged.

There should not be any State delegates, and there should not be an electoral college vote.

The whole process is corrupt, for the Democratic party and the Republican party. Here is how it should work, for the primary, a person who is voting age should vote for who they like, then the candidate with the most votes should win that entire State. The candidate who wins the most States is the nominee for that party, if it's a tie, it goes to total votes.

Then you run the Presidential election, everyone who can vote goes to their polling place and votes. The candidate with the most votes wins.

This is how a Democracy should work. Not all this delegate garbage and the electoral college nonsense. And one last thing, Citizens United should be overturned and new campaign finance laws should be passed that limit donations to $250.00.

Until we do that and get all the money out of politics, the people will never be truly represented. The whole election system is rigged, by the wealthy and the political parties, and it stinks. So for once, Trump is right about something.

He is wrong that it was rigged to stop him, it is just rigged, and it has nothing to do with him. It's been rigged for years, and that is the way the political parties want it. I hate to say it, but most Americans are stupid about this, and it will never be changed until there is a massive revolt.

The people must rise up by the millions and demand change to the election process. Until then, you get what you deserve, and it will never change. We should rise up and revolt against the election process and the corporations that do not pay the workers the money they deserve. They give us scraps while they make billions, and then pay no taxes and hide their profits offshore, while opening up plants in Mexico, like Ford is doing.

This can be stopped, by boycotting Ford until they agree to build that 2,500 job plant in America. The people can stop this kind of thing, by not buying their products. Until we do something they will keep screwing us, and it's going to get worse. In 10 to 15 years we will not have any good jobs, and no middle class, they will all be in China and Mexico and the middle class will be gone.

More About O'Reilly & Goldberg On Trump Negatives With Blacks
By: Steve - April 16, 2016 - 11:00am

Thursday night Bernie Goldberg told Bill O'Reilly, Trump "hasn't done anything to my knowledge that would offend so many black people."

Neither he or O'Reilly could understand the poll numbers and Goldberg said that "one of the problems is, and hear me out on this - is that you're looking at this rationally."

O'Reilly actually thinks Trump's unfavorable among blacks is a "startling number" and Goldberg agrees. You just might be a Republican if you say something this stupid.

Here are just a few reasons why blacks hate Trump:

1) The Justice Department sued his company (twice) for not renting to black people

2) He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him

3) He is a birther who questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States

4) He treats racial groups as monoliths (the Hispanics, the Muslims and the blacks)

5) He trashed Native Americans

6) He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of the Central Park Five (in 1989)

7) He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester

8) He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man "passionate"

9) He stereotyped Jews as good negotiators - and political masterminds

Notice how O'Reilly and Goldberg also treat ethnic groups as monoliths in their analysis. They can understand why Mexicans or Latins might dislike Trump, but what has he done to offend blacks? Well, plenty as it happens, and that was just up until February 29.

But what makes them think racism directed toward a group other than your own is more palatable? I am a white man, and I am offended by Trump's comments towards Native Americans and Mexicans. So why wouldn't blacks be?

Republican math is an interesting phenomenon. I first began to see it under the Bush administration, where W and the gang of thieves he surrounded himself with would deal with problems by defining them out of existence. This process has continued, uninterrupted, and become, if anything, more pronounces since Obama's election in 2008.

We are not likely to see the end of it, and we should probably take note here of Goldberg's fantasy at one point that Herman Cain was the second coming of Ronald Reagan. This isn't political analysis: this is speculative fiction. You would get as clear a picture of American politics by watching Game of Thrones on HBO as by watching political analysis on Fox News.

The only real surprise Thursday was that between O'Reilly's false gravitas and Goldberg's fantasy fiction, that the two elderly white male conservatives did not turn Trump into a champion of the Civil Rights Movement.

O'Reilly & Goldberg Can Not Figure Out Why Blacks Hate Trump
By: Steve - April 16, 2016 - 10:00am

To begin with, they can not be this stupid. They know why blacks hate Trump, they just do not want to report on it, or admit it, and here is why.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg. Blacks hate Trump because he is a fricking RACIST who is running a RACIST campaign. Trump even panders to the white power groups and the KKK crowd. Blacks hate racists, and Trump is a racist, so it's real simple, they hate Trump because he is a RACIST!

And btw, a study of Trump supporters showed that 60% of them are in white power groups or the KKK, or just hate blacks and anyone of color. I guess O'Reilly and Goldberg just accidently missed that news too, yeah right.

O'Reilly and Goldberg actually did an entire segment on the Factor Thursday night pretending to not know why blacks hate Trump. And it was just laughable, because they both know exactly why blacks hate Trump, because he is a RACIST.

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Here is more startling number, and I don't understand this number. African-Americans favorable for Trump, 7 percent, unfavorable 91 percent. What did Donald Trump ever do to African-Americans? I'm not getting this, it's far and away the biggest repudiation of any political candidate.

BERNIE GOLDBERG: You know what? That's a fair question, because he certainly hasn't done anything specific. You can make the case that he made comments about Mexicans, that Mexicans, you know, Latins, Americans don't like, or Latinos in this country don't like --

O'REILLY: Muslims.

GOLDBERG: -- You might make that case.

O'REILLY: Right.

GOLDBERG: But he hasn't done anything to my knowledge that would offend so many black people, but I think it's the persona. Hillary Clinton is very popular among black voters, very popular. She panders to the black electorate a lot. And understandably she is, you know, they like her. So if she is the opponent of a Donald Trump. So if she is the opponent of a Donald Trump, you can see how they might say we like Hillary, therefore, we don't like Trump. But there is no rational reason. You are on to something there.

O'REILLY: I don't understand. Our African-American viewers, if you will write me and let me know, I mean, I'll do it tomorrow. We will do a segment on it.

O'REILLY: African-Americans like Cruz, a lot more than they like Trump. Again, why?

GOLDBERG: Well, they like him a lot more than they like Trump, but I mean they probably like David Duke a little more than they like Trump --

O'REILLY: But there is no rationale for either the favorable for Cruz among African-Americans, or unfavorable. I don't understand the number.

Crazy O'Reilly Makes An Insane Statement About Women & Abortions
By: Steve - April 16, 2016 - 9:00am

In case you were not sure about Bill O'Reilly, it's official, he is a lying, far-right, pro-life, idiot. Now he claims that if you add the health of a woman to an abortion exception some women will say they want an abortion because they have a headache.

That is ridiculous, crazy, and a lie. No woman in the world is going to say she must have an abortion because she has a headache, it's just a stupid thing to say and makes the pro-life nuts look even more crazy than they already are.

To begin with, it is none of their business what a woman they do not know, and is not part of their family, do with their body, especially when abortion is legal, L.E.G.A.L.

I do not understand how O'Reilly and his crazy pro-life friends think it is their right to tell a woman if she can have an abortion or not. How is it their business? Who made them God? Where in the constitution does it say pro-life nuts can tell woman they can not have an abortion.

This is insane, mind your own business.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the abortion health exception is only used when the doctor thinks having the baby could kill the mother, you lying pro-life jerk. And as I said above, it is none of your business. That is between a woman and her doctor and her family, not you and your insane gang of pro-life jerks.

Go away and get a life, stop trying to tell women what they can or can not do with their body. This is a free country, and if you tell a woman she can not have an abortion (that is fricking legal) then it is not a free country, and you should move to China or Russia.

Here is what the insane O'Reilly said:

Some Women Could Choose To Have An Abortion Because They Have A Migraine

"They Hide Behind The Womens' Health Issue, But That Could Be A Migraine Headache, You Know"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): If you are going to say that the two Democrats running for president both favor pretty much abortion at any time, for any reason, and they hide behind the women's health issue, but that could be a migraine headache, you know. OK, I don't want to have the kid, my boyfriend left me, my husband left me, whatever it may be, I got a migraine, kid is going to be born next week.

KIRSTEN POWERS: I don't think that many people get abortions because they have a migraine headache.

O'REILLY: OK, it doesn't matter. It's theoretical.

Did Anyone Notice That O'Reilly Stopped Talking About His Ratings
By: Steve - April 15, 2016 - 11:00am

Yes O'Reilly still has the #1 rated show on cable news, but his ratings have dropped in the last 2 months, when they should be going up. This is the middle of a crazy Republican primary and the cable news networks are talking politics 24/7. So you would think the Factor ratings would be going up, but they are not, they have went down.

I suspect people are getting tired of the right-wing propaganda game O'Reilly has, so they are tuning him out and watching other news shows. I also suspect they do not like his bias towards his friend Donald Trump, and his defending Trump all the time is turning viewers off.

In other words, the negative feelings about Trump are causing O'Reilly to have a drop in ratings, because they are tired of seeing O'Reilly defend all of Trumps racism and hate.

Here are the Factor average weekly ratings (total viewers) for January and February:

January - 3.1 million, 3.1 million, 3.2 million, 3.8 million.

February - 3.4 million, 3.4 million, 2.4 million, (Bolling Hosted that week), 3.2 million.

Now look at the last week of March and the first part of April:

2.3 million, 2.7 million, and this week is looking like another 2.7. In the last 3 weeks O'Reilly has lost 400,000 to 600,000 viewers a night, right in the heart of the political primary season. Which normally does not happen, usually at this time O'Reilly has a ratings increase, but this year it is different.

And the only difference I can see is that O'Reilly is a friend of Trump, mostly supports him, has a bias for him, and defends him. So it looks like the Trump love and bias from O'Reilly is hurting his ratings. Nothing else has changed, so there is no other reason to explain the drop in ratings.

Notice O'Reilly does not mention it either, he has stopped talking about his ratings, because he knows they have dropped, and he most likely knows it is because of his Trump bias and defense.

Note To Bill O'Reilly: Chicago PD Plagued By Systemic Racism
By: Steve - April 15, 2016 - 10:00am

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, racism is real and still a big problem in America, even if you deny it. So get out of your Ivory Tower and open your eyes, you are a fool, and to deny racism you make yourself look stupid.

Here are some quotes from the article:

CHICAGO -- Racism has contributed to a long, systemic pattern of institutional failures by this city's police department in which police officers have mistreated people, operated without sufficient oversight, and lost the trust of residents, a task force assigned by Mayor Rahm Emanuel has found.

The report, issued on Wednesday, was blistering, blunt and backed up by devastating statistics. Coincidentally, it was released as city leaders were installing a new, permanent superintendent for the Chicago Police Department.

"The community's lack of trust in CPD is justified," the task force wrote. "There is substantial evidence that people of color -- particularly African-Americans -- have had disproportionately negative experiences with the police over an extended period of time."

The report gives validation to complaints made for years by African-American residents here who have said they were unfairly targeted by officers without justification on a regular basis.

It raises the pressure on Mr. Emanuel and other Chicago leaders to make significant changes at a pivotal time for the nation’s second largest municipal police force, which has been under intense fire from residents and under scrutiny from the federal authorities. It includes more than 100 recommendations for change.

Survey Shows That A Lot Of Trump Supporters Are White & Racist
By: Steve - April 15, 2016 - 9:00am

O'Reilly claims that Trump is not a racist and that he has never said anything racist about anyone, and he claims to know that because he has been friends with Trump for 30 years. Even though everyone else sees Trump as a racist, because he says racist things and he has a ton of racist supporters.

O'Reilly ignores all that, it's called facts. Something O'Reilly claims to go by, as he ignores them to cover for his friend.

Here is some information Bill O'Reilly will not tell you.

