KKK Leader David Duke Is Making Robocalls For Donald Trump
August 30, 2016 - 10:30am

David Duke has launched an automated phone campaign urging voters to vote for him as US Senator in Louisiana and Donald Trump for president.

Duke, a prominent white nationalist and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, has become an outspoken supporter of the Republican nominee who, he says, "embraces most of the issues I've championed for years."

White supremacists groups have rallied behind Trump, who launched his campaign with a hardline stance against immigration from Mexico. This support has become a thorn in the side of the New York businessman amid sharp criticism from his rival, Hillary Clinton, who accused him of running a campaign of "paranoia and prejudice."

In the robocall, obtained by BuzzFeed News, he warned of the perils of massive immigration and the decline of the US.

"Unless massive immigration is stopped now, we'll be outnumbered and outvoted in our own nation. It's happening!"

"It's time to stand up and vote for Donald Trump for president and vote for me, David Duke for the US Senate." Duke said in the message.

The Numbers Show Trump Is Bankrupting The Republican Party
August 30, 2016 - 9:30am

Here is another story you will never see O'Reilly report on.

An analysis of RNC fundraising data has revealed that beyond losing, Donald Trump's drain of a campaign is literally bankrupting the Republican Party.

According to Open Secrets, RNC contributions are at their lowest point since before 2004:

Virtually every category of receipts shows a decline this year. Contributions from individuals where the amount given is less than $200 (the "unitemized" category) is less than half what it was in July of 2004, 2008 and 2012.

There is a similar decline in direct contributions of larger amounts where specific information about the donor is included in the report. These itemized contributions total much less than July 2004 and 2008 and are even smaller than July 2012 when joint fundraising became much more important.

These joint fundraising efforts where the presidential campaign works together with the national party and state parties around the country are increasingly important, and the RNC total from those efforts also lags in July compared with 2012 and 2008.

The Trump campaign has talked about huge joint fundraising successes, but neither the campaign nor the RNC has received all that much from this process so far comparatively.

People often look at cash balances and the end of the month to get a feel for how a committee is positioned for future spending. Here too, the RNC on July 31 was strikingly short of its own status on the same date in past campaigns. At a time when $80 to $100 million is the norm, the RNC finds itself with only $34.5 million in the bank.

The Trump campaign bragged about their big increase in fundraising, but a deeper look inside the numbers shows that the RNC only has $15 million in usable cash.

That is $15 million for every race, data operation, voter registration, and get out the vote effort in the entire country. Trump's refusal to build a campaign operation in all 50 states has resulted in the RNC having to spend their resources. And Trump doesn't have a data operation, so the RNC is using party resources for that too.

Donald Trump is basically bleeding the Republican Party dry. It is no surprise that a man who has built his career on bankruptcy and debt is mooching off of the Republican Party. What is shocking is how quickly Trump has pushed the RNC towards insolvency.

The money that the RNC isn't raising because of Trump matters because that means that there will be less money to go around for other candidates.

Republicans could lose close House and Senate elections because RNC Chair Reince Priebus threw precious party resources down the Trump sink hole.

Don't believe the Trump created hype. Trump may play a billionaire on reality television, but as a presidential nominee, he is a deadbeat eating all of the RNC's food while crashing on their couch.

Panel Laughs As Trump Spokesperson Tries To Defend Immigration Flip-Flop
August 30, 2016 - 8:30am

She actually said Trump did not change his position, he just used different words, and the entire panel (including the Republicans) broke out laughing at how stupid she is, and what a liar she is.

I do not know how Katrina Pierson has remained as one of Donald Trump's top spokespeople. I could understand if she were simply some random supporter who did interviews once in a while. But she's not just some random supporter -- she's one of his top surrogates. And she is easily one of the most recognizable individuals associated with his campaign.

If I were Trump I would have fired her a long time ago, he says he only hires the best, but she is terrible, and he keeps her on as a spokesperson. Which says a lot about Trump, that when he says he only hires the best, it's all hot air, just like the rest of what he says.

During many of her interviews you can tell the person questioning her is struggling to take her seriously. I've seen several instances where the interview was cut short due to the absurdity of the answers Pierson was giving.

Well, on Thursday, things got a little more embarrassing for Trump's top spokesperson during a CNN panel discussion about his immigration policy. The Democratic and Republican guests who appeared alongside Pierson each erupted into laughter as she insisted that her candidate's stance on immigration hasn't changed -- even though it most certainly has.

After being pressed by CNN's Erica Hill over Trump's comments he made during an interview with Sean Hannity where he said he was open to allowing illegal immigrants who've been here and are in good standing to stay (aka amnesty), signaling a massive shift from his earlier comments on mass deportations, Pierson insisted that nothing about his policy has changed.

"He hasn't changed his position. He has changed the words that he is saying," Pierson stated. "What he has always said from the beginning -- that he does not want to allow people to stay in this country illegally. He does want to build the wall, and that's exactly what he said from the beginning."

Wrong!

"Katrina, he has said get them out," Hill responded "He's been very clear about his position. This is a change, this is a shift, a flip-flop, it's an evolution, whatever words you want to use."

Ann (the man) Coulter has even admitted it is a change in position and a flip-flop and slammed Trump for it. But not Katrina, she is sticking to her ridiculous story that nobody on earth believes.

"No, Erica, it is how that's being discussed now," Pierson responded. "He said if they're here illegally, they'll have to go."

Except, that's not what Trump said during his interview with Hannity:

TRUMP: "So you have somebody who's been in the country for 20 years, has done a great job, and everything else. Do we take him and the family and her and him or whatever and send him out?"

While he didn't flat-out say it, that's Trump stating that he's open to the idea of amnesty, which is most definitely a different stance than he had earlier in his campaign.

Here are the facts, Trump said he would deport every single illegal, all 12 million of them, that is exactly what he said. He said he would put together a deportation force of some kind to deport them all, even though it would cost billions and every expert there is says it is impossible, and maybe even unconstitutional.

O'Reilly even admitted it will never happen.

Now Trump is saying he is open to letting some of them stay in the country, which is totally different from what he was saying 6 months ago. Katrina should just admit he changed his position, and then make excuses for that, instead she gives some insane answer that he did not change his position, he just used different words, it's laughable.

And if I were Trump, I would fire her asap. Because she is making herself and him look like fools.

Petition Demands Fox Fire Bill O'Reilly Over Harassment Claims
August 30, 2016 - 7:30am

An online petition demands that Fox News clean house by firing star host Bill O'Reilly due to claims that he harassed former anchor Andrea Tantaros.

The petition, started by feminist site UltraViolet, also wants the cable channel's parent company, 21st Century Fox, to fire Bill Shine, recently appointed network co-president. Shine enabled a hostile environment toward women during the reign of former Chairman Roger Ailes, according to Tantaros lawsuit against the network.

The petition says Fox's ouster of Ailes in July didn't go far enough, because Shine and O'Reilly remain employed.

"Clearly, Fox isn't done putting women in danger," the petition says.

Tantaros lawsuit, filed in August, says Ailes repeatedly commented about her body and made unwelcome advances. The suit targets other Fox News executives, including Shine, whom Tantaros claims told her to drop her complaints about Ailes.

O'Reilly is not a defendant in the lawsuit, but Tantaros accuses him of inappropriate behavior. He asked her to come to his very private place on Long Island and said he hoped to see her "as a wild girl," the lawsuit says.

"Having a harassment-free environment is a basic right," said Karin Roland, UltraViolet chief campaign officer. "Sexual harassment was clearly rampant." As of Monday, more than 36,000 people had signed the petition. The signatures will be sent to Fox News later this week, Roland said.

Fox News attorneys, meanwhile, on Monday sought to have Tantaros lawsuit decided by arbitration, Vanity Fair reported.

At least 20 women, including popular host Megyn Kelly, have reportedly described degrading conduct at Rupert Murdoch's cable news channel to company investigators. The revelations started after former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson sued Ailes for harassment in July.

The long-running O'Reilly Factor is one of the most widely watched cable news programs. The show brought in 2.9 million to 3.2 million viewers during each of four episodes that aired from Aug. 15 to Aug. 21, according to Nielsen ratings. In 2004, O'Reilly settled a lawsuit with an associate producer who accused him of harassment.

Tantaros had co-hosted Outnumbered, but stopped appearing on Fox News in April. The network claimed she violated her contract by not getting approval to work on a book.

The network "operates like a sex-fueled Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency, and misogyny," according to the Tantaros lawsuit.

Republican Stuart Stevens Says Breitbart News Is In The Hate Business
August 29, 2016 - 9:30am

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's Reliable Sources:

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): Let me ask you about debate prep, we were talking about the debates a minute ago. There's a report this weekend that Laura Ingraham, the conservative talk radio host and Fox News regular is participating in debate prep. She might play Hillary Rodham Clinton if Trump ever gets behind a podium and does that kind of practice.

We also know that Roger Ailes is there to do debate prep, the former Fox News chairman who had to step down last month. And of course Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart, now running Trump's campaign. Is this a conservative media takeover of the Trump campaign and of debate prep?

STUART STEVENS: Well, I think you have to separate Steve Bannon from Breitbart, from conservative media. I mean Breitbart is, they're in the hate business. They're a bunch of nuts.

STELTER: You say the hate business, that is very strong language.

STEVENS: Well, read Breitbart. That's what they are. There's this whole alt-right thing, which I think is just re-packaged racism trying to put a better name on it. And xenophobia...

STELTER: And to be clear, you are a Republican strategist, you ran Romney's campaign four years ago, and you're sitting here saying that one of the most popular web sites for Republican readers is a hate machine?

STEVENS: Yeah. I mean read it.

Clinton Ad Shows Trump's Make America Great Slogan Is A Big Lie
August 29, 2016 - 8:30am

In a new 30-second ad, Hillary Clinton goes after Donald Trump's outsourcing, weighing it against his claim to "Make America great again."

In a press release, Hillary for America says the ad, "entitled Hat, Spotlights the contradiction between Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' hat and Trump's career-long record of outsourcing jobs to manufacture Trump-branded products in at least 12 countries. 'Don't believe the hat,' the ad intones. 'You can't make America great again if you don't make things in America.'"

"He wears it like a crown -- Make America Great Again -- but Trump had his shirts made in Bangladesh, his ties in China and his suits in Mexico. In fact, the real Donald Trump outsourced his products and jobs to 12 different countries."

The Washington Post reported in March that the "Donald J. Trump Collection shirts -- as well as eye-glasses, perfume, cuff links and suits -- are made in Bangladesh, China, Honduras and other low-wage countries."

Ivanka Trump has items in her jewelry and clothing lines made in China as well.

It is interesting that while it has been pointed out that Trump "said that as president, he would impose a huge tax on Ford vehicles and parts manufactured in Mexico and shipped to the U.S.," he has so many of his own products made in other countries.

And not once has he explained why it is wrong to make car parts in Mexico, but not his products. Letterman even slammed him for it, and he had no answer, he just said oh well, and blew it off.

Trump has no problem enriching himself at the expense of American jobs. He just doesn't want anyone else to do it.

As Talking Points Memo reminds us, back in 2005, Trump told his now defunct university that "Outsourcing Creates Jobs in the Long Run."

TRUMP: "We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs--how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses. But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing.

I understand that outsourcing means that employees lose jobs. Because work is often outsourced to other countries, it means Americans lose jobs. In other cases, nonunion employees get the work. Losing jobs is never a good thing, but we have to look at the bigger picture."


Which is not what he's saying now. He's as wishy-washy on outsourcing as he is on immigration.

Trump broke the hypocrisy meter long ago. What remains is to demonstrate to the American people that Donald Trump has no interest in making America great again. Or rather, as the map demonstrates, he will make great anyone who will fill his pockets. And that takes place anywhere but in the United States.

Anti-Trump Republicans To Launch Swing-State Ad Buy
August 29, 2016 - 7:30am

Notice that Bill O'Reilly never reports on any of this, ever, not once has he had any Republican on to talk about people in the Republican party buying ads against Trump asking him to drop out, which before this year was unheard of in politics, O'Reilly just ignores it because he is a Trump stooge.

Anti-Trump Republicans are preparing to launch a broadcast TV ad in a handful of swing-state suburbs urging Donald Trump to quit the presidential race so the party can replace him with a more electable nominee.

The ad, titled "Keep Your Word," features footage of Trump during the Republican primary in which he suggested he'd drop out if he saw his poll numbers decline.

"Number one, I'm not a masochist, and if I was dropping in the polls where I saw I wasn't going to win, why would I continue?" Trump said in an October NBC interview featured in the ad. A graphic displaying political handicappers' predictions of a landslide Trump loss accompanies his remarks.

The ad ends with a plea: "Resign the nomination. Let the RNC replace you so we can beat Hillary."

The 30-second spot is marked for a limited run on broadcast networks in suburban Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Michigan, according to Regina Thomson, a Colorado Republican activist and leader of Free the Delegates, the organization that failed to stop Trump's nomination at last month's national convention. All four states are central to Trump's path to the White House, though he's trailing in most polls of those states.

The ad is backed by a five-figure buy, according to Thomson, but the group is hopeful to eventually expand its run to Fox News Channel. It's initially set to air on broadcast news channels beginning on Tuesday. It's marked for the four states' suburban media markets, according to Free the Delegates, because they're areas that typically lean Republican but appear to be tilting in Hillary Clinton's favor this year.

The spot was produced by NOVA Digital Films, a Virginia-based firm that lists a slew of conservative candidates and organizations as clients, including the Republican Party of Virginia, Americans for Prosperity, the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List and former gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.

Trump is facing significant headwinds on his way to November. Polls show him trailing in virtually every swing state -- sometimes by big margins to Clinton. He's also in close contests to win traditionally red states like Arizona and Georgia, that always go to Republicans.

Ex-Obama Campaign Manager Calls Donald Trump a Psychopath
August 28, 2016 - 11:30am

Which is like saying water is wet, we already know Trump is crazy, he shows it every time he opens his mouth.

President Barack Obama's first campaign manager, David Plouffe, said Sunday that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is a "psychopath," adding that he thinks Hillary Clinton will face an easy road to the White House in November.

"I mean, basically, we have a psychopath running for president. He meets the clinical definition, okay," Plouffe told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

Plouffe backed up his diagnosis by listing off psychotic behaviors that he said Trump has displayed: "The grandiose notion of self-worth, pathological lying, lack of empathy and remorse."

Plouffe, who helped lead Obama to victory in 2008, said he believes Trump's campaign strategies -- or seemingly lack there of -- are going to lose him the race.

"I think the assessment was that Donald Trump would try and do some things to appeal to the middle of the electorate, to appeal to suburban college-educated women," Plouffe said. "He's not."

"The race ends today; I think Hillary Clinton is guaranteed at least 269 electoral votes," Plouffe said. "I think it's likely going to be a landslide," he added later.

Plouffe is currently the senior vice president of policy and strategy at Uber, the taxi app, but remains very involved in opining on presidential politics on his Twitter page.

Here is a nice little fact that O'Reilly and Fox never report, in 2012 Romney got 59% of the white vote and only won 24 states, in the past Ronald Reagan got 56% of the white vote and won 44 states, think about that. It means you can not win with the white vote only, especially now, because minorities are having more kids than whites, and the Latinos are having more kids faster than anyone.

Don Cheadle Unleashes Twitter Storm On Donald Trump
August 28, 2016 - 10:30am

"Dwayne Wade's cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago," Trump tweeted Saturday morning, misspelling the basketball player's first name.

"Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!" ....

Actor Don Cheadle and other Trump critics Saturday pounced on the tweet, saying he was seizing on Aldridge's death and Chicago's gun violence for political gain.

In a series of tweets (often employing pretty salty language) Cheadle blasted Trump as using the shooting to throw "red meat to his alt-right troglodytes."

"People of Drumpf's ilk are contributors to the conditions that lead to the 'Chicagos' of this country," Cheadle said in one tweet, referring to the surname of Trump's German ancestors.

The election, Cheadle added in another tweet, "is like a Shakespearean farce except it could end in a mushroom cloud."

Republican Senator Tells GOP Candidates To Distance Yourself From Trump
August 28, 2016 - 9:30am

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is telling fellow Republicans to distance themselves from Donald Trump if they want a future in politics.

Asked how fellow Republicans could win election to statewide office, Flake on Friday told The New York Times: "Distance yourself from Donald Trump."

"That's difficult. But I think you've got to do it if we're concerned not just about this election but elections to come," he added.

Otherwise, Flake said, "this will last decades."

Flake, a frequent critic of the Republican presidential nominee, has refused to endorse Trump, saying he would hurt the party.

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, because he is a friend of Trump and he does not want to make him look bad.

Clinton Speech On Trump Racism Met With Silence From The GOP
August 28, 2016 - 8:30am

Thursday, Hillary Clinton delivered a blistering and unprecedented speech, labeling her opponent, Donald Trump, a lifelong racist. She did not mince words, arguing that his racial bias rendered him unfit to serve.

"A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military. If he doesn't respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?"

Clinton cited a lot of examples to bolster her point, tracing Trump's history of racism from the suit the Justice Department brought against him years ago for discriminating against blacks and Latinos seeking to rent apartments, to his embrace of the birther conspiracy to his comments during the campaign about Muslims, Mexicans and others.

Still, Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. Branding him a racist is a fundamental threat to the viability of the party now and in the future.