It's easy enough to assert that white racism and white racial resentment stand at the core of Trumpism. It appeared obvious from the start, when Trump launched his campaign by painting Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers. But is that assertion truly accurate? Now that we've got data on Trump supporters, the verdict is in.

The answer: Hell, yes.

American National Election Studies conducted a survey in late January. To summarize, among those white Republicans and pure independents surveyed, there was a clear correlation between a stated intention to vote for Trump and the following:

1) Placing a great deal of importance on having a white racial identity -- almost 60% of those who do so support Trump versus a bit over 20% of those who don't.

2) Believing that discrimination against whites is a widespread, serious problem -- 60% of those who believe this support Trump compared to barely 20% of those who don't.

3) Stating that "many whites are unable to find a job because employers are hiring minorities instead" over 60% of those who say so support Trump versus only 10% of those who don't.

4) Calling for whites to work together to change laws that are unfair to whites -- again, over 60% who agree with such a call support Trump compared to just over 20% of those who don't.

If you're a right-wing white American, whether or not you harbor racial resentment is a powerful predictor of whether you support Donald Trump.

Or, to put it more simply, Trump attracts white racists.

The article by Clare Malone cited another piece of data -- a poll of likely Republican voters done from December 13, 2015 through January 6, 2016, by the RAND Corporation.

RAND reported that 60 percent of respondents who expressed strong agreement with the assessment that "immigrants threaten American customs and values" were supporting Trump, and also found that the stronger the agreement with that statement, the more likely one was to be a Trump supporter.

In other words, white racist who hate Mexicans support Trump in high numbers. In fact, it is the majority of his support, they are 60 percent of his supporters.

Now let me ask you this, if 60% of your supporters are racist, what does that say about you? What say you O'Reilly?

Trumpism draws on a toxic cocktail of white racial resentment, white cultural anxiety, and just general white despair. He offers an antidote to all these with his talk of making America great again. He evokes a better time -- saying he can bring back American greatness but, using coded language, making clear he's also talking about, as Jamelle Bouie put it, "restoring the racial hierarchy upended by Barack Obama."

There's a reason why white supremacist organizations and people expressing concern about "white genocide" are on board with Trump. Looking at Twitter, we can see strong social media connections (flowing in both directions) between the Trump campaign and promoters of the white genocide theme.

This one retweet brings together the support of white genocide people for Trump and the white restoration Bouie was talking about in one perfect image.

Donald Trump is far from the first person to speak the language of white resentment and anxiety. The night Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012, Bill O'Reilly said this:
Traditional America as we knew it is gone. Ward, June, Wally and the Beav, outta here. The white establishment is now the minority.
O'Reilly wasn't trying to reach all of us. If you had no idea who the people he mentioned are, then he probably wasn't trying to reach you.

In a 2013 article for In These Times, Ian Reifowitz defined "culturally anxious whites" as a group that "includes anyone who heard O'Reilly's statement and thought, at least to some degree, 'He's right, and that's a problem for us and for America.'"

In closing, those are the Trump supporters. What say you O'Reilly?

Two-Thirds Of U.S. Corporations Did Not Pay Federal Income Tax
By: Steve - April 14, 2016 - 11:00am

Can we stop this right-wing propaganda once and for all, that says Corporate taxes are too high. O'Reilly and the Republicans go on and on about Corporate taxes, saying they are too high, and the highest on the world. It's all a lie, and nothing but right-wing propaganda put out by O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republican party.

That facts show that most Corporations pay no taxes, none. And a lot of them even get a tax refund. The Corporations that do pay some taxes pay very little, because of tax loopholes and write-offs. And btw, they got those tax breaks and write-off by paying off Republican Congressman and Senators to let them have their lobbyists write the tax laws.

O'Reilly does not tell you any of these facts, because he is corrupt. Here are the facts.

A new government report shows just how easy corporate America has it.

Every year from 2006 to 2012, about two-thirds of U.S. corporations did not pay federal income tax, according to a Government Accountability Office study released on Wednesday.

Let me repeat that, they did not pay any taxes, zero, nothing, nada.

In 2012 alone, 42.5 percent of businesses that the GAO defines as large did not pay federal taxes, including 19.5 percent of big corporations that posted a profit.

Ask yourself this, why is O'Reilly not telling you this information. It's simple, because he is a dishonest lying right-wing stooge, who is hiding the truth from you, as he puts out GOP talking points on it, the very same GOP talking points he says he never uses.

Remember this is also the same guy who says he does not see racism or know any racists, he even said that in his world their is no racism and no racists. And we all know that is a lie, hell O'Reilly is a racist himself, he just will not admit it, let alone admit anyone else is a racist.

O'Reilly Has A Pattern Of Racial Stereotypes Against Blacks
By: Steve - April 14, 2016 - 10:00am

He even said that there is no racism in his world, which is laughable, because I am sure he has plenty of racists around him. Not to mention, he is a racist himself, who gets caught making racist statements, he just will never admit they are racist statements, even though all the blacks think they are and everyone else thinks it is racist too.

In an interview on Monday, Bill O'Reilly asked Republican Presidential front runner Donald Trump how he was going to get jobs for black Americans, considering "many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads."

Which is also a racist statement.

While, this time, O'Reilly's comments sparked headlines and outrage, they're part of a pattern of racist stereotypes that the Fox News host has been pushing for years.

O'Reilly purports to caution all job seekers against tattoos -- in a 2012 "Factor Tip of the Day" on tattoo regret he cautioned viewers "if you must tat, keep it as private as possible" -- but he frequently mentions tattoos and racially coded signifiers like gangsta in the same breath.

While talking about the Obama Administration's My Brother's Keeper program, which targets young men of color, O'Reilly insisted that the boys were too poorly educated to recognize role models like Colin Powell and instead were only interested in "tattoo guys."

"No, it's these gangsta rappers, it's the athletes, it's the tattoo guys. You've got to get them in there to tell these kids that you've got to stop the destructive behavior or you're going to wind up in a morgue or in prison," he told Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama.

Earlier that year, O'Reilly also said on his show that youth must conform if they want to be successful, "unless your athletic and music skills are so enormous you can make a living that way" -- citing two tracks that have traditionally been high-profile routes out of poverty for black Americans.

"That means you have to learn how to speak properly. You have to learn how to groom yourself. You can't have a face covered with tattoos unless you punch like Mike Tyson," he said.

And in 2013, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "So, when president says and all the other black leaders who've we talked to, well, we need jobs. We need jobs. You have to be able to do something to have a job. And a lot of -- not a lot, but some of these younger, not just black, white, Hispanic, they can't speak English, they can barely read. They are covered with tattoos, they are disrespectful. They can't do any jobs. Literally can't do them."
In a different show, he called this cultural debasement. People who have tattoos, he implies, are less educated, less employable, and ultimately less American -- and they're probably black or Hispanic.

People in the military have a lot of tattoos, I wonder what O'Reilly thinks of them, nothing, he ignores them, he acts like only blacks have tattoos.

It's true that there is an employment stigma against people with tattoos, although it varies depending on industry. A 2014 study published in The Social Science Journal found that people with tattoos still feel stigmatized, and that the more tattoos they have, the more stigmatized they feel. That stigma, however, isn't racially correlated -- nor is the tendency to get tattoos.

In fact, a white guy with a tattoo on his face would scare me more than a black guy with one, and I'm white. And btw, I can not remember ever seeing a black man with a tattoo on his face, but I remember seeing plenty of whites with them.

The same study found that those who had tatted family or friends were less likely to look down on those who had tattoos -- which means that tattoos will become more and more accepted, because among young people, tattoos are increasingly common. 40 percent of people between 18 and 29 have tattoos, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

Last year, in response to backlash about a short-lived restriction on the number of tattoos soldiers were allowed, the Army loosened its tattoo policy. It now allows unlimited tattoos -- as long as they're not racist, derogatory or sexist, and aren't on the face, neck or hands.

Tattoos are becoming normalized across race and education levels, but O'Reilly is still aiming his admonishments predominantly at black youth, as if they are the main tattoo demographic.

That's because what O'Reilly is really doing is using tattoos -- particularly face tattoos, which are sometimes associated with gang activity or time in prison (or, sometimes white supremacist views, which O'Reilly fails to mention) -- as a racially coded signifier.

In a 2011 show, he clearly laid out the divide according to O'Reilly.

"Those who have privilege in their lives. They are going to be the masters of the universe. And everybody else are going to have tattoos on their forehead and pierced. And they look like, come on."

It's a stereotype he keeps bringing up in his interview with Trump, who was talking about how he was going to help the black population by getting jobs. Trump tries several times to bring the conversation back to helping the black Americans get jobs, yet, undeterred, O'Reilly continues harping on the idea that they are tattooed and unqualified.

What he's really saying to Trump is that helping the black population is an impossible task -- that they're not worth it.

O'Reilly is pushing a far-right racist narrative, which he's been promoting for years, that by their own choices black Americans at large have permanently put themselves beyond help -- because they've slacked off, because they don't dress right, because they like hip hop, because they don't talk right, and essentially, because they've chosen to tattoo their blackness on their foreheads.

Tavis Smiley Slams O'Reilly For Being A Race Baiter
By: Steve - April 14, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored it, and did not have him on his show to discuss it.

O'Reilly Makes Another Insane Comment About Racism
By: Steve - April 13, 2016 - 11:00am

Before I show you what O'Reilly actually said, I will say this. His comment about racism is ridiculous. Basically O'Reilly said that in his world he does not see any racists, and that because he has a black assistant he is not a racist.

And it's real simple, O'Reilly is in denial. Because he has no clue if someone he knows is a racist or not, most racists keep it a secret, that is why the Klan wears white hoods. My Father was a racist, and nobody knew but me, my brother, and my Mother. Because he kept it a secret with everyone but his close family members.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, racists are not going to tell you they are a racist, they will keep it a secret. And just because you have a black person working for you does not mean you are not a racist. A person can still be a racist and have a black person working for them, in fact, a lot of racists hire some blacks to help hide their racism, and to keep the black from protesting their business.

O'Reilly flat out admitted he does not see racism, he says in his world there is not racism, which is just laughable. Some of his old white rich friends could be racists and he does not even know it. You never really know unless you live with someone and you see it or not. O'Reilly sees what he wants to see, and he does not see racism, no matter what it is.

I lived with my Father and I knew he was a racist, but if I had never lived with him I would not have known at all, he kept it a secret in public and to everyone but his family.

The idiot O'Reilly even slams Obama for not bringing the country together, as if it's his fault all the right-wing racists hate him. If a racist hates you for your skin color and refuses to work with you, that is not the fault of the black man, it's the fault of the racist. The insane O'Reilly blames the black man because the racists hate him and will not work with him, which is insanity.

Here is what the moron O'Reilly said to Ken Burns, the award winning documentary producer for PBS:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Now this week, the city of Philadelphia is formally apologizing for the way they treated Jackie Robinson. With us now here in New York City, Ken Burns, director of the PBS documentary. We'll get to your program in a moment, but there's a poll out today that says 35 percent of Americans, in a Gallup survey, say they're extremely worried about the state of race relations. That's up from 28 percent in 2015. In one year. And President Obama, obviously, has not brought the country together. You think its that bad?

KEN BURNS: I think its pretty bad, I think its always been pretty bad. I think people have been divided by race in this country since the very, very beginning. you know, we'd like to think our better angels are called at every occasion, and often they are. Remember when the president sang at the Charleston memorial, Amazing Grace, that was written by an ex-slaver who had gone blind, we think of that. Also, some of these old guilts also metastasize into anger and distrust of other people, and I think that's sort of come to the fore recently --

O'REILLY: Yeah, see, I don't see that in my world. And my world is a fairly expansive one. I don't know any racists. I don't know anybody, on either black or white people, who don't like, like our staff here is integrated, and my assistant is black, she's been with me for 25 years. I just never see this.