You would expect the leaders and elected officials of the party to rally to his side, slam Clinton's speech as a smear and demand an apology. Instead, there has been silence.

Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of The House, has two Twitter accounts. Collectively the accounts have posted 31 times on Thursday. He's posted nothing about the speech.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has three Twitter accounts. He's posted nothing about the speech.

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican Party, has a very active Twitter account. He's posted nothing about the speech.

The official twitter account of the Republican Party, the organization supposedly devoted to electing Donald Trump the next President of The United States, has also been silent about the speech.

There is also nothing about the speech on the GOP.com website or blog.

But Trump's campaign press office has been busy attacking Hillary's speech, which a spokesman called a "desperation play."

The Trump campaign is having trouble finding prominent Republicans to defend him. Right now his site features statements criticizing Hillary's speech from unknowns such as Patricia Bober, Oz Sultan and Alfred Liz.

Some prominent Republicans might not be criticizing Hillary's speech because they agree with it. Paul Ryan, for example, called Trump's attack on Hispanic federal judge Gonzalo Curiel the "textbook definition of racism."

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse agreed.

Ben Sasse - @BenSasse

Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of "racism."

Sasse opposes Trump's candidacy while Ryan has sort of endorsed him. But today, the most striking thing is not what Republicans are saying. It's how many of them are staying silent.

Business Slams Trump: Warning His Presidency Could Cause Global Recession
August 27, 2016 - 9:30am

The business community is not impressed with Donald Trump, and seem to be desperately looking for the nearest exit. Today they worry that Donald Trump will cause a global recession. And this isn't a one-off, given that previous reports have also suggested dark economic outcomes from a Trump presidency.

"The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States could lead to chaos in markets and increased policy uncertainty that tip the world into recession, according to Citigroup Inc.," Bloomberg reported Thursday.

Explaining that William Buiter "has been warning of a global recession for nearly a year, though he previously saw a deceleration in Chinese growth as the proximate cause," Bloomberg quotes Buiter's current theory on Trump:

"A Trump victory in particular could prolong and perhaps exacerbate policy uncertainty and deliver a shock (though perhaps short-lived) to financial markets," writes a team led by Chief Economist Willem Buiter. "Tightening financial conditions and further rises in uncertainty could trigger a significant slowdown in U.S., but also global growth."

Reports showing that the economy would weaken significantly under Trump's policies aren't new. In June, a Moody's analysis warned that during Trump's first term we would reduce employment by 3.5 million jobs and a heavy recession would hit the nation.

The Wall Street Journal wrote up the Moody's analysis and reported additionally that the tax plan wouldn't help:

Trump's tax plan would lower tax rates across the board and limit some deductions. The Tax Policy Center, a project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said the plan would cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, while the Tax Foundation, a think tank that favors lower taxes, said the plan would cost $10 trillion over a decade, even after assuming higher economic growth.

In June, a Forbes opinion column tried desperately to make the case that while the reports on Trump's economic policies were bad, it didn't matter. Sure, the outcome is still bad, but not as bad as the reports claim, the author Tim Worstall posited, because presidents don't get everything their way with budgets.

"The outcome still is not good for the simple reason that parts of those economic plans are not good," Worstall wrote. "Shrug, that's what happens with bad economic policy. But those outcomes are nowhere near as bad as is being generally bandied about when people make the incorrect assumption that Trump would get what he asked for."

Still, this is not a great campaign slogan: "A Trump presidency will be bad, but don't worry, Congress will stop him from making it a total disaster!"

On August 17, Citigroup's William Lee suggested that the odds of a recession would be much higher under Trump. Speaking to CNBC's Power Lunch, Lee said, "All of his trade policies may not only cause the lowering of our imports but it could cause retaliation on the part of our exporters and so that could contract trade. We think that would be the source of a recession sooner than later under Trump."

The real point here is that Donald Trump's economic policies are just as bad as his border policy and his banning Muslims policies.

It's just that people are used to Republican tax plans doing the opposite of what they claim, so it's no shock that Trump's plan would cost trillions in lost revenues and even with alleged growth factored in, would cost $10 trillion over a decade. So much for trickle down.

That's a lot of money to spend to reduce employment by 3.5 million and cause a global recession. We already tried this version of Making America Great Again and it was a horrifying failure that put the full burden of the mistake on the backs of the middle class and poor.

Thanks, but no thanks to Trickle Down Trump policies that help nobody but the wealthy.

Crazy Michele Bachmann Is Advising Donald Trump On Foreign Policy
August 27, 2016 - 8:30am

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who has claimed President Barack Obama's foreign policy would lead to the rapture, says she is advising Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on foreign policy.

Speaking to reporters outside a private fundraiser that Trump held in Minneapolis on Friday evening, the 2012 GOP presidential hopeful and tea party stalwart said she has known Trump for several years and supports his proposals to crack down on immigration and terrorism.

"He also recognizes there is a threat around the world, not just here in Minnesota, of radical Islam," she told Minnesota Public Radio. "I wish our President Obama also understood the threat of radical Islam and took it seriously."

Bachmann also serves on the real estate mogul's evangelical advisory board, working on outreach to conservative voters.

Last month, she warned that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would create certain destruction and catastrophic decline if elected president. She also celebrated Trump for his "1950s sensibilities and 1950s common sense," and argued that because he "gets and understands religious liberty," people of all faiths will be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" during a Trump presidency.

Like Trump, Bachmann is an avid conspiracy theorist. Last fall, when she visited Israel, she argued that there is violence and unrest in the country because Jesus is "coming soon." She warned Christians that they must convert as many people as possible, "even among the Jews."

In 2011, when Trump raised questions about whether Obama was born in the U.S., Bachmann was among the GOP lawmakers calling for the release of Obama's birth certificate.”

It was unclear why Trump was campaigning in Bachmann's home state; a GOP presidential nominee hasn't won there since 1972. While polling on Minnesota is limited, most results indicate that Clinton has a comfortable lead.

But during Friday's fundraiser, Trump claimed he has so many friends in the state and hopes to visit a lot, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Donald Trump is campaigning in a bunch of States he can not win, States the GOP has not won in 20 years, or longer, which makes no sense and is a total waste of campaign money.

Investigation Exposes Trump As A Foreign Bank Owned Fraud
August 27, 2016 - 7:30am

The evidence is mounting that Donald Trump isn't as rich as he claims as an investigation into his business holdings revealed twice as much debt as he reported on his federal disclosure forms.

The New York Times looked into Trump's business interests and found a mountain of debt:

An investigation by The New York Times into the financial maze of Donald Trump's real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt -- twice the amount he reported in public filings he made as part of his bid for the White House.

The Times's inquiry also found that Trump's fortunes depend deeply on a wide array of financial backers, including one he has cited in attacks during his campaign.

For example, an office building on Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan, of which Trump is part owner, carries a $950 million loan. Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, after it paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.

The Trump campaign is definitely about an out of control ego who really believes his own self-created superhero status. The President Of The United States is the most famous person in the world, and Donald Trump craves that fame.

Donald Trump is also interested in making more money for himself, and if elected president, Trump would most likely use the powers of the office to enrich himself in ways that would make third world dictators envious.

Trump will never release his tax returns because they will confirm that the Trump empire is a house of cards built on debt, much of it to the same foreign countries that the Republican nominee promises to get tough on during his campaign speeches.

Trump is a fraud, and no matter how hard he tries to hide them, his secrets are leaking out as the presidential campaign moves forward. He will not release his taxes because it will show three things, that he is not as wealthy as he claims, that he pays almost no taxes, and that he gives very little of his own money to charity.

More Bad Poll News O'Reilly And Fox Have Ignored
August 26, 2016 - 9:30am

One of the most reliably Republican-leaning pollsters has released a new poll, and it shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump.

The Rasmussen Reports weekly poll of the White House race has some bad news for Trump:

The latest weekly Rasmussen Reports White House Watch shows Trump losing ground: Clinton now holds a 42% to 38% lead among Likely U.S. Voters, up slightly from the 41% to 39% advantage she held a week ago.

In the latest survey, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson again captures nine percent (9%) of the vote, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein picks up two percent (2%) support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Rasmussen is one of most Republican-leaning pollsters in 538's rankings. Rasmussen's polls lean (+2) for Republicans, so if they have Hillary Clinton with a four-point lead, her lead is probably at least six points, which also happens to be the margin that Clinton leads Trump by in the Real Clear Politics national polling average.

It is impossible for O'Reilly and the Republicans to claim that the polls are biased against Trump when even polls that are usually friendly to Republicans, but they do it anyway, even when right-leaning polls like Rasmussen show Trump losing.

The Trump campaign has adopted the belief that there are millions of Trump voters who are not being counted by the polls. The Trump logic isn't that the polls are biased, but that the polls aren't counting these huge groups of invisible Trump supporters.

Which is the same thing they said in 2012, when Obama crushed Romney, they were wrong then and they are wrong now. But they just keep spinning out their tired right-wing media and polls are all biased nonsense.

The truth is that there is no great hidden mass of Trump supporters. Donald Trump is losing this election badly. Even the Republican-leaning polls can't avoid the fact that Trump is getting beat.

The fact that Donald Trump is losing the Rasmussen Poll is proof that the Republican nominee is closer to getting blown out than winning the White House.

Jeb Bush Calls Donald Trump Abhorrent And Disturbing
August 26, 2016 - 8:30am

During the GOP primary campaign, Donald Trump spent a lot of time calling Jeb Bush low-energy, but the former Florida governor was fired up on Thursday when he slammed the Republican nominee's recent behavior, specifically on the subject of immigration.

In an exchange on Rita Cosby's Election Central radio program, Bush talked about Trump's verbal waffling on immigration - even though his actual policy remains unchanged - and said it's impossible to know what Trump's views really are.

Bush said this:

I can only say that whatever his views are this morning, they might change this afternoon, and they were different than they were last night, and they'll be different tomorrow. So I can't comment on his views because his views seem to be ever changing depending on what crowd he's in front of. Sounds like a typical politician, by the way, all the things Donald Trump railed against, he seems to be morphing into.

I don't know what to believe about a guy who doesn't believe in things. I mean he doesn't, this is all a game. He doesn't, his views will change based on the feedback he gets from a crowd, or, you know, what he thinks he has to do. Life is too complex. For me, I couldn't do that.

I have to believe what I believe, and if it's popular, great, if it's not, I try to get better at presenting my views. But shifting my views because, because it's political to do it? That's what politicians do in this country, that's what Trump is trying to do right now. I find it abhorrent.


What Donald Trump has been doing lately is try to have it both ways.

He ridiculed Jeb Bush during the primary campaign for his stance on immigration, but he's now trying to adopt Bush's so-called low-energy tone, all while sticking closely to the same policies that his anti-immigrant base will applaud.

Trump claims to be the only non-politician in the race, but his behavior certainly indicates that he is doing political backflips to avoid losing any more support than he already has against Hillary Clinton.

Trump knows he is losing, so he's trying to con his way back into the race. If Jeb Bush's statements are any indication, his waffling isn't doing a very good job of winning back disaffected, moderate Republicans.

Here Is Something You Will Never See O'Reilly Or Fox Report
August 26, 2016 - 7:30am

CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation an A grade, the highest grade you can get, says it is "An Excellent Charity, And People Could Die If It Shuts Down."

The President Daniel Borochoff also said it's "Metrics Show They Have Good Governance And Accountability, Great Financial Efficiency, And Valuable, Important Programs That Help A Lot Of People."

Funny how O'Reilly and Fox just never mention any of that. O'Reilly even cites CharityWatch as his go to source to check the grade of a Charity before he gives them money. Except when it involves the Clintons, then he ignores all that and slams them for no reason.

Here is a partial transcript from CNN:

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD (HOST): In the philanthropic world the Clinton Foundation ranks about as high as can you get for a charity. GuideStar gave it a platinum rating, and CharityWatch gave it an A. Daniel Borochoff is the president of CharityWatch and he joins me live now from Chicago. Daniel, thanks for being with us. So, tell me how the foundation ranks compared to other nonprofits and why they get an A.

DANIEL BOROCHOFF: The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity. They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100. They're up there with other A charities such as Doctors Without Borders, Salvation Army, the American Red Cross. On the other hand, CharityWatch of course has F rated charities such as Feed the Children that's only able to get about 42 percent of their cash spending to bona fide program services.

BANFIELD: So, across the board, people in your business of rating these charities, who are not politically motivated, say it is stellar. And then you get this opinion piece in USA Today that was written today, saying, yes the Clinton Foundation supports many good works, notably the fight against HIV/AIDS. No, it is not the most corrupt enterprise in political history as Donald Trump is calling it, nor is there enough evidence of potential criminality to warrant appointment of the special prosecutor Trump is seeking.

But the only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs, starting today, and transfer its important charitable work to another large American charity such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The political casualties of what some have called a scorched earth campaign against the Clinton Foundation, who's going be hurt the most?

BOROCHOFF: Well, the people, the millions of people that get reduced cost, reduced medical pills for like AIDS, and there's all kind of programs that they do that help millions of people, and people are going to die unless people get the help. Hopefully another group would take it on. But what I want to do for a second is, if you pull the election politics out of the equation here, it's a really good charity.

So people need to look at it apart from their political views, and it is a good charity, like the Carter Center is a good charity as well, that another former president founded. So you got to look at it from the metrics of they have good governance and accountability. They have great financial efficiency. They have valuable, important programs that help a lot of people in the world. Pull the politics out. Regardless of what you think about Hillary, the Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity.

Trump Has Pocketed 8 Million Dollars Of Donor Money While Running For President
August 25, 2016 - 10:30am

Donald Trump is living large on other people's money, he is taking millions of dollars that are supposed to be used to build his presidential campaign and instead giving it to his own companies.

The Washington Post reported this:

Trump has made frequent use of his properties in his presidential bid. In July, the campaign doled out $773,000 to reimburse various Trump-owned companies for expenses. The bulk of that went to TAG Air, the company that owns Trump's private planes.

In all, nearly $7.7 million has been paid out to Trump companies or Trump family members to cover campaign expenditures, the public filings show.

The Washington Post report is in line with a Huffington Post story that found that Trump has tripled the rent on his campaign offices in Trump now that donors to his campaign are footing the bill.

Presidential campaigns for profit have become a cottage industry in the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, Herman Cain are just a few of the names who ran for president to boost their finances. The difference between the recent Republican presidential candidates for personal profit and Donald Trump is that none of them won the party's nomination, except for Trump.

Trump is a master of money funneling and debt manipulation. One of the most frequent questions asked about the Trump campaign is that if they aren't spending money on television ads, staffing, get out the vote operations, and other essentials needed for a successful presidential campaign, where is the money going?

The answer is that a healthy sum of it is going into Trump's own companies. The Trump campaign still hasn't released proof that Trump converted the $52 million that he loaned his campaign to donations, so it is likely that donors won't know the true extent of Trump's potential grifting until after the presidential election ends.

Republicans who give their money to Donald Trump in good faith are getting ripped off, as millions of dollars are finding their way into the Republican nominee's pocket.

Trump's New Scam: Put 5 People In An RV And Call It A Field Office
August 25, 2016 - 9:30am

Donald Trump's latest scheme to save money while running a presidential campaign is to put a few people in an RV throw some bumper stickers and lawn signs on it, and call it a field office in Florida.

There are several problems with Trump's latest ploy. First, how will the RV know where to go to reach potential Trump voters in Florida when the Trump campaign has no data operation? One suspects the Trump RV is going to hang out in the mall parking lot and wait for supporters to show up.

Secondly, this isn't how field offices work. A field office exists so that supporters and staff can come to a base of operations to work, volunteer, and get more information about the campaign. Having a "field office" that constantly moving is self-defeating.

As of about a week ago, Florida political experts were reporting that Trump has zero ground game in the state. Three RV's sitting at Arby's aren't going to change that. Hillary Clinton has at least 14 field offices in the state of Florida to Trump's one headquarters and three RVs.

Every move the Trump campaign makes sends the clear message that money matters more than winning. Unless he can make a buck off of it, Trump appears to insist on doing everything on the cheap.

RVs aren't field offices, and Donald Trump isn't running a real presidential campaign.

Trump Claims His Golf Courses Are Worth Millions: Until He Gets The Tax bill
August 25, 2016 - 8:30am

When Donald Trump submitted financial disclosure forms to election regulators, he bragged that his portfolio included some of the "finest and most iconic properties in the world."

Among them was Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, which Trump valued at more than $50 million.

That came as a surprise to officials in Palm Beach County, where the golf course is located. A few months earlier, for the third straight year, Trump's attorney had gone to court to argue that, for the sake of calculating his tax bill, the property was worth "no more than $5 million."

A Washington Post review of local property records revealed the same pattern across most of Trump's U.S. golf courses. For eight of the 10 courses on which he pays taxes, Trump reported in his May filing to the Federal Election Commission that the courses were worth tens of millions of dollars even as his attorneys have pressed local tax officials to value the properties at a fraction of those amounts.

The contrasting figures add to the mystery surrounding Trump's personal finances, which have emerged as a campaign issue as he has refused to release his tax returns.

And they reflect what critics say is Trump's willingness to calibrate his wealth claims depending on the circumstances -- going high to impress voters and back up his claim that he is worth $10 billion, a figure questioned by many experts, and going lower to argue for smaller tax bills.