Great Example Of Negative Trump News O'Reilly Is Ignoring
By: Steve - April 13, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is a perfect example of a news story about the Trump campaign that O'Reilly is ignoring to cover for his friend Donald Trump. This story was reported by Ken Vogel at politico, their senior investigative reporter. And it has been verified to be true by multiple sources who worked for the Trump campaign, and who are no longer working for him.

Vogel says the story was not what one person who used to work for the Trump campaign said, he said he talked to multiple people that used to work for Trump, and they all said the same thing. This is a verified and truthful news story, but O'Reilly ignores it to protect Trump.

Here are some quotes from the story:

Donald Trump's campaign is increasingly falling into disarray that could set him on course for an uncertain convention floor fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

Since March, the campaign has been laying off field staff around the country and has dismantled much of what existed of its organizations in general-election battlegrounds, including Florida and Ohio.

Last month, the campaign laid off the leader of its data team, Matt Braynard, who did not train a successor. It elevated his No. 2, a data engineer with little prior high-level political strategy experience, and also shifted some of his team's duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with the consumer products company Colgate-Palmolive. Some of the campaign's data remains inaccessible.

Trump's singular star power appears to be no longer enough--and his campaign's months-long lack of attention to other fundamentals is emerging as a hindrance to his ability to clinch the nomination outright.

"Presidential campaigns are a team sport, and he doesn't have that mentality," one high-level GOP operative said. "That's why they're missing a lot of these opportunities that are passing them by. Trump might be a great quarterback, but every quarterback still needs a strong offensive line."

At the moment, Trump's team appears to be something of a patchwork group without much experience--partly because so many staffers are being fired.

Only four of 11 Iowa staffers continued on after Trump lost that state's caucuses in February. More recently, most of Trump's South Carolina, Florida and Ohio teams have not had their contracts renewed, according to a person familiar with the campaign, who said the lack of organization in Florida was putting Trump at a disadvantage in the delegate selection process.

Following a bout of illness in late February, Myrtle Beach area Tea Party activist Gerri McDaniel, who organized for Trump in Horry County, which he carried with roughly half of the vote, was let go by National Field Director Stuart Jolly in early March, shortly after he assumed authority over field staffing decisions, according to a person familiar with the incident.

Multiple staffers and advisors left the campaign last month in protest of the way its management was treating its staff, a source familiar with the departures told POLITICO.

"I don't think Mr. Trump knows what's happening on his campaign," one person said, adding "everyone is in astonishment of what's going on. It's almost like they're sabotaging themselves."

Braynard, the former Republican National Committee strategist Trump had hired to run his campaign's data team, was let go by the campaign a couple weeks ago, multiple sources also told POLITICO.

Neither Braynard nor Lewandowski commented when asked whether Braynard left of his own accord or was fired. Sources say his top lieutenant in the campaign's data shop, a former RNC data engineer named Witold Chrabaszcz, was elevated at least temporarily to run the team.

Chrabaszcz declined to comment. While he is regarded as a savvy manipulator of data, he's largely unknown in the tight-knit world of GOP data strategists. He seldom worked on political strategy at the RNC and mostly interacted with the party's other data engineers, a group known as the "basement dwellers."

Trump's analytics effort is seen as lagging significantly behind that of Ted Cruz or Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Their campaigns have spent millions identifying and targeting persuadable voters.

There is also mounting evidence that the Trump campaign's lack of organization is hurting him in the critical fight for delegates that is playing out at the state level. After winning Louisiana, Trump was surprised to learn that he failed to secure as many delegates there as Cruz and has threatened to sue.

And last weekend in Colorado, Trump was shut out as Ted Cruz secured all six of the delegates elected at two congressional district assemblies that were held a week ahead of the state GOP convention, where the delegation's remaining 27 delegates will be elected Saturday.

At the assembly in Denver, Trump seemed to have as many or more supporters show up than Cruz. But they didn't have a plan. The Cruz campaign, meanwhile, encouraged its supporters to unite behind a slate of delegates, enabling the Texas senator to win all three delegate slots from the district (the same situation played out later Saturday afternoon at the other assembly in Aurora).

"Part of it is a reflection of reality: there is not a lot of Trump support in the first place," said Josh Penry, a GOP operative based in Denver. "Add that to the general lack of organization and you get goose eggs. I think there is a very real chance Cruz sweeps the rest of the delegates in Colorado on Saturday."

O'Reilly Tells Trump Blacks Are Dummies With Tattoos On Their Foreheads
By: Steve - April 12, 2016 - 11:00am

Hey O'Reilly you said you do not know any racists, look in the mirror pal. You just said blacks are un-educated morons with tattoos on their foreheads, and that is a racist statement buddy.

I would bet that if you said that around a group of black people you would get your butt kicked, and you would deserve it. You are not only a racist, you are a racist fool.

He said he hates to be generalized about it, but then he said it anyway, what a dumb ass. And btw, a lot of whites also have tattoos on their foreheads, in fact, I see more whites with tattoos on their foreheads than I do blacks.

Here is what the fool said, insert foot into mouth:

O'Reilly: "I Hate To Be Generalized About It But It's True"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): How are you going to get jobs for them? Many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads and I hate to be generalized about it but it's true. If you look at all the educational statistics, how are you going to give jobs to people who aren't qualified for jobs?

Donald Trump Caught Lying About His Donations To Charity
By: Steve - April 12, 2016 - 10:00am

Does this guy tell the truth about anything? It sure as hell does not look like it. Because when you check into everything he says it turns out to be lies. And now we have another lie, this time about his $100 million in donations, that was never any of his actual money, and not $100 million.

The problem with Donald Trump is that he continues to expose Republican policies and ideology as failures and lies. His latest contribution toward this was claiming he gives so much to charity, when it turns out that he is selfish and greedy and prefers to spend other people's money.

Since Donald Trump hit the campaign trail he's been claiming that he has given so much to charity - $102 million to be precise, and that's just over the last five years.

But the Trump Foundation's funding has largely been provided by other people, according to a Washington Post analysis of a list of Trump's alleged "contributions."

The Washington Post found, "Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump's own money. Instead, according to a Washington Post analysis, many of the gifts that Trump cited to prove his generosity were free rounds of golf, given away by his own courses for charity auctions and raffles."

Aside from the glaring problem of Donald Trump's inability to be accurate, this actually goes to the heart of the Republican argument that the private sector will do for the poor what the government does now.

So let's see how that works out from Trump's gift-giving. Hey, starving children, how about a free round of golf? Unemployed or underemployed people, how about a free round of golf? Hey disabled people, sure you can't get to work but how about a free round of golf? Hey seniors! Scared of losing your house? How about a free round of golf!

See, the problem is that we can't direct the private sector how to spend its money, or in Donald Trump's case, how to spend other people's money. This is why the Republican argument about the private sector won't work.

It also won't work because many in the private sector are greedy, like Donald Trump, and do not care about the vulnerable and the weak. They say you can't legislate morality, well you certainly can't dictate morality to the private sector.

In the wake of the veterans fundraising scandal in which Donald Trump claimed to raise over $6 million but yet months later veterans groups have only received a fraction of the money, all of Trump's claims bear examination.

The fact that Donald Trump still refuses to release his tax returns is another reason to examine every financial claim he makes carefully.

Not to mention this, he claims he is worth $10 billion, but the financial experts at Forbes say he is only worth $4.5 billion. He is #356 on the list of the most wealthy people, listed at $4.5 billion, not $10 billion. Trump lies about his net worth, just like O'Reilly lies about his ratings. O'Reilly says he gets 5 million viewers a night, when it's actually about 3.2 million, or less on some nights, especially when he is not there.

Donald Trump is a weapon of homegrown mass destruction for the Republican Party. Try as they might to distance themselves from him by deploying Paul Ryan out to make pretty speeches, the actual actions of Paul Ryan and the rest of the House Republicans as well as now Senate Republicans tell a different story. Donald Trump is the Republican Party unmasked.

Right down to the phony claim about the private sector helping the poor so much we don't need government to do it. They claim charity will help them, when most of the charity from the wealthy is all garbage and paperwork tricks.

We can't order the private sector to be human, and in fact Republicans tell us that the private sector's bottom line is the thing that must be worshiped and catered to at all times. Republicans have even taken to using religion to justify horrific greed.

This is exactly why we have government, because we can't trust the private sector to do the right thing and we can't dictate that they do it either. Leave it to Donald Trump to clearly expose yet another failed policy from the Republican Party's ideology.

Trump Busted For Having Hundreds Of Fake Twitter Accounts
By: Steve - April 11, 2016 - 11:00am

Evidence has been uncovered that shows Donald Trump paid for a marketing campaign that used hundreds of fake Twitter accounts in an attempt to con voters into supporting his presidential campaign.

After Erick Erickson mentioned that he had been getting waves of suspicious tweets from so-called "Trump supporters," Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini dug deeper and found the evidence:

Ruffini tweeted this:

People with 0 Twitter followers seem very interested in filing complaints against Ted Cruz. pic.twitter.com/FZBVVWC36V

-- Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) April 8, 2016

This entire thread is insane https://t.co/XCUcOMobXo

-- harper (@harper) April 8, 2016

These 465 accounts generated 411K tweets about Trump over the last 30 days.

-- Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) April 8, 2016 Speaker for Trump here @ CD7 assembly asks for his supporters to stand--only a few dozen (of a few hundred) stand

-- Alexandra Jaffe (@ajjaffe) April 8, 2016

After the Trump bots had been exposed, all of their tweets were deleted:

TrumpBot tweets I collected last night now disappeared. Also includes likely bot accounts. https://t.co/bPIwQYu937

-- Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) April 8, 2016

It appears that Donald Trump is gaming social media with a paid marketing campaign. Instead of running ads like every other candidate, Trump has paid for thousands of bot accounts that retweet his messages. When Donald Trump feels slighted by someone in the media or Ted Cruz, he unleashes the fake accounts to retweet his message and change the media coverage of his campaign.

Donald Trump has taken the previously favored Republican behavior of buying followers to a whole different level by trying to con social media into increasing his supporting with paid marketing through fake accounts.

If Trump would invest one-tenth of the time that he spends trying to con the country on learning actual policy positions, he might not sound like such a moron every single time he is asked a basic policy question.

Trump is pulling a scam, and his so-called Twitter power is a fraud. As the media scrutiny increases, Donald Trump's tricks and gimmicks are beginning to be exposed.

It's common sense that the most hated candidate in modern presidential campaign history would need to buy followers and fake his social media popularity. Donald Trump is faking it, and the best news of all is that the American people have caught on.

Trump's Kids Are As Clueless As He Is About Politics
By: Steve - April 11, 2016 - 10:00am

Now this is funny, it turns out that Trump's own kids can not vote for him in the NY primary, why you ask, because they are not registered Republicans and the deadline to register has passed. What a bunch of idiots, their Father is running for President and they never thought to register to vote as a Republican, that is beyond stupid.

It also shows that Trump and his campaign are clueless, because someone on the campaign should have made sure they were registered to vote, and made sure they knew the deadline. Nobody ever thought to check with them, or tell them about the deadline, that says a lot about Trump and his terrible campaign.

During an interview on Fox News on Monday morning, Donald Trump disclosed that two of his children, Ivanka and Eric Trump, didn't register in time to vote in New York's primary, on April 19.