Thank god for the print media. The New York Times and the Washington Post are doing some good reporting on Trump. And as expected O'Reilly ignores it all, you never see this kind of news reported by O'Reilly, because he is a butt kissing Trump stooge, he just will not admit it because he is a dishonest fraud and a coward.

Trump Spent 4 Times More On Hats Than He Did On His Staff
August 25, 2016 - 7:30am

While Hillary Clinton and Democrats are actively organizing to get out voters in every state, Trump is spending more money on hats and merchandise than on staff and field organization.

Trump is spending more money on hats and merchandise than on staff and field organization.

Politico reported:

Meanwhile, spending on the 84-person staff and field organizing barely increased from the previous month, to just $392,000 and $432,000, respectively. The campaign dropped much more -- $1.8 million -- on hats and other merchandise.

By comparison, the Clinton campaign in July spent $2.9 million on its 703-person payroll and $25.8 million on media.

It is easy to see why Trump is losing in nearly every battleground state and at risk of losing in traditional Republican strongholds. Donald Trump is not running a real presidential campaign. While Clinton is spending millions on staff, Trump is spending millions on hats and t-shirts.

Trump seems to believe that lots of hats and television appearances are all that it will take to win the White House.

Trump is losing because he is not building a campaign operation to get votes out to the polls. Unlike Democrats, it seems that Trump has no data operation to target voters who may support him. Trump's idea is that he holds rallies, goes on TV, sells some hats, and wins the White House.

Republicans are facing a potential blowout loss because Donald Trump is refusing to build a real presidential campaign.

Trump cares more about hats than getting out the vote, but at least if Republicans lose big in November, they can comfort themselves with a whole warehouse of Make America Great Again hats.

And if I was a Republican who made a donation to the Trump campaign I would be mad, because Trump is wasting that money on hats, instead of using it for smart reasons to win the campaign.

Voters: Remember How Bad Things Were Under George W. Bush
August 24, 2016 - 10:30am

Before you vote in November, think about this, Republicans are terrible at being President, and Trump would most likely be the worst of all of them.

People who complain now about how terrible President Obama has been, or that he's the "worst president in history," are insane and clearly have a distorted memory of the Bush presidency.

Has Obama been perfect? Not at all. Part of that is his fault, part of that is the unrealistic expectations many of us had for him when he was elected in 2008. But most of it is the fact that on his election in 2008, the GOP essentially crafted their strategy of opposing anything he supports.

A plan that was solidified when liberals allowed conservative voters to give Republicans control over the House of Representatives in 2010. That was precisely the weapon they needed to block anything and practically everything.

But while O'Reilly and his conservative friends like to claim that President Obama is the "worst president in history," I thought I'd remind them, and everyone else, of just how bad things were under George W. Bush.

Was his election not a foreshadowing of how terrible things would be in the next 4 years? For the first time since 1888 we elected a president who lost the popular vote. Could you imagine the conservative outrage if President Obama was elected president, yet lost the popular vote? That might have been the catalyst that finally triggered a second Civil War.

Then just a eight months later we saw the worst terrorist attack in United States history. A terrorist attack the Republicans now claim never happened under Bush.

We can't forget about the Iraq War and all of the weapons of mass destruction that we didn't find. It's okay though, right? Only 4,487 Americans died fighting a war that was based on lies. The most since the Vietnam War.

Then there's Afghanistan. You know, the war we started to get Osama bin Ladin - only Bush never got him. President Obama did. And Republicans still claim Bush got him.

Then don't forget about the scandals like Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina, the outing of a CIA agent, veterans neglected at the Walter Reed hospital, Medicare Part D and a host of other scandals that plagued the Bush administration's eight years.

So let's go to 2008, just as Bush was leaving office. That summer, just before the entire economy officially collapsed, oil had hit its all-time high of $147 per barrel (right now it fluctuates between $95-105 on average throughout the year). While gas prices are cheap now, our country had never seen prices well over $4 per gallon like most of the country experienced that summer under Bush.

Then came September when the bottom officially started falling out. But it wasn't just that month. We lost jobs every single month in 2008 (2.6 million in total). The worst annual loss of jobs since 1945.

In his last three months in office, we lost a combined 1.7 million jobs. In January 2009, his last month in office, we lost 598k jobs.

And let's not forget he had just bailed out Wall Street, the American auto industry was on the verge of collapse, our deficits were out of control, our national debt was almost double what it was when he took office, the stock market was plummeting, millions of Americans were losing their homes and unemployment was skyrocketing out of control.

Then let's also not forget that we were still engulfed in two wars, and Bush's final approval rating was 22 percent.

That's what we had when George W. Bush left office in January 2009.

Where are we at today:

Unemployment is down to 6.2%.
We've seen the best year of job gains since 1999.
Stocks have hit record highs.
53 straight months of private sector job growth.
We've created 9.9 million jobs during that span.
We have not started any new wars.
The rate of uninsured Americans fell to its lowest level since Gallup starting tracking the number in 2008. Down almost 5 percent in just the last year alone.
Deficits have been cut in half.

And O'Reilly never talks about any of it. The Republican party also never mentions George W. Bush, because they want you to forget he was the President for eight years and almost destroyed the country.

So, when conservatives say that we're much worse off now than when President Obama took office, they're either blatantly altering history to suit their talking points, they are lying, or they have absolutely no damn idea what they are talking about.

Trump Scams Campaign Donors By Jacking Up Rent In His Own Building
August 24, 2016 - 10:00am

WASHINGTON -- After bragging for a year about how cheaply he was running his campaign, Donald Trump is spending more freely now that other people are contributing -- particularly when the beneficiary is himself.

Trump nearly quintupled the monthly rent his presidential campaign pays for its headquarters at Trump Tower to $169,758 in July, when he was raising funds from donors, compared with March, when he was self-funding his campaign, according to a Huffington Post review of Federal Election Commission filings.

The rent jumped even though he was paying fewer staff in July than he did in March.

The Trump campaign paid Trump Tower Commercial LLC $35,458 in March -- the same amount it had been paying since last summer -- and had 197 paid employees and consultants. In July, it paid 172 employees and consultants.

"If I was a donor, I'd want answers," said a prominent Republican National Committee member who supports Trump, asking for anonymity to speak freely. "If they don't have any more staff, and they're paying five times more? That's the kind of stuff I'd read and try to make an (attack) ad out of it."

In addition to the rent for Trump Tower space in Manhattan, Trump has paid his golf courses and restaurants more than $260,000 since his campaign and the RNC struck a joint fundraising deal in mid-May, after he essentially locked up the GOP nomination.

On May 18, the day the fundraising deal was announced, Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach was paid $29,715; Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, was paid $35,845; and Trump Restaurants LLC was paid $125,080, according to FEC records. Such large payments were much rarer when Trump was self-funding.

It's unclear from the campaign filings the purpose of the golf course and restaurant payments, although both of the Florida golf courses hosted Trump campaign news conferences in March.

The Trump campaign on Tuesday responded that it had expanded into larger quarters. "Also, Mr. Trump makes a personal contribution of $2 million per month to the campaign, obviously a much higher amount than rent," the statement said.

The FEC filings show that Trump began increasing the rent at Trump Tower starting with the May 31 payment of $72,800. The Trump campaign paid $110,684 in rent on June 9, and $169,758 on July 10.

So he raised the rent every month as more money came in, which should be illegal, especially when he owns the building. If you donated money to Trump you are a sucker who is being taken for a ride and all your money is just going to Trump and his company.

The campaign's number of paid employees and consultants went from 166 in May, to 139 in June, to 172 in July. How many of those actually worked in Trump Tower cannot be determined from the FEC filings, although typically only a small fraction of a presidential campaign's staff works in the headquarters building.

Last autumn, only about a dozen of the campaign's several dozen paid employees worked in Manhattan.

Trump continues to fly to campaign events on his personal Boeing 757 airliner, even though the aging jet burns some $10,000 in fuel every hour. That has made air travel one of the biggest expense categories for his campaign. In July alone, $495,000 went to Trump's company that owns the plane.

Prior to May, three-quarters of the $59 million spent by Trump's campaign had come out of his own pocket -- meaning that whatever Trump charged his campaign for rent was largely coming from Trump himself.

That situation is now entirely reversed. Trump's money makes up a tiny percentage of his campaign's spending. The bulk now comes from outside donors, both small-dollar givers and those writing maximum-limit checks of $2,700.

"Nobody cares when you're spending your own money, but when you're spending the donor's $27, that could cause problems," the RNC member said, adding that small donors especially may not be sympathetic to Trump's extravagance. "Most campaigns run on a much tighter budget."

For many months, Trump's campaign prided itself on its low-rent operation. It invited reporters in to tour its headquarters on the fifth floor of Trump Tower that had once been used as production offices for "The Apprentice" TV show, which starred Trump. Photos and video from those tours show work space with unfinished ceilings, makeshift drywall partitions, and only a few campaign workers.

Commercial real estate is available in the midtown Manhattan neighborhood in the range of $70 per square foot annually, although Trump has charged more than that. Trump Tower rented 9,000 feet of office space in December at $120 per square foot, but has been unable to rent a 15,000 square-foot office that includes six terraces overlooking Fifth Avenue, even at a discounted rent of $90 per square foot.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has been leasing two entire floors in a Brooklyn office building totaling 80,000 square feet since the start of her campaign. The rent for that space has been about $212,000 per month. Her campaign staff is also several times the size of Trump's, numbering more than 700 for the better part of a year.

Andrea Tantaros Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against People At Fox
August 24, 2016 - 9:00am

And she says Bill O'Reilly also sexually harassed her.

Former Fox News host Andrea Tantaros has moved forward in filing a lawsuit against Fox News and its ex-chief Roger Ailes for alleged sexual harassment. She didn't stop there. Also named as defendants in a complaint lodged in New York Supreme Court is Ailes replacement Bill Shine, vp legal affairs Dianne Brandi, vp corporate communications Irena Briganti and executive vp programming and development Suzanne Scott.

In a lawsuit that's dripping with salacious detail including allegations hurled at non-defendants like Bill O'Reilly, Tantaros is demanding tens of millions of dollars in damages over her experiences at a cable news network she asserts "operated like a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency, and misogyny."

"However this Complaint is not just about Ailes," the complaint adds. "For Ailes did not act alone. He may have been the primary culprit, but his actions were condoned by his most senior lieutenants, who engaged in a concerted effort to silence Tantaros by threats, humiliation, and retaliation."

In reaction to the lawsuit, a Fox News spokesperson said the network couldn't comment on pending litigation.

According to the plaintiff, Ailes subjected Tantaros to repeated harassment beginning in the late summer of 2014, about three years after she signed a contract to serve as a co-host of the afternoon show, The Five. Even before that time, she claims that she was instructed to wear clothes that showed off her legs and was forced to strip down in front of the network's wardrobe personnel, but Tantaros asserts that Ailes later escalated his misbehavior. Ailes would demand she turn around so he could get a better look at her body, states the lawsuit, and would make comments like, "I bet you look good in a bikini."

Ailes also allegedly subjected Tantaros to inappropriate comments about other stars working at the network. The head of the network is said to have questioned whether Greg Gutfeld was gay, whether Kimberly Guilfoyle and Eric Bolling were sleeping together, and commented that Maria Bartiromo had gotten fat.

After she rebuffed advances like a request for a hug, Tantaros claims she was removed from The Five to the "daytime graveyard time of Noon," where she worked on the show Outnumbered. The plaintiff says the move was a "retaliatory demotion."

Tantaros says she suffered other indignities.

For example, although the lawsuit doesn't name Bill O'Reilly as a defendant, Tantaros complaint asserts in February 2016, he started sexually harassing her by "(a) asking her to come to stay with him on Long Island where it would be 'very private,' and (b) telling her on more than one occasion that he could 'see [her] as a wild girl,' and that he believed that she had a 'wild side.'"

After complaints and allegedly because of O'Reilly's "rumored prior sexual harassment issues," according to the lawsuit, Brandi told Tantaros' former attorney that she would no longer be appearing on The O'Reilly Factor.

Tantaros blames Briganti for failing to provide her media support, "repeatedly crafting and placing insulting stories" about her at various news sites, and "posting, or directing the posting of, numerous negative comments about Tantaros from 'sock puppet' social media accounts."

Briganti is known as being a powerful PR person; in the lawsuit, it's claimed that Fox News and Ailes "controlled" various websites not under Fox, including TVNewser and Headline and Global News. These news outlets supposedly ran unflattering stories engineered by Ailes through Briganti to tarnish Tantaros reputation as a serious journalist.

Then, there's Shine, who was promoted at Fox News after Ailes was forced to resign in the wake of Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit and a subsequent investigation. "Perhaps the most shocking encounter of all was a Spring 2015 meeting between Tantaros and Fox News Senior Executive, Defendant William Shine (“Shine”), during which Tantaros sought relief from Ailes’s sexual harassment and Briganti’s retaliatory media vendetta against her," states the lawsuit.

"In response, Shine told Tantaros that Ailes was a 'very powerful man' and that Tantaros 'needed to let this one go.' Shine’s inexplicable elevation sends the message that it will be 'business as usual' at Fox News when it comes to the treatment of women."

Tantaros, who continues to draw a salary from Fox News and is being represented by attorney Judd Burstein, makes clear in her lawsuit that she's less than impressed with the actions taken since she, Carlson and others came forward to complain about Ailes.

For instance, the lawsuit asserts that Rupert Murdoch and his sons "are plainly not disturbed by Ailes conduct," citing the fact that Ailes wasn't terminated for cause and has been allowed to walk away with a "$40 million going-away present."

As for the investigation being done by outside lawyers at Paul, Weiss, the lawsuit takes issue with published reports that the results will not be made public. It adds: "Worse still, according to a published report, Paul Weiss has ceased questioning Fox News female employees at the offices of Fox News out of fear that the interviews are being bugged."

Back in March, Brandi emailed Tantaros with a request for a copy of her soon-to-be-published book, Tied Up in Knots, and a dispute erupted over whether Tantaros had violated the cable news network's protocol on publishing. Tantaros insists that Brandi was informed she was writing a book and was provided an outline, that Outnumbered routinely mentioned it on-air and that it was published by Harper Collins, owned by Fox News's parent company.

Fox News is said to have invoked the "pay or play" provision of her contract and took her off-air, which Tantaros says was "intentionally designed to decimate the sales of Tantaros's book."

In May, in what Tantaros frames as an "effort to further silence" her, Fox commenced arbitration and allegedly offered her a settlement where she would be paid the money through her contract term and in exchange have to release claims against Brandi, Shine, O'Reilly and others.

"Over the ensuing months, as Tantaros was weighing her options, Fox News made it clear that unless she entered into the unfair settlement it had proposed, the drumbeat of attacks on her would increase," states the lawsuit.

"Thus, there was a constant stream of reporters calling for confirmation of wholly baseless and slanderous information leaked by unnamed Fox News sources. Each of these ridiculous leaks -- such as that Tantaros was removed from the air because she had been involved in physical altercations with two other women at Fox News -- originated, on information and belief, from Briganti."

Tantaros says she was left with no choice but to go public.

O'Reilly Slams The Media For Simply Reporting On Him
August 24, 2016 - 8:00am

Tuesday night O'Reilly went on another rant about the media and their bias, why you ask? Because they reported that O'Reilly sexually harassed Andrea Tantarous, so he went nuts and said the media is garbage for reporting it, while never saying a word about the story, or denying he did it.

And of course he had two Republican guests on to agree with him, and make sure nobody talked about the actual story, which is what he always does.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): On the internet there are vicious people who go after, and we will probably be trolled tonight, individuals smearing them in the worst possible ways. And there is no regulation, they can't stop it.

My main point is this: that there is so much garbage on [the internet] and that garbage finds its way out into the legitimate media. And with the destruction of Gawker thanks to the heroism of Hulk Hogan, one is down, but there are 50 to take their place, Dr. Booth. And now we're having mainstream media quote this stuff. It's all, don't blame me, I saw it on social media. It's like nobody is safe. Who is safe, Dr. Booth, from this? Who? Who is safe?

Fox Host Admits They Didn't Cover Louisiana Floods Until It Was Political
August 24, 2016 - 7:00am

I just wonder how long it is until she gets fired, because people on Fox who admit the truth usually end up getting fired, or as they call it, their contract is not renewed.

Basically what Fox did was pretty much ignore the disaster in Louisana, until someone said hey Obama has not gone there, let's use it as a cheap political attack, even though the Governor of Louisana had told Obama to stay away for a week or two, except Fox never mentions that.

Here is a partial transcript from the Five, soon to be the four:

JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): Let me just talk about some facts for a second here. One, the president had talked about going to Louisiana much earlier and was asked not to go by Governor John Bel Edwards. Why? Because you don't want all the attention to the president in the midst of a crisis and that totally makes sense.

The second thing to say is $120 million in aid has been approved for Louisiana in the last two weeks. So this idea that, oh jee, nothing, the federal government is not doing -- no, no help. Wait a second. That's not true.

What happened with President Bush and Katrina 11 years ago, was the left -- this is what Greg was saying -- attacked him and they thought, oh. But, you know what, there was real failure by FEMA during that time. And I think people will acknowledge that. So that's not the point.

DANA PERINO (CO-HOST): Well the other thing is, we didn't cover this story about the floods until it became political either.