"They had a long time to register, and they were, you know, unaware of the rules, and they didn't register in time," he said. "So they feel very, very guilty. They feel very guilty."

According to a spokesman for the New York board of elections, previously unregistered voters faced a March deadline to be eligible to vote in the primary, while voters interested in switching their party registration had to have done so by October.

Trump's children have been a frequent presence on the campaign trail, and last week Ivanka appeared to introduce her father at a rally on Long Island just weeks after giving birth to her third child. Neither Eric nor Ivanka, however, is registered to a political party, and New York has a closed primary, meaning only those who are registered as a Democrat or Republican can vote in that party's contest.

Trump appeared to give them a pass on their failure to properly register themselves for the Republican primary.

"But it's fine. I mean I understand that," he said. "I think they have to register a year in advance and they didn't. So Eric and Ivanka, I guess, won't be voting."

Yeah in public he says it is fine, but in private I bet he is hammering them, saying what are you idiots doing, you are making all of us look like fools. This may be the first time in history a man running for President has voting age kids that can not vote for him.

And btw, Trump says he is great and he will hire great people to help him run the country and make America great again, when he can not even get his own kids to vote for him, or run a campaign. The whole thing is a circus, and Donald Trump is not qualified to be the President, hell at this point I would not even vote for him to be the dog catcher.

Kansas Numbers Prove GOP Tax Cut Policy Is A Failure
By: Steve - April 10, 2016 - 11:00am

In case you did not know it because O'Reilly and the corporate media do not report it, the state of Kansas and Republican Governor Sam Brownback have been the model for utopian, tea party Republican economic policies. In 2012, Brownback passed huge tax cuts that he guaranteed would lead to tremendous job growth in the state.

The problem is, they had the opposite effect. In fact, just last year, the state reported a 45 percent drop in revenue from the year prior to Brownback's tax cuts going into effect.

Then last August, reports came out showing that the state was losing jobs while most of the country was seeing gains in employment. Not only that, but the same report showed that, because of the tax cuts, the state's treasury had been drained of hundreds of millions of dollars since the tax cuts went into effect.

Well, new numbers have come out that completely destroy the ridiculous Republican scam about tax cuts creating jobs.

As most people know, Kansas City is actually split between the states of Kansas and Missouri. This makes the city itself a great barometer to judge whether or not Brownback's tax cuts really led to any sort of impressive job creation.

They didn't.

In fact, according to findings from The Kansas City Star, Missouri gained employment at a rate almost five times faster than Kansas between February 2015 to February 2016. The Missouri side of Kansas City added 13,900 jobs over that period (up 2.4 percent), while the Kansas side only gained 2,200 jobs (up 0.5 percent).

Not only that, but professional and business services experienced the largest increase in employment, up 4,500, with all those jobs happening on the Missouri side.

Meaning that, it's not just the Missouri side that's creating more jobs -- they're creating better jobs as well.

While this is just one state, numerous examples out of Kansas have proven that tax cuts do absolutely nothing but drain state budgets and have almost nothing to do with creating jobs.

Meanwhile, in California where taxes were raised by a Democrat a few years ago, they have a large budget surplus and a strong economy. In fact, since 2011, California has accounted for one-sixth of the total jobs created in the entire country. Which is actually 600,000 more than "low tax, deregulate it" Texas -- a state that frequently brags about its job numbers.

It's insane for anyone to believe that tax cuts create jobs. For nearly 40 years this nation has operated under the guise of trickle-down economics and it's done nothing but increased income inequality, made the rich richer and added trillions to our national debt.

And the thing is, we have indisputable proof that tax cuts don't help the economy. Who here remembers George W. Bush promising his tax cuts would pay off the national debt in about a decade?

Not only did his tax cuts not pay off our national debt (it actually nearly doubled during his eight years in office), we ended up experiencing one of the worst economic crashes in nearly a century.

On the other hand, President Obama raised taxes on the richest among us (though only very slightly), and we've seen the longest streak of private sector job growth in U.S. history.

In fact, you really do have to be ignorant to keep buying into the GOP con of "tax cuts create jobs."

And btw, the Republicans did the exact same thing in Louisiana with Jindal, and the same thing happened, it has bankrupted the State and created almost no jobs.

Liar Trump Says He Can Eliminate The Debt In 8 Years
By: Steve - April 10, 2016 - 10:00am

Now think about this, it has been proven by fact checkers that Donald Trump is lying 91 percent of the time, and the other 9 percent is only half true. After this statement I am guessing the lie percentage went up to 92 percent, because what he said is impossible.

During an April 2nd interview with The Washington Post, Donald Trump claimed he could eliminate the country's $19 trillion debt "over a period of eight years" while still pushing a "very big tax cut." According to the Post, Trump claimed "economic growth he foresees as a consequence of renegotiated deals would enable the United States to pay down the debt."

And now some actual facts from people that tell the truth:

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave Trump's claim that he can eliminate the debt in eight years "4 Pinocchios" -- its highest rating for the most egregiously incorrect claims -- saying, "We regret we have only Four Pinocchios to give for this whopper."

To back up this rating, Kessler pointed to "basic math" to explain "why this is a fantastical notion." First, Trump would need to eliminate the deficit, which is set to increase over the next eight years. Then, even if he reduced discretionary spending, renegotiated trade deals, and increased revenues, it would still not eliminate the debt in eight years. [The Washington Post, 4/2/16]

BEN WHITE: This is the problem with the entire interview he gave. He said he wants to pay off the entire $19 trillion national debt in eight years while also cutting taxes by $10 trillion over 10 years. I don't know how you do that without completely basically eliminating Social Security, Medicare, cutting all of the military. You can't do it. You don't want to do it.

He wants to at the same time eliminate the national debt while not cutting any programs and offering people more stuff. None of it adds up. [CNBC, Squawk Box, 4/4/16]

CHRISTINE ROMANS (HOST): Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, trashes the U.S. economy, talks down stocks, and makes some bold, incredible claims about the national debt in an interview with The Washington Post published this weekend.

First, Trump says he will erase the country's $19 trillion debt by the end of his second term as president, in just eight years. Just wipe it away, $19 trillion. The math, of course, doesn't work. That would require the U.S. to pay off more than $2 trillion a year. The entire annual budget is just under $4 trillion for the current fiscal year.

Trump says he will renegotiate trade deals, which would increase economic growth and wipe away the debt. But most economists say those negotiations could start a trade war and cause a recession in the United States.

But you know, to get rid of that $19 trillion debt in just eight years, it would be, really the only way you could do that was to hand every one of us a $55,000 bill and say you have to pay your share of the national debt. And that's how you could wipe it off. And then, of course, you'd have a revolt. [CNN, Early Start, 4/4/16]

BETTY NGUYEN (HOST): Well here's another question for you that I think is fascinating. Donald Trump says that he can eliminate, what, the $19 billion national debt, $19 trillion national debt in eight years. Do the math on this. Is that possible?

ELLIS HENICAN: OK look at it like this. The federal budget is about $4 trillion, give or take a few billions, right? So say we cut it in half every year for eight years, right? That would only be $16 trillion. So even that wouldn't be enough.

Oh, by the way, plus he wants to give a whole bunch of big tax cuts, which would mean the federal government would get less money. Good luck finding an economist who isn't smirking a little bit at that. [MSNBC, First Look, 4/4/16]

During the April 4th edition of NBC's Today, NBC national correspondent Peter Alexander noted that "most economists consider" Trump's plan to eliminate the national debt in eight years "impossible." [NBC, Today, 4/4/16]

On the April 3rd edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN global economic analyst Rana Foroohar criticized Trump's plan, saying it is "totally unrealistic" and "absolute fabulism." Foroohar also said the notion "that you're going to somehow really incredibly induce growth by renegotiating trade deals is also fiction."

The Boston Herald reported April 4th that experts criticized Trump's "eye-grabbing" plan to erase the debt as "crazy talk" and not "based in reality."

Salem State University political science professor Dan Mulcare called Trump's economic forecast and national debt plan "crazy talk."

"Like most of his proposals, this one isn't based in reality," Mulcare said. "It doesn't make any sense when you consider the tax proposals he's putting forth. There's no way he would be able to do it." [Boston Herald, 4/4/16]

O'Reilly Attacks Fox Host For Calling Out His Friendship With Trump
By: Steve - April 9, 2016 - 11:00am

Now think about this, O'Reilly is also the very same guy who claims Trump has never said anything racist, and that he is fair to him on his show, which are both lies. So what O'Reilly claims is meaningless, and when people call him out for his bias he always denies it, even when it's 100% true.

Trump is his good friend, and he has a clear bias for Trump, he just will not admit it, even though everyone can see it's true. Former Trump PAC staffers have said he was trying to get 2nd in the voting, and that the plan was never to win, then Trump started winning and they were shocked.

O'Reilly ignores all that news and does not report on it. Because he does not want to, it makes Trump look bad, so O'Reilly just ignores it. He also claims to only report the facts, and yet he has no facts to back up his claims, just his word. So he violates his own reporting rules to cover for his friend Donald Trump.

Here is a partial (un-edited) transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Everybody was skeptical of his ability to mount a campaign.

GREG GUTFELD: Do you know who was most skeptical? Donald Trump. He never thought this was going to happen.

O'REILLY: I don't buy that for a minute. I do not buy that for a minute.

GUTFELD: You know what he's like, Bill? He's like a guy that in high school that decides to go out for a play just to impress a girl and he gets the lead. And he's like, I don't know what I'm doing. I don't like Pippin. I hate Pippin.

O'REILLY: I will tell you, that is so wrong. I read that stuff on the internet.

GUTFELD: You have no proof, Bill. You have no proof.

O'REILLY: Of course I do.

GUTFELD: Where is it? Show me your proof.

O'REILLY: Of course I do. I mean I've known this guy for 30 years, okay? I've been to ball games with him. He doesn't do stuff --

GUTFELD: There you go, a little personal friendship there, aye, Bill?

O'REILLY: What is wrong with you?

GUTFELD: How much time do you have?

O'REILLY: Yes, okay. Yeah, I know the guy pretty well, and what you're saying is a bunch of crap.

O'Reilly Ignoring GOP Voter Suppression Law News
By: Steve - April 9, 2016 - 10:00am

These voter ID/Suppression laws that were passed around the country were all done by Republicans, they were passed to suppress the vote with young people, students, blacks, and the poor, people who mostly vote for Democrats. And it is working, Republicans can not win with their extreme out of the mainstream policies so they are trying to win with voter suppression laws.

The State of Wisconsin almost always goes to Democrats in Presidential elections, but now that they have the voter ID laws the Republican Governor even admitted the laws might be enough to help a Republican finally win Wisconsin. He never said a word about voter ID fraud, all he talked about was how the new ID law would help Republicans, which is not what the law was passed for.

And the worst part is that the new voting laws were passed to solve a problem we do not have. In a review of a billion votes over years of voting, only 31 cases of voter fraud were found. Which proves that the GOP passed voter ID laws were simply put in place to block people who vote Democrat from voting, and that is a fact.

But O'Reilly ignores it all, even though we have documented evidence it is suppressing the vote, and it is a poll tax. The constitution says it can not cost money to vote, and yet, people are forced to pay for ID's before they can vote. This is a violation of the constitution, but the Republican leaning courts let these laws stand anyway.

And O'Reilly says nothing, because he does not care if Democrats are blocked from voting, in fact, he likes it because he is a Republican and he wants to see more Republicans win elections. If he were a real journalist he would be covering this story, instead he just ignores it, I guess he is too busy defending the racism from his friend Donald Trump.