WILLIAMS: OK.

PERINO: And we should have done more.

O'Reilly Is So Biased It Is Pathetic
August 24, 2016 - 7:00am

The whole show Tuesday night was like a Trump campaign infomercial, it was nothing but Praise Trump and slam Clinton. O'Reilly should just go ahead and quit Fox and go work for the Trump campaign. It was basically an hour long Trump rally.

And some of the segments were just laughable. Now remember O'Reilly tells us to ignore the Hollywood pinheads and do not listen to their political opinions because they know nothing. Even though he has no idea what they know and how politically informed they are, for all he knows they are more informed than he is, but he slams them as know nothing Hollywood liberals anyway.

O'Reilly says he never speculates, then he speculated that all Hollywood liberals who support Clinton and hate Trump are clueless uninformed pinheads.

The segment was sold as a look at Hollywood and the election, and can their opinions sway votes. But that is not what it was, it was a biased one sided joke of a so-called news segment that did nothing but read quotes from Hollywood liberals, then the two Republicans (O'Reilly and Melissa Francis from the Fox Business Channel) sat there and made fun of what they said.

This was not journalism, it was not fair and balanced, and it was not even close to a no-spin zone. It was a ridiculous and biased partisan segment with two Republicans and no Democrats. They spent the whole segment doing nothing but trashing and making fun of some of the Hollywood liberals who support Clinton and hate Trump.

And btw, what is the point? What good did it do, the viewers for the Factor are already mostly voting for Trump, so what good did it do to spend 4 minutes making fun of Hollywood liberals because they support Clinton.

How is that news? How is that journalism?

O'Reilly ignored at least 5 hard news stories that were out from Monday and Tuesday, to do that garbage. And he claims to be some kind of election/political expert who is fair and balanced and equal to both sides. It's a joke, and O'Reilly is a biased hack. I dare anyone to watch that segment and tell me it was fair and balanced, and actual news, you cant.

O'Reilly Makes Another Stupid And Racist Statement
August 23, 2016 - 10:00am

And when he wrote it he probably thought it was not racist at all, even though everyone else thinks it was. O'Reilly said the best image from the Olympics was the blacks on the mens basketball team showing pride in their country by putting their hands over their hearts for the national anthem.

Which is just ridiculous, and a totally racist statement. Most Americans best images of the Olympics were the womens gymnastics team winning gold, Michael Phelps winning the record gold medals, Usain Bolt winning all the speed races, and on and on.

But not O'Reilly, his best image of the Olympics was blacks putting their hands on their hearts during the national anthem. O'Reilly acted like it showed they were finally real Americans who are proud of their country, which is just a racist point of view and Only a right-wing racist would see the Olympics that way.

I watched the Olympics with pride in American for winning all the medals and setting records. Not once did I think about what color their skin was or care if they held their hands over their hearts during the national anthem or not. Nobody cares about that kind of thing but right-wing racist idiots, and my God if a black man or woman does not do it God will strike them dead.

That's how O'Reilly and the right-wingers see things, they ignore all the great things from the Olympics to focus on some meaningless hand over the heart nonsense, and one lame scandal with a swimmer.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are an idiot. The rest of America saw a great Olympics with a lot of Americans winning a lot of gold and silver medals, we did not care about their skin color, or care about where their hands were during the national anthem. And if someone does not put their hand over their heart during the national anthem, it does not mean they are not proud of their country.

And the left does not think we are a bigoted country that actively seeks to destroy young black men. That is a lie put out by you and the Republicans, some on the left simply belive their is still a lot of racism against blacks and we are opposed to it, and some on the left believe the cops unfairly target and kill too many unarmed blacks, they believe that because it's a fact.

And the economic system is rigged to help the wealthy, and the corporations, we all know that, you just refuse to admit it, even though it's a fact. The wealthy and the corporations own Congress and most elected officials, and they legally bribe them to give them tax cuts and loopholes to avoid taxes, only the wealthy and the corporations get away with it, and that is a fact.

No Americans I know hates their own country, that is another lie put out by the dishonest O'Reilly. Here is a reality check for O'Reilly, when people complain about injustice that is not hating your country, you jerk. They do not hate their country, they simply hate injustice and racism, so they protest, that is how you get change.

And here is the worst part, when Republicans protest what they see as an injustice in the country O'Reilly loves it, supports it, promotes it, spins for them, and calls them great Americans. When Democrats protest what they see as an injustice O'Reilly hates it, opposes it, slams them, spins it against them, and calls them bad Americans who hate their country.

And he does it in the so-called no-spin zone, which is just laughable.

Here is what the idiot O'Reilly said:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): The best image for me was the sight of the American basketball team carrying our flags after winning the gold medal. The team was all minority, players showing pride in their country. When the national anthem was played, the guys had their hands on their hearts, no cheap shots at the country that had afforded them the opportunities to succeed at the highest level. So, to me, the spirit of America is intact, despite the fact, despite the fact that zealots and loons on both political spectrums are trying to tear the U.S.A. down.

If you believe the far left, we are a bigoted country that actively seeks to destroy young black men. The crazy left also puts out that we want to persecute innocent immigrants, that our economic system is rigged to help the wealthy, that our social system intentionally punishes the poor.

All lies. But they are spread by politicians and dishonest media who actively despise their own country. Talking Points has expounded on Black Lives Matter. There is no need to do that again here, other than to say the leadership of that organization hates America.

Crazy Trump Campaign Manager Denies He Hurls Personal Insults
August 23, 2016 - 9:30am

And she said it even after she had personally slammed Trump for using personal insults, when she was a Ted Cruz supporter. Now she claims he does not use personal insults, which is just laughable.

Donald Trump's new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, claimed Sunday that the GOP presidential nominee does not personally insult people.

George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC News This Week, showed Conway a series of video clips of her attacking Trump while she was supporting Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) during the primary. (Conway ran a super PAC backing Cruz's candidacy.)

In one of the excerpts, Conway said she was not backing Trump because he "hurls personal insults."

Asked whether she stood by her remarks, Conway interpreted the question to be about whether she continues to be against personal insults as a matter of principle, not whether she maintains her criticism of Trump.

Conway went on to deny that Trump engages in that behavior despite her past assertions to the contrary. "Well, he doesn't hurl personal insults," she said, before changing the subject to Trump's pitch to African-Americans earlier this week.

It's so ridiculous it's laughable, Trump personally insults someone every day, in speeches or on Twitter, or both. He calls them stupid, braindead, etc. and gives them nicknames that are bad, which are all personal insults. There are even websites that list the Trump insults, rank the worst ones, and a simple Google search on "Donald Trump Insults" gets you 908,000 results.

Fox & The GOP Slam Obama For Not Visiting Louisiana
August 23, 2016 - 8:30am

This is just how dishonest the right-wing media is, and of course O'Reilly and his so-called media watchdog expert (Bernie Goldberg) never say a word about this bias. Even though O'Reilly does a weekly media bias segment on his show, he never mentioned this, and never will, neither one of them ever find or report on any bias at Fox, except to deny it when someone else mentions it.

Fox's Steve Doocy: "Obama Is On Vacation, And There Is No Word That He's Going To Leave The Island."

Breitbart News: "Trump Visits Louisiana Flood Victims As Hillary Rests And Obama Vacations."

Newt Gingrich: "Obama Is Golfing Because He Can't Really Be Troubled To Visit Louisiana."

Fox's Jeanine Pirro: "Obama Doesn't Feel Our Pain, He Doesn't Make Believe He Feels Our Pain."

Wash. Times: "Obama Refused To Cut Short His Golfing Vacation To Survey The Louisiana Flood."

But they ignore the fact that Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards has publicly requested that Obama not visit due to fear it would drain state resources.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards told reporters "he's not concerned that President Barack Obama has not yet visited Louisiana and that that a visit from the president "would be a drain on resources as the state still works to respond to the flood." But the stooges at Fox and in the Republican party never report that, instead they try to make you think Obama does not care about all the people in the flood areas, which is just ridiculous, and if you believe that you are more than stupid.

Edwards added, "I would just as soon Obama wait a week or two." Edwards also said he is in "daily communication with the White House" and that the administration had "shown that the flooding is a priority for the federal government."

The Republican outrage over Obama not going to Baton Rouge sooner has been a common theme throughout the Obama presidency. When Obama travels to memorial services for mass shooting victims or disaster scenes, Republicans accuse him of playing politics with a national tragedy. If the President waits and allows local officials to do their work, Republicans criticize him for not showing up sooner.

In the eyes of Republicans, President Obama will always get criticized and never do the right thing. Gov. Bel Edwards was right. A presidential visit is exponentially more complicated than Donald Trump flying in on his private jet, signing a few autographs, and pretending to care.

The Republican outrage was the usual let's blame Obama for something because anything is better that letting the nation see that Donald Trump is our presidential nominee.

President Obama has given the suffering people in Baton Rouge more than a photo op. He has done his job by providing immediate federal resources and disaster relief. The situation in Baton Rouge highlights why the nation needs a competent president who can do the job instead of a baseball cap wearing reality television star occupying the Oval Office.

Crazy O'Reilly Says Trump Will Build The Wall Somehow
August 23, 2016 - 7:30am

Now this proves O'Reilly is a 100% Trump stooge, now he claims Trump will no doubt build the wall somehow, even though all the experts say you can not even build a wall everywhere on the border because of rivers, hills, cliffs, etc. And O'Reilly himself admitted Trump will never build the wall a few weeks ago.

O'Reilly is speculating that Trump will build the wall, and that's if he even gets elected, which he clearly will not. Not to mention, O'Reilly claims to have a no speculation zone where speculation is not allowed, then he speculates Trump will build the wall as if it was a fact.

And with 84% of Democrats opposed to the wall it will never happen. The wall is a stupid idea that will never happen, and O'Reilly knows it, he is just saying Trump will build the wall to make the whites think he will so they get out and vote.

In fact, just the other night O'Reilly let his plans slip out, he admitted if people think Trump has no chance and will lose for sure, it will suppress the vote with his supporters. So from now until the election O'Reilly is going to use propaganda to make people who watch his show think Trump can win.

Just as he did with John McCain when he ran, and Romney when he ran, and now Trump. O'Reilly is basically a propaganda machine for Trump and the Republican party.

It's just too bad it will not work, because 90% of his viewers are already going to vote for Trump, that's the problem with being on a biased right-wing news network, no matter what you do it does not get a candidate more votes, all you are doing is preaching to people who already believe your spin and lies.

Here is a partial transcript from the Monday night Factor show:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): There is no question that Donald Trump will put the wall up if he's elected. So we don't have to get into that anymore. He's going to do that.

KATIE PAVLICH: I think there is a question of that actually. So we'll see.

O'REILLY: I don't. I disagree 100 percent. Donald Trump will have to build that wall by executive order or any other means. He will have to do that.

Donald Trump Insults Joe Scarborough & Mika Brzezinski
August 22, 2016 - 9:30am

And he did it just one day after his crazy campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said Trump does not do personal insults. And btw, this is the exact same thing O'Reilly does, he insults people pretty much every day, then after getting called out for it, he denies it and calls them liars, when all they did was report it and publish the transcript of O'Reilly saying it.

Trump insulted MSNBC hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, he called them clowns and suggesting that they're dating.

Donald J. Trump -- @realDonaldTrump

Tried watching low-rated @Morning_Joe this morning, unwatchable! @morningmika is off the wall, a neurotic and not very bright mess!
6:21AM - 22 AUG 2016

Donald J. Trump -- @realDonaldTrump

Some day, when things calm down, I'll tell the real story of @JoeNBC and his very insecure long-time girlfriend, @morningmika. Two clowns!
6:29AM - 22 AUG 2016

The feud between Trump and the MSNBC hosts is long running. Brzezinski and Scarborough have repeatedly criticized the Republican nominee over his various controversial comments and policies. Earlier on Monday, the show mocked a speech he made over the weekend as sounding "like he's had a lot to drink."

But the show has also taken shots at Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, over the private email server she used while in office, as well as her family foundation's acceptance of donations from foreign countries with poor human rights records.

Trump has called Morning Joe "sad and irrelevant," and said that it has bad ratings. (The show's ratings are actually pretty good, for an MSNBC show.) And if Scarborough was on Fox his ratings would be much higher, he is a conservative on a liberal news network, so his ratings are just ok, but not great, because of what network he does the show on.

Scarborough responded to Trump's diss by handing it right back to him.

Joe Scarborough -- @JoeNBC

Neurotic and not very bright?
Look in the mirror.
7:06AM - 22 AUG 2016

The spat directly contradicts claims made by Trump's campaign manager just hours earlier.

"I don't like when people hurl personal insults," Kellyanne Conway told ABC News This Week. "That will never be my style, I'm a mother of four small children, it would be a terrible example for me to feel otherwise. Trump doesn't hurl personal insults."

Dan Rather: Trump Hired Far-Right "Zealots" To Boost White Vote
August 22, 2016 - 8:30am

Dan Rather has been reporting on political campaigns for 50 years, so he knows what he is talking about. Here is a partial transcript from the Friday Night Rachel Maddow show:

RACHEL MADDOW (HOST): Do you think, Dan, that we are going to continue to see -- one of the things I've been highlighting is the way there's these references, and there's use of material from the very far right?

The reason I did that Center for Immigration Study segment at the top is because that ought to be a reference in presidential politics, at least in terms of racial extremism. And we've seen that a bunch of different times from the Trump campaign. If they really are trying to maximize the white vote, do you think we'll get some of this fringe, sort of racial stuff?

DAN RATHER: I think you may get a lot of it, rather subtly put, perhaps not as straightforward. But look, the campaign is being run, not entirely -- is being run by Donald Trump, but he's taking aboard candidate people, workers who are from the fringes.

There's zealots from the fringes of the party, who are now helping him run the campaign. And they're going to say the kinds of things that they previously were saying on right-wing radio, because they think if you say it often enough, they're convinced that will get Donald Trump the white votes he needs, the big white turn-out that he needs. I think you're going to see an awful lot of that.

He's turned himself over to a lot of zealots from the fringes of the party, and we'll see how that goes.

Stunning: Only 1 Percent Of Black Voters Support Donald Trump
August 22, 2016 - 7:30am

Rounding out one of the worst weeks in his presidential campaign, Donald Trump faces yet another sad reality. According to new NBC/Wall Street Journal polling released Thursday, only 1 percent of black voters nationally support the Republican nominee.

This is the lowest level of support ever recorded among the demographic (with the exception of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, who stood in strong opposition to the Civil Rights Act), indicating that a sentiment already present among black voters in swing states is widespread.

Trump also suffers among Hispanic voters, garnering just 26 percent of their vote, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released earlier this week.

Generating support among voters of color -- whom Trump's rhetoric habitually alienates -- is key to winning the general election. People of color constitute nearly one-third of eligible voters, making the 2016 electorate the most diverse in U.S. history. This renders it essential for Trump to secure higher numbers of those votes in order to win.

President Barack Obama won 93 percent of the black vote and 71 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally in 2012; in 2008, he won over 95 and 67 percent, respectively.

The most recent Republican president, George W. Bush, won over 11 percent of African-Americans and 44 percent of Hispanics support in 2004; in 2000 he won 9 and 35 percent, respectively.

The NBC/WSJ poll also shows Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton with a significant advantage among women, all non-white voters, millennials and white voters with a college degree. Trump pulls ahead more narrowly among all white voters, seniors, independents and white voters without a college degree.

In the wake of the two major party conventions, results this week suggest that Clinton's polling bounce is more sustainable than Trump's. Not only did she receive a higher bounce in poll numbers, but viewers received Clinton's acceptance much more positively than they did Trump's.

Post-convention bounces also tend to be more stable when they unify the party, and in the wake of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsement, polls indicate that the Democratic Party is more unified than ever before.

Clinton has now reached the level of support she enjoyed before public scrutiny into her use of a private email server. According to the HuffPost Pollster model, which aggregates publicly available polling data, Clinton enjoys an average 9 point lead with third-party candidate Gary Johnson in the race and a 7 point lead in a two-way race.

At the state level, new polling in traditional battlegrounds also shows Clinton with a significant lead, The Huffington Post reported earlier this week. Surveys released Thursday give her a 15-point lead in New Hampshire, a 9-point lead in Michigan, an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania and a 6-point lead in Florida.

Trump's disastrous polling week also shows the broader problems his campaign faces. This week alone, he sparked outrage by igniting a social media war against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son, a U.S. Army captain, was killed in Iraq defending his unit in 2004 (a year that, despite what Trump might believe, was not during Obama's presidency).

He refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Rep. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) in their respective re-election bids, despite their endorsements of his campaign.

He defended Roger Ailes against sexual harassment charges and brushed aside sexual harassment as a serious issue. Trump was also eviscerated Friday morning by former CIA director Michael Morell, who went on to endorse Clinton.

Fox Host Admits That They Are LYING About The Polls
August 21, 2016 - 10:30am

Fox News host and former White House correspondent Dana Perino on air told viewers that her co-host Eric Bolling was lying to them about the polls in this presidential election. The polls do matter, and here is why.

In the 2012 election, Fox News tried the same tactic of telling its views to dismiss the polls. According to Politicususa, Boiling said:

'But these polls, Dana. Honestly, we have to stop with these polls. They're insane with the polls. Just look at what's going on. You look at a Trump rally, and there