Here are some details about the story:

In the historic March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream" speech, he was pushing through the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Recognizing the history of racist attempts to prevent Black people from voting, that federal law forced a number of southern states and districts to adhere to federal guidelines allowing citizens access to the polls.

But in 2013 the Supreme Court effectively gutted many of these protections. As a result, states are finding new ways to stop more and more people (especially African-Americans and other likely Democratic voters) from reaching the polls.

Several states are requiring government-issued photo IDs (like drivers licenses) to vote even though there's no evidence of the voter fraud this is supposed to prevent. But there's plenty of evidence that these voter ID measures depress voting, especially among communities of color, young voters, and lower-income Americans.

In Alabama, after requiring photo IDs, they closed multiple driver's license offices in counties with large percentages of black voters. Wisconsin requires a government-issued photo ID but hasn't provided any funding to explain to prospective voters how to secure those IDs.

And several state legislatures (not just in the South) are gerrymandering districts to reduce the political power of people of color and Democrats, and thereby guarantee Republican control in Congress.

This is the Republican plan, suppress the vote and gerrymander districts to create more Republican seats in Congress, because they can not win the White House with their far-right policies. Both of which are unconstitutional and should be illegal, but the courts let them do it anyway.

And O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, because it benefits Republicans. And in fact, he supports the voter ID laws because he wants more Republicans to win, by hook or crook, he does not care. All he cares about is helping more Republicans win so he can get more tax cuts, and help his GOP friends get elected.

We need to move to the next stage of voting rights (a new Voting Rights Act) that renews the law that was effectively repealed by the conservative activists on the Supreme Court.

That new Voting Rights Act should also set minimum national standards, providing automatic voter registration when people get driver's licenses, allowing at least 2 weeks of early voting, and taking districting away from the politicians and putting it under independent commissions.

We should be making voting easier, not harder. But that is not what's happening, across the country Republicans in power are passing voter suppression laws, aka voter ID laws. They are passed with no Democratic votes, and they are passed to solve a problem we do not have.

In an average year we have about 4 cases of voter fraud, in the entire country. There is no voter fraud, it's a made up problem by the Republican party, and O'Reilly helps them get away with it by supporting them and ignoring the story about people being blocked from voting.

Voting isn't a privilege. It's a right. And that right is too important to be left to partisan politics. We must not allow anyone's votes to be taken away. And btw folks, if every single person in America who was voting age actually voted, the Democrats would win every election, except for the gerrymandered districts the Republicans have rigged so that only Republicans can win.

Which is another story O'Reilly ignores, the unconstitutional gerrymandering the Republicans do to rig the vote so they can get more seats in Congress. Some of these gerrymandered district maps look like snakes, this is done to rig the vote for that district, they draw the voting maps by Republican households, so that district has a Republican get elected to Congress.

And the corrupt courts allow it, but O'Reilly says nothing, because he does not care, he wants more Republicans to win, no matter how they do it.

The Trump Campaign Is A Mistake Filled Joke
By: Steve - April 9, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is some proof that the people running the Trump campaign are clueless fools. Notice that none of this stuff is reported by Bill O'Reilly, screw up after screw up, and O'Reilly ignores it all, because Trump is his friend and he does not want people to know his campaign is a joke.

The so-called New and improved Team Trump messed up the delegate wrangling process in Washington State. Team Trump sent out an email blast to loyal Trump supporters encouraging them to go sign up to be potential Trump delegates in Washington State.

But there was one problem with that, they mixed up the States, and sent that email blast to Trump supporters in Washington, DC. Not Washington State, which is roughly 3000 miles away from Washington DC.

And that is not the only mistake they made, the deadline to sign up for being a delegate in Washington State was two days ago. So they missed the deadline too.

Washington State has 44 delegates up for grabs in a closed Winner-Take-Most primary, broken down by statewide and Congressional District.

The delegates are bound to the candidate who wins them - the usual one-ballot rule - and so it behooves a prudent candidate who thinks that this convention is going to the second ballot to make sure that all the delegates are actually your partisans, because then...they're your partisans.

This is familiar by now, yes?

Well. It's becoming clear that Ted Cruz thought about all of this ahead of time and the other candidates did not:

Out of more than 70 people vying for delegate slots [at the Washington State 5th Legislative District GOP caucus], only about a half dozen or so are for Trump.

And by the end of the balloting, Cruz supporters have taken every single delegate spot. Forty-one of them are heading to the state convention. Not one Trump supporter made it through.

And when they're at the state convention they'll be joining all the other legislative district caucus delegates to pick the delegates. They have no clue what they are doing, and they have no chance to get to the White House.

The Boss Cancels NC Show Over GOP Passed LGBT Law
By: Steve - April 8, 2016 - 11:00am

Bruce Springsteen cancelled an upcoming show in Greensboro, North Carolina, in opposition to the state's anti-LGBT law that bans transgender people from restrooms that align with their gender identity.

On March 23 North Carolina's general assembly passed a bill "barring transgender people from bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates."

The New York Times editorial board slammed the legislation, writing that it "makes North Carolina a pioneer in bigotry," while regional editorial boards admonished the "recklessness and foolishness" of state officials rolling back nondiscrimination protections.

On April 7, NBA analyst and TV personality Charles Barkley told CNN "the NBA should move the all-star game from Charlotte" due to the law.

In a statement Springsteen said "this fight against prejudice and bigotry" in North Carolina is more important than a rock show: Bruce Springsteen is taking a stand over recently passed legislation in North Carolina that requires people in the state to use gendered public restrooms that match their birth certificate, specifically targeting transgender people. In a statement posted to Facebook on Friday, Springsteen canceled an upcoming show in Greensboro, N.C., over the law.

"Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry -- which is happening as I write -- is one of them," Springsteen wrote. "It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards."

North Carolina's "bathroom bill," which is officially called the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, was signed into law by Republican North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory in March. Never mind that North Carolina police have admitted that the law is essentially unenforcible, there is no factual evidence to support the pervasive theory behind this law, which is that sexual predators would exploit transgender nondiscrimination laws in order to enact assaults.

In his statement, Springsteen notes that fans can get their tickets refunded for Sunday's concert: As you, my fans, know I'm scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the "bathroom" law. HB2 -- known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act -- dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace.

No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it's an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments.

Taking all of this into account, I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters. As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th.

Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry -- which is happening as I write -- is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band's Sunday April 10th show is canceled. Tickets will be refunded at point of purchase.

Cruz Says He Would Force Rape Victims To Carry Rapist's Baby
By: Steve - April 8, 2016 - 10:00am

Women "think you may be too far right on social issues," Megyn Kelly told Cruz while pointing out that the GOP presidential wannabe's stance on abortion rights is repelling female voters away from a Republican Party that needs votes from women if it hopes to survive in November.

But Ted Cruz refused to budge from his extremist views and openly stated that he believes rape victims should be forced to carry pregnancies that result from rape to term.

"Rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person. But at the same time, as horrible as the crime is, I don't believe it's the child's fault. We want to do every thing we can do to prevent the crime on the front end and to punish the criminal. But I don't believe it makes sense to blame the child."

Ex-GOP Staffer Admits The Truth About Voter ID Laws
By: Steve - April 8, 2016 - 9:00am

On MSNBC, Ex-GOP Staffer Details How The Purpose Of Voter ID Laws Is To "Take People's Constitutional Rights Away"

Allbaugh: "I Heard People... Actually Giddy And Happy And Talking About How We Can Take People's Constitutional Rights Away, Or At Least Impede Them, To Hang Onto Power"

TODD ALLBAUGH: I've been a Republican for a long time. It was at that moment, Chris, in that room in the senate Republican caucus when I heard people, a Party I had fought for for over 30 years of my life, actually giddy and happy and talking about how we can take people's Constitutional rights away, or at least impede them, in order to hang onto power.

Now, you have a group of people in the state legislature, particularly in the senate Republican caucus, who want to impede peoples' voting rights. That's the point where I said "I can't do it anymore." I can't be a Republican, I can't keep going to caucuses because this Party no longer represents me and what I believe in.

Republicans used to fight for voting rights, and here they were taking them away. So, yes, the point is, this was a poignant point in my life. I remember it clearly and certainly the point in that room that day was how do we do this quickly because there was a lot of recalls going on in Wisconsin at that time. How do we do it quickly so that we can make sure we hang onto power in the future.


Notice that O'Reilly is not reporting on this story, and also take note of the fact that neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News has Allbaugh on as a guest to talk about what he saw in those closed door Republican meetings. They admit these voter ID laws are put in by Republicans to suppress the vote with blacks and the poor, who mostly vote for Democrats. And yet, O'Reilly and Fox ignore it all, while dishonestly defending the very same unconstitutional voter ID laws.

Seth Myers Slams The Dishonest Voter ID Laws
By: Steve - April 7, 2016 - 11:00am

Trump Slams Washington Insiders Then Hires One
By: Steve - April 7, 2016 - 10:00am

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has played the angry populist, railing against fat-cat donors, influence peddlers, and Washington establishment insiders who rig the system to the detriment of the American people.

TRUMP: "These people have hundreds of millions of dollars that they've given to these politicians, and these politicians are puppets for them," he exclaimed recently. "With me, I'm going to do what's right for the country."

But when Trump needed a political operative to oversee his campaign's crucial delegate strategy--which could determine whether he wins the nomination at the Republican convention in July--he hired one of the most prominent Washington insiders: Paul Manafort, a veteran Republican lobbyist and consultant who has made millions of dollars working the system on behalf of corporations seeking government favors as well as Third World strongmen and kleptocrats.

Manafort has been honing his skills as a delegate wrangler for four decades, starting with Gerald Ford's 1976 campaign, when the sitting but unelected president faced a stiff challenge in the Republican primary from Ronald Reagan. Manafort subsequently handled this function for other GOP presidential candidates, from Reagan in 1980 to John McCain in 2008.

The Chamber of Commerce's Scott Reed, who worked with Manafort during Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, described him as "a proven vote counter [who] knows how to strategically move a campaign."

Manafort, who was the Dole campaign's convention manager, led the effort to minimize the role at the convention of Patrick Buchanan, the right-wing commentator who placed second in the GOP nominating contest, so that Dole would not be burdened in the general election with Buchanan's controversial conservative positions.

Hunting delegates was a side job for Manafort, who focused on lucrative work as a lobbyist for under-fire corporations and reviled political figures. In 1985, for example, Manafort and an aide flew to Angola, which was then in the middle of a bloody civil war, to woo Jonas Savimbi, a onetime Maoist and brutal warlord who allegedly relied on blood diamonds to fuel his army.

According to the Washington Post, Manafort's pitch to Savimbi was almost derailed by a furious outbreak in fighting, but he managed to land a $600,000-a-year contract to represent Savimbi and his UNITA party in Washington, DC, and to try to help Savimbi win US funding.

In another chapter of Manafort's long career, he pulled off a feat that epitomizes the kind of inside-the-Beltway cronyism that Trump rails against. In 1986, Manafort was paid more than $326,000 by a developer to lobby a Reagan administration official to approve a $43 million taxpayer-funded grant for a housing project in New Jersey that local officials didn't even want.

His role in the deal became the subject of a congressional hearing, where Manfort told members of Congress that he shouldn't be faulted for knowing how to game Washington. In one telling exchange, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) challenged Manafort's involvement, calling it a "very smelly, sleazy business...I feel it wasn't a meritorious project. People who knew how the system worked were able to get their project approved, even if it wasn't meritorious."

Manafort shrugged the complaint off. "We worked the system as it existed," he said. "I don't think we did anything illegal or improper."

When asked about his purported $1,000-an-hour fee to pull strings inside Washington, Manafort dismissed the question, responding, "By Washington standards, that is not very high."

How serious is Trump about his crusade to rid Washington of high-paid, system-rigging influence peddlers? By putting Manafort on his campaign payroll, Trump has demonstrated he certainly isn't against using these insiders if it benefits his own special interest.

Fox News Loves To Hire Known Racists
By: Steve - April 7, 2016 - 9:00am

Former Los Angeles police Detective Mark Fuhrman -- is currently back in the news due to FX's dramatic miniseries The People Vs. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story.

And he w­orks for Fox News.

Despite committing perjury and being caught on tape spewing racial epithets, Furhman got a job on Fox News, which frequently hosts him to discuss racially charged news stories.

Fuhrman, who was a witness for the prosecution during the O.J. Simpson murder trial, became toxic with the discovery of hours of audio tape of him using racial epithets.

As New York Times television writer Danielle Henderson described them, "The Fuhrman tapes are deplorable, laden with racial epithets, confessions of coercion, and blatant bragging about how he's worked the system in order to victimize minorities."

Fox News describes Fuhrman as "a forensic and crime scene expert for FOX News Channel" in his official biography, and while the network notes that he "served as a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) detective for 20 years" and "was a witness in the O.J. Simpson trial," there is no mention of the controversy over his racist comments that featured so heavily in the case.

As laid out by the Philadelphia Inquirer during the trial, after Fuhrman testified as a witness for the prosecution about the evidence he had uncovered at the murder scene and at O.J. Simpson's home, defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey asked Fuhrman, "Do you use the word nigger in describing people?" Fuhrman responded "No, sir."

Bailey followed up and asked him, "And you say on your oath that you have not addressed any black person as a nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?" Fuhrman replied, "That's what I'm saying, sir."

Bailey then asked Fuhrman, "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that word in dealing with African-Americans would be a liar, would they not?" To which Fuhrman replied, "Yes, they would."

Then we found out that in 1985, Fuhrman gave a recorded interview to aspiring screenwriter Laura McKinney, who was working on a screenplay about female police officers. During that interview, Fuhrman used the word "nigger" to refer to African-Americans 40 times.

This is the most racist and discredited policeman in the history of America, and his tapes were a big part of O.J. getting away with the murder of two people, but Firing him as a crime analyst. Which is just unreal, he should not even be allowed on tv, let alone hired by a News Network ad a crime analyst.

During the Simpson trial, Fuhrman was widely condemned and even the prosecutor referred to him as a "bad cop"during closing arguments.

These tapes were so bad when the prosecution team started to listen to them, they could not even listen to them all. Fuhrman even said nasty and horrible things about Judge It's wife on the tapes, who was a Captain for the LAPD. It almost caused a mistrial, and it almost led to judge Ito recusing himself from the case, because his wife lied about knowing Fuhrman.

In October of 1996, after Simpson had been acquitted of the double homicide, Fuhrman was charged with perjury, and he entered a plea of no contest, admitting that he had lied under oath about using the racial epithet. He was given probation and a fine, but no jail time. At the time, LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams said of Fuhrman: "The wounds that were opened up by his comments will take years for this department to overcome."

After writing a series of crime books, Fuhrman resurfaced as part of the Fox News team. During Fuhrman's time on the network, Fox has used him as an expert voice on several racially charged incidents involving police:

Fuhrman told Fox News about the "people" he "dealt with" for 20 years who would "kill somebody and go have some chicken at KFC."

Fuhrman was invited on Fox to discuss the killing of black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

Fuhrman appeared on Fox to discuss the videotaped beating of a black man by white LAPD officers.

Fuhrman appeared on Fox's Kelly File to discuss protests in Ferguson, MO.

On Fox, discussing the arrest of a Muslim teen over a homemade clock, Fuhrman said, "I don't feel sorry for Ahmed ... He was passive aggressive."

On Fox, Fuhrman defended the actions of a school police officer who dragged and threw a black student across the floor.

In addition to criminal justice issues, Fuhrman has also appeared on Fox to discuss the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare.

On February 3rd, Megyn Kelly discussed The People Vs. O.J. Simpson on her show, The Kelly File. Kelly noted that Fuhrman was a "frequent guest on this show," but instead of hosting Fuhrman, she spoke with Simpson defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

Discussing Fuhrman, Dershowitz said, "Look, he had a terrible past and did some terrible things and said some terrible things. He helped us win the case."

Trump Throws A Tantrum And Claims Cruz Broke The Law
By: Steve - April 6, 2016 - 11:00am

Donald Trump has thrown a fit after losing Wisconsin and accused Ted Cruz of illegal campaign activity. Donald Trump has thrown a fit after losing Wisconsin and accused Ted Cruz of illegal campaign activity.

Robert Costa tweeted the full sore loser statement from the Trump campaign. In case anyone had any doubts about how unpresidential Donald Trump could get, this statement showed how low Trump can go. Trump didn't bother to congratulate Cruz on his win. In the mind of Donald Trump, the only way that he can ever be beaten is by being cheated. Trump constantly accuses those who get the best of him of cheating.

Trump made a very serious allegation against Ted Cruz. If Cruz were illegally coordinating with any super PACs, it would be a violation of federal law. If the Trump campaign has any evidence of illegal coordination, they need to file a complaint with the FEC, but the Trump campaign will never file the complaint because they have no evidence that Ted Cruz broke the law.

The campaign's allegation that Ted Cruz is nothing more than the weapon of choice for the GOP to deny him the nomination is true, but the entire statement reads like the complaints of the poor little rich boy who is upset that he can't win everything all of the time.

One of the most overlooked facets of Trump's personality is that he really believes his own hype. Donald Trump believes that he is the smartest guy in any room. Trump believes that if he loses his opponent must have cheated.

Trump views his Wisconsin defeat as the Republican Party ganging up on him. This is a savvy bit of manipulation from a candidate who knows that a large segment of the Republican Party distrusts its leadership.

Donald Trump is playing to the rage of his voters. It is time for Trump to put his money where his mouth is. If he has proof that the Republican Party is using illegal tactics to beat him, he needs to show it.

Otherwise, America is getting bored with Trump's tantrums, because the country wants a leader, not someone who is going to throw a fit everytime that they don't get their own way. And in my book he is getting what he deserves, this is what happens when a racist clown idiot runs for President, you lose and you look like a fool doing it. As I have said a hundred times, Donald Trump will never be the President.

Ted Cruz Crushed Clown Donald Trump by 15 Points In Wisconsin
By: Steve - April 6, 2016 - 10:00am

Trump said he would win Wisconsin, even though all the polls had him losing by 10 or more points, which just shows what a lying idiot he is, he can not even tell the truth when it's looking him right in the face.

If anyone believes one word Trump says about anything you are a fool.

Republican Ted Cruz easily won the Wisconsin presidential primary on Tuesday, dealing a blow to front-runner Donald Trump's hopes of amassing enough delegates for the party's nomination and boosting chances of a rare contested convention.

Cruz's double-digit win over Trump was a breakthrough for Republican Party forces battling to block the controversial New York billionaire, and it raised the prospect of a prolonged nomination fight that could last to the July convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

Trump is never going to get to 1237, and the Republican party is going to dump him at the convention, bet on it.

Insane O'Reilly Claims Trump Never Made Any Racist Statements
By: Steve - April 6, 2016 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly says he Has "Never Seen" Trump "Cast Aspersions At Any Group At All" O'Reilly: "I've Known The Man For A Long Time. I've Never Seen The Man Do Anything Racial"

Wow, O'Reilly is so far up the backside of Trump he can not even see daylight. Trump makes racist statements almost every day, and insults women too, that is why he has a 70% negative rating from Latinos and women. O'Reilly is a clown, just like Trump. They are both liars who have no concept of reality.

O'Reilly says Trump just makes mistakes, which is laughable, making racist statements over and over day after day is not a simple mistake, it's a plan to get the white man vote, and to hell with everyone else, it's a version of the old southern strategy, O'Reilly just will not admit it because Trump is his friend. The Southern strategy refers to a strategy by Republican Party candidates of gaining political support in the South by appealing to disaffected white voters.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): When you use a word racial arsonist, okay, that conjures up to me David Duke and these kinds of people who their sole reason for being is to run down blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or whatever.

TAVIS SMILEY: And it took Mr. Trump too long -- it took Mr. Trump too long to come around to denouncing one David Duke and others when they came out to support him.

O'REILLY: You make mistakes and so do I. That doesn't mean --

SMILEY: Bill, that's not a mistake. That's not a mistake. Listen, you live your life --

O'REILLY: I've known the man for a long time. I've never seen the man do anything racial.

SMILEY: You live your life by a certain set of immutable principles. I live by life by a certain set of immutable principles. And when you live your life by a certain set of principles there are some mistakes that you just don't make. It's fundamentally who you are --

O'REILLY: I don't know about that.

SMILEY: And this election is fundamentally immutable what kind of nation who the nation we are going to be.

O'REILLY: All I can tell you is I have known the man a long time and I have never seen him cast aspersions at any group at all.

SMILEY: You might not have seen it but the rest of the country has all during this campaign.

O'REILLY: But I've been around him much more than the rest of the country.

Delegates Ready To Dump Trump At Contested Convention
By: Steve - April 5, 2016 - 10:00am

The reality of a contested convention has become more real than ever, with Donald Trump facing the risk of losing Wisconsin next week, meaning he'd have to win roughly 60 percent of the remaining delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination outright.

If Trump heads into the convention without the magic number of 1,237, already more than a hundred delegates are poised to break with him on a second ballot, according to interviews with dozens of delegates, delegate candidates, operatives and party leaders.

In one of starkest examples of Trump's lack of support, out of the 168 Republican National Committee members -- each of whom doubles as a convention delegate -- only one publicly supports Trump, and she knows of only a handful of others who support him privately.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has been whipping Trump in the quiet, early race to elect his own loyalists to become delegates to the convention, meaning that the Texas senator could triumph through delegates who are freed to vote their own preferences on a second ballot, regardless of who won their state.

"As far as the stealing of the Trump nomination, that's a big concern for everybody," said Diana Orrock, the RNC committeewoman from Nevada and the only one of 112 committeemen and women who openly supports Trump.

None of the nation's 56 state and territory GOP chairmen, also convention delegates, have endorsed Trump either. They are subjected to a mix of state-based rules as far as their obligation to back Trump on the first vote.

The risk of a routing at a contested convention is becoming more acute because of Trump's uncertain standing going into Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday. Two polls this week showed Cruz 10 points ahead of Trump in the state.

A loss in Wisconsin would hardly be devastating, but it would surely embolden the anti-Trump forces in other states, making his efforts to win the 60 percent of the yet-to-be-awarded delegates to reach the 1,237 figure needed to clinch the nomination outright that much more difficult, according to a POLITICO analysis.

"They've got to get their s--- together in Wisconsin," said a top Trump ally in the South. "If he doesn't have 1,237, I'd be very concerned with what happens in Cleveland."

One of Trump's top advisers privately acknowledged worries to a Republican operative that Trump might not make it to 1,237 and aired concerns that his rivals are better-positioned to win a drawn-out convention, according to the operative.

It has been reported that Trump even scolded some of his aides Thursday during a private meeting with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus for allowing themselves to get outmaneuvered in some of the delegate selection processes.

Charlie Black, a veteran of Republican conventions who is advising John Kasich's campaign, said Trump could find himself in third place on a second ballot in Cleveland.

"I do know the nature of the delegates. The majority of them, they're conservatives but they're party regulars -- County chairmen, state regulars, local sheriffs," he said, suggesting they're less inclined to vote for Trump if left to their own devices.

In recent days, evidence has emerged that Cruz has proven especially adept at outmaneuvering Trump in the delegate scramble, especially in Louisiana, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wyoming. Reports suggest Cruz is also better organized in Georgia, too.

"The Trump campaign hasn't really gotten out of first gear, but the Cruz campaign is starting to accelerate," said Brad Wyatt, a longtime party activist who's not aligned with either the Cruz or Trump camps.

Another top Massachusetts Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity said that at best, Trump will find himself in a dogfight for delegates in the state, despite his dominance at the polls.

Though Trump won all 50 delegates in the South Carolina primary, interviews with two dozen prospective delegates and state party insiders suggest many are likely to abandon him on a second ballot. The process in South Carolina is largely dictated by party insiders.

And Trump's decision to sideline his loyalty pledge raised another unnerving specter for his campaign: State Party Chairman Matt Moore suggested on Twitter that the move could disqualify Trump from earning delegates at all, according to state rules.

The next test of Trump's ability to prevail in Cleveland will begin this weekend in North Dakota, where Republican insiders will elect 25 national delegates at a state convention. Trump is dispatching a top surrogate, Ben Carson. Kasich is deploying former New Hampshire Sen. Gordon Humphrey on his behalf. The Cruz campaign is sending the candidate himself.

GOP Political Analyst Slams Trump For Anti-Women Statements
By: Steve - April 5, 2016 - 9:00am

Elise Jordan: When Trump Said Punish Women For Abortion, "I Think That Women Heard That Loud And Clear"

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): So Elise, that lack of discipline I think that people are pointing to -- you know, there are certain things that were said in the past [by Donald Trump] that everyone felt were so damaging, that actually, I think, played into the feelings of primary voters. I think these comments on abortion may be different because you lose voters when you say things that impact women's lives directly in, perhaps, what they would feel, a negative way.

ELISE JORDAN: Well, and I think the choice of words in that first interview with Chris Matthews, punish -- I think that women heard that loud and clear, that they were to be punished for their choices, whereas the man who is involved, nothing Trump said in the interview, the man is irrelevant, no punishment for him.

I think women heard that and I think it was just the confluence of really damaging events. Just the drumbeat of anti-women -- and I'm sorry, I'm a young Republican woman and I do not want Trump to be president just because I feel he is so anti-women.

And that's -- I've lived through the 2012 cycle, it wasn't exactly Republican men saying sweet things about women, but this is far, far worse than anything I've ever seen. I think that he is one of the most damaging men in public life when it comes to how he talks about women.

Note To America: Donald Trump Is Lying To You 91% Of The Time
By: Steve - April 4, 2016 - 10:00am

From politicsusa.com:

Politicians running for president are graded by Politfact and the order runs in the way you would expect it to if you find yourself annoyed when Donald Trump is speaking.

And Donald Trump is at the bottom of the list with only 9% of true or mostly true statements. In fact, Trump lies so much that in 2015, Politifact awarded him the Lie of the Year for numerous statements he made, because the team couldn't pick the most egregious lie. Out of 77 statements checked, 76 of them were found to be mostly false to false to pants on fire lies.

What does it mean that the man who tells the most lies is the most popular with the Republican base?

I say this because it makes sense, but also, the rest of the list tells this story. Senator Ted Cruz, who is a con artist of the Sarah Palin variety but more educated and wily, gets a 24% rating for true or mostly true statements.

Now we will start to leave the land of conservative media bubbles and find reality. In reality land, we have Governor John Kasich, the only Republican 2016 candidate who isn't terrifying for his lack of sanity, and Kasich has a 51% rate for saying things that are true or mostly true.

Kasich is a hardcore Republican (anti union, anti women) but he hasn't left the planet. He is grounded in the reality of his ideology and he is sane. This distinguishes him from the rest of the Republican field and makes him the only viable alternative were a person to be voting Republican.

But Republicans have nothing but contempt for Kasich, because he is not far-right wnough for them, and he doesn't lie enough to appease the base.

Kasich is tied with Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist, who is a fierce advocate of a government that works for the people, who also scores 51% of true and mostly true statements. I point out his ideology because the right has been taught scary things about Sanders, yet here he is at the top of the truth list.

At the top, with a 52% true or mostly true rating is Hillary Clinton, who also has a long record of fighting for the middle class and poor, working families, women and children.

Basically the top three are tied, with Clinton, Sanders and Kasich being the most honest in the 2016 field. These are the three grown ups in the race.

Republicans love the lies because ideologies comfort the voter. Everyone wants to feel like they are right, righteous, and morally superior. The problem comes when people can't accept reality because reality says they were not right. And instead of admitting that and adjusting course, they demand that everyone get blamed equally while still claiming they never made a mistake.

This level of petulant avoidance of reality is what got the Republican party to the point where their base loves the biggest liar the most.

They don't care that Donald Trump lies; they love him because his lies soothe them. His lies appease them. His lies make them feel justified and righteous. His lies make them feel good about who they are.

The voters are the children who do not want to be grown ups and the grown ups in the party have indulged them and fed them candy to keep from having to parent, and now they are stuck with a monster of a child named Trump.

Trump Sent Palin To Speak For Him & It Was A Disaster
By: Steve - April 4, 2016 - 9:00am

To begin with, Sarah Palin is as dumb as a rock and it is clear to everyone who listens to her speak for even two minutes. She just rambles on with crazy garbage that makes no sense to anyone, with talk of soccer balls and teddy bears, it's nonsense. And if you send her to speak for you it makes you look bad too.

Trump sent Sarah Palin to speak for him at a Milwaukee County Republican gathering. Palin opened with a joke that bombed, and her hillbilly Alaska schtick was met with stone cold silence.

The problem was obvious. Palin was her usual unhinged and disjointed self.

She later attacked immigrants with the bizarre claim of immigrants receiving gift baskets, "What the heck are you thinking, candidates? What the heck are you thinking when you're actually asking for more immigrants - even illegal immigrants, welcoming them in. Even inducing and seducing them with gift baskets. Come on over the border and here's a gift basket of teddy bears and soccer balls. What are you thinking? It's just inviting more."

Less than five minutes into her speech, it was clear that the audience was praying for her to shut up and go away.

Palin continued to ramble on and on and on. She even unintentionally provoked laughter from the crowd by claiming that Donald Trump is the only one who talks rationally about foreign policy, "Only Trump talks rationally, about listening to top brass as president, and hiring the best of the best to work alongside our commander-in-chief."

Palin tried to bash the media by claiming that they let their chosen ones get away without answering questions while completely ignoring the fact that nobody has gotten a bigger free pass from the press than Donald Trump. It was clear to see that Palin either wasn't following her speech transcript, or she never had one. Palin had some notes, and like Trump usually does, she appeared to wing it.

Milwaukee Republicans are the heart and soul of Wisconsin's never Trump movement, but the Trump campaign managed to make the situation even worse by sending Sarah Palin to speak for him. If the Trump campaign had any electoral skills or political awareness at all, they would have sent Trump himself to at least take on the never Trump movement directly. Instead, Trump took the cowards way out and sent Palin into a room where the audience looked they would rather die than listen to one more second of Palin's incoherent babble.

They hated Sarah Palin, and the big Alaska quitter was too full of her own arrogance to notice, or care. The easiest and most obvious point is that Sarah Palin bombed in the speech, but what speaks volumes about the Trump campaign is that they sent Palin to deliver the speech in the first place.

Donald Trump was already losing in Wisconsin, but his decision not to speak to key Republicans when he had the chance may have just turned a likely defeat into a landslide win for Ted Cruz on Tuesday.

Stupid Republican Voters Are To Blame For Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 3, 2016 - 10:00am

People are asking who is to blame for Donald Trump, and the answer is the voters. Because no matter how much media coverage he gets, or how wealthy he is, or how well known he is, if the voters did not vote for him we would not be where we are today.

What this shows is that a big part of the Republican party is stupid, I hate to say that about a large group of people, but the truth is this, if you support Donald Trump you are stupid. He is a clown and a right-wing fool, and he is playing you for suckers.

Trump is not even a conservative, and half his positions are liberal. He is a massive liar, a racist, a sexist, and clueless about foreign policy or how government works. When Obama ran for President every Republican in the world said he was not qualified to be the President because he did not have any experience.

Even though Obama was in politics, and a sitting Senator from Illinois. Trump has no political experience at all, none, zero. He was never a Mayor, or a Congressman, or a Senator, nothing. So where are these same Republicans who slammed Obama as unqualified to be President on Trump, nowhere to be found.

Because they are biased fools that have fallen for the con-man Trump.

Now here is the worst part, John Kasich is the only person running for the Republican nomination who is beating Hillary in the polls. And he is in last place with the Republican voters, they hate him.

Think about that, the Republican voters are supporting the most dishonest clown they could find, who is losing the worst to Hillary. While ignoring the actual real Republican who could beat Hillary in November.

It's insane, and nobody is to blame but the Republican voters. They are fools that are going to guarantee Hillary is the next President and we will have another Democrat in the White House for the next 4 to 8 years.

Thank You Republican voters, in my book you are doing great. By voting for Trump you are electing Hillary. You are fools for doing it, but I love it. If someone wrote a movie saying the voters would back the loudmouth fake Republican racist clown who loses to the Democrat, and not the smart conservative who can beat the Democrat, the movie studio heads would laugh you out of their office, unless it was a comedy.

The media helped to get Trump where he is, but the real blame is on the Republican voters who vote for this clown. Trump is a sideshow, he is the ring leader of a giant circus. And he will never be the President, roughly 70% of the people have a negative view of him, and will never vote for him in the general election.

And btw, if Cruz does somehow steal it from Trump and he runs against Hillary, he also loses to her, by a lot. So the Republican voters are supporting the two biggest losers they could possibly find, even other Republicans hate Cruz, and only a few Senators have endorsed him, who only did it because they hate Trump even more.

So once again I say thank you to the Republican voters, and pretty soon you will be able to start lying about President Hillary Clinton.

Obama Sets New Record For Monthly Job Growth
By: Steve - April 3, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is some news O'Reilly and the Republicans never tell you about, because they are too busy lying that Obama has been a bad President, and claiming they will bring the jobs back, when they are already back and have been for 6 years now.

The latest economic data released today showed that President Obama continues to smash records by presiding over a 73 straight month of private sector job growth.

Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said this:
U.S. businesses have now added 14.4 million jobs over 73 straight months, extending the longest streak on record. Today we learned that private employment rose by 195,000 jobs in March.

Total nonfarm employment rose by 215,000 jobs in March, in line with the pace of recent months and well above the pace necessary to maintain a low and stable unemployment rate given longstanding demographic trends in labor force participation, which CEA estimates at 80,000 jobs per month.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.0 percent in March, while the labor force participation rate rose to 63.0 percent, reaching the same level as November 2013. Over the past six months, the labor force participation rate has increased by 0.6 percentage point, the largest six-month increase since 1992.

Average hourly earnings for private employees increased 0.3 percent in March, more than reversing their drop in February, and have grown 2.3 percent over the past year.

As this increase shows, the strengthening recovery has led more individuals to decide to enter the workforce and search for a job, which in recent months has more than offset longstanding declines in labor force participation from the aging of the U.S. population and other preexisting trends.
"It's clearly a strong report across the board and I was particularly encouraged by the pickup in labor force participation," Michelle Meyer, deputy head of United States economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told the New York Times.

For Republicans, the news of a growing economy was another big blow to the party's dimming hopes of winning back the White House.

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a statement, "While the Do-Nothing Republican Congress continues to tear itself apart over whether its 'Road to Ruin' budget plan is brutal enough to seniors, students and hard working families, Democrats are standing for a better vision: help families facing public health crises, grow the paychecks of hard-working Americans, and invest in the future of our country."

Republicans say they are running to "make America great again," but the country is already doing well under President Obama. And the President's rising approval ratings are proof that the economic improvement is not going unnoticed. Which O'Reilly also ignored, as he always does.

The presidency of Barack Obama has contained more historic achievements than most, but the one achievement that stands out from the rest is his leadership in transforming an economy that was on the brink of depression into very good economic growth.

Obama Points Out Trump Knows Nothing About Nukes & The World
By: Steve - April 2, 2016 - 11:00am

And let me also point something out, remember when Obama ran for President. O'Reilly and all the Republicans said he was not qualified to be the President because he had no experience in government or foreign policy. That was their main argument against Obama, even though he did have political experience and he was a Senator from Illinois.

But now that Trump is running you barely hear that argument from Republicans, and O'Reilly never says it. The Republicans and O'Reilly even argue that Trump can put experts on his team to advise him, but when Obama said he would do that they slammed him for it and said that is a bad thing.

Some Republicans do say Trump does not have enough experience, but nothing like the attacks they had for Obama when he first run for President. And btw, Obama has done a fine job, even with his lack of world stage and foreign policy experience, because he is smart and he learns quick.

Here is what Obama said about Trump:

President Barack Obama said Donald Trump's recent comments about nuclear weapons show the Republican presidential frontrunner doesn't know much about -- not only foreign policy -- but "the world generally."

At a press conference to conclude the Nuclear Security Summit on Friday, the president was asked for his reaction to Trump's suggestion that U.S. allies Japan and South Korea manufacture their own nuclear weapons as a defense against North Korean aggression; and Trump's refusal to rule out using nuclear weapons against Europe.

Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama said the comments "tell us the person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally."

The president said Trump's eyebrow raising comments came up "on the sidelines" of the summit that took place in Washington, D.C. this week.

And one last thing, even most Republicans agree that Trump is clueless about the world, Nuclear weapons, policies, and treaties, not to mention all the other foreign policy plans we have or are working on.

North Carolina Facing Corporate Backlash Over GOP Anti-LGBT Law
By: Steve - April 2, 2016 - 10:00am

So far 100 national companies have signed onto a letter distributed earlier this week decrying the law. They join the several businesses that had already spoken out against it in the days immediately after it passed. Wells Fargo added to the symbolic stand on Thursday by lighting the 48-story Duke Energy Center in pink, white, and blue to celebrate International Day of Transgender Visibility.

Several cities and states have also banned all government-funded travel to the state of North Carolina. On Friday, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) added D.C. to a growing list, which includes San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, and Portland, as well as the states of New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Washington.

These actions are increasingly being buttressed by measurable economic consequences. Braeburn Pharmaceuticals was planning to build a $20 million manufacturing and research facility in Durham County, but it announced this week that it is "reevaluating our options based on the recent, unjust legislation."

Lionsgate Entertainment said that it would continue production of its made-for-TV Dirty Dancing remake in North Carolina, but would reconsider filming future projects in the state. "We will be hard pressed to continue our relationship with North Carolina if this regressive law remains on the books," the company said in a statement. Already, it abandoned lining up rentals and hiring for a comedy pilot, choosing instead to shoot it in Canada.

Theatre composer Stephen Schwartz is also encouraging members of the theatre community to boycott the state because of its "reprehensible and discriminatory law."

He announced this week that he and his collaborators "are acting to deny the right to any theatre or organization based in North Carolina to produce any of our shows. We have informed our licensing organizations and touring producers of this, and I'm happy to say have met with compliance and approval from them."

This means that no theatre in North Carolina will be able to legally produce Wicked, Pippin, Godspell, or Children of Eden so long as the law is on the books.

For his part, the Republican Governor McCrory's talking points have not changed. Even after meeting with LGBT activists on Thursday, including trans woman of color Candis Cox-Daniels, his office issued a statement reiterating his position that there "is a well-coordinated, national campaign to smear our state's reputation after we passed a common-sense law to ensure no government can take away our basic expectations of privacy in bathrooms, locker rooms and showers."

The law's other primary supporters have been similarly clinging to anti-LGBT rhetoric to justify their positions. For example, Senate Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R) launched a "Stand With McCrory" campaign page, complete with an image of an apparently cisgender man sneakily entering the women's room.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Dan Forest (R) has used social media to repeatedly lean on a piece by long-established bigot Frank Turek. In the piece Turek argues that sexuality and gender are simply behaviors, not identities, and thus it's right for the law to discriminate against those behaviors.

As the backlash grows in North Carolina, pressure is also mounting in Mississippi, where Democratic lawmakers are trying to stall that state's sweeping licence-to-discriminate bill. It already passed both chambers of the legislature, but a procedural vote will keep it from advancing to the governor's desk until at least Monday.

Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has not said whether he will sign it or not, but did indicate last week that he doesn't believe it to be discriminatory. If he does sign it next week, Mississippi could face its own share of economic consequences.

Cruz Now Has A Ten Point Lead Over Trump In Wisconsin
By: Steve - April 2, 2016 - 9:00am

Which is bad news for Trump, because in February Trump was 5 to 10 points ahead of Cruz, now he is losing by 10 points.

Ted Cruz holds a wide lead over Donald Trump in Wisconsin less than a week from the state's primary, a new Marquette University Law School poll shows.

Cruz, the Texas senator, tops the Republican field with 40% support, compared to Trump's 30% and Ohio Gov. John Kasich's 21%.

And btw, that Marquette University Law School poll is seen as the most reliable poll in the state, and they are almost always right.

The so-called experts on cable tv also say the Cruz lead in Wisconsin is because of women voters, they say Trump has lost a lot of the women vote in the last month or two.

The survey was conducted March 24-28, before CNN's Republican town hall on Tuesday night in Milwaukee.

Donald Trump Is So Dishonest It Is Laughable
By: Steve - April 1, 2016 - 11:00am

Now he is saying MSNBC edited his answer on the abortion question, which is a lie, it was not edited at all, ever. He gave his stupid answer and now he is suffering for it, so he is trying to spin it. Yesterday it was a different excuse, yesterday he said they took him out of context, when they played the entire un-edited tape, so how could it be out of context?

Then his paid defenders/spin doctors said he is not a politician and he does not know what he is doing, when that excuse failed they changed it to MSNBC tricked him and edited the tape to make him look bad. It's laughable, Trump is an idiot and he just can not admit it.

And now on the Lewandowski case Trump says people wanted him fired for simply grabbing the reporters arm. And that is also a lie, they do not want him fired for grabbing her arm, they want him fired for lying about it and smearing her.

After it happened Lewandowski got on twitter and called her delusional, said she was lying, and smeared her as a nut-job. And they did that the whole time they had the tape and they knew they were lying and she was right.

She is not delusional and she was not lying, Trump and Lewandowski were the liars. The people calling for him to be fired are saying he should be fired for the lies, the smears, and the cover up. And in any other campaign Lewandowski would be fired. After all the guy was charged with battery, and will have to go to court for it.

But Trump will not admit the truth, and neither will Lewandowski, because they are women hating jerks who only think women should be in the bedroom and the kitchen, that is why Trump has a 70% negative rating with women. Even 58% of Republican women have a negative view of him.

The sad part is if he had some good advisors that he would listen to, they would have told Trump to admit Lewandowski grabbed her and just say they were sorry. She even said in the beginning she just wanted an apology and it would have been over. But when they lied about her and smeared her as crazy and delusional she got tough with them and filed charges.

Trump is a lying jerk who supports other lying jerks that are working for him, and that is why he will never beat Hillary and why so many women hate him. Donald Trump is not qualified to be the President, and thank God, he never will be. In fact, it looks like his campaign is finally crashing and burning, because people are suddenly looking at Trump and they see what he really is, a dishonest and racist liar.

Eric Bolling Says He Can Not Find Any Sexism Against Hillary
By: Steve - April 1, 2016 - 10:00am

And this idiot is a major news anchor on the Fox News Network, including his job as the fill-in host for O'Reilly when he takes a day or a week off. Hillary is attacked daily for her voice, her looks, and her clothes, which are all sexist attacks. Bolling himself and almost everyone at Fox has done it, including all his co-hosts on The Five, and virtually everyone at Fox, including O'Reilly, Dennis Miller, Greg Gutfeld, etc.

The insane Bolling said this to Kirsten Powers:
ERIC BOLLING (HOST): Will constantly playing the gender card be an effective strategy with voters in the general election? Joining us from Washington with reaction, Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers. Kirsten, first of all, in the sound bite, what the heck was [Michael Eric Dyson] saying. I have no idea what he said. To answer quickly, oh, you wouldn't believe how much sexism she's experiencing. How is she experiencing sexism?

Can you give us an example? Because I'm trying to figure it out. She does really well with women voters. What am I missing? Who's being sexist towards her?
Wow! That makes no sense at all, so because she does well with women voters there is no sexism against her? On what planet does that make any sense, not on earth. The fact that she does well with women voters has nothing to do with (mostly men) saying sexist things about Hillary.

They slam her looks, he voice, her clothes, etc. And they do not do any of that to the men who are running for President.

Bolling also said this:
BOLLING: Barbra Streisand says Hillary Clinton is battling, outright sexism. I'm still trying to find it.
Now if you want to find it you can, it's everywhere, only partisan right-wing hacks like Bolling can not find it. Here are just a few headlines about sexist attacks on her.

The NY Times' Shoddy And Sexist Attacks On Hillary Clinton

CNN Op-Ed Calls Out Media "Sexism" Regarding Attacks On Hillary Clinton's Voice

On CNN, Hillary Clinton Addresses Sexist Attacks Against Her: "We Are Still Living With A Double Standard"

A Comprehensive Guide To Sexist Attacks On Hillary Clinton From The 2008 Campaign

And btw, if you google these words: "sexist attacks on hillary clinton" you get 682,000 results, but Eric Bolling can not find any, yeah right, and I'm Bill Gates too. He can not find it because he does not want to, and this lying jerk is the Factor fill-in host, which makes O'Reilly just as bad as he is for letting this a-hole host his show.

Larry Sabato Predicts Clinton Will Crush Trump
By: Steve - April 1, 2016 - 9:00am

Larry J. Sabato from the centerforpolitics.org is predicting a massive win for Hillary Clinton in November if she runs against Donald Trump. And he is a non-partisan, not some liberal, he is even a regular guest on the Factor, so even O'Reilly uses him as a credible political analyst.

He is saying that if Hillary runs against Trump she would get 347 electoral college votes, to 191 for Trump. It only takes 270 to be the President, so she makes it by a mile, and Trump does not even get close.

In fact, a 347 to 191 would be even worse than Obama beat Romney, that was 330 to 205.

So go ahead and vote for Trump Republicans, I hope he does win, because Hillary Clinton will crush him, and you will also lose a ton of House and Senate seats. So cut your own throat and vote Trump in, all us liberals are hoping you do it.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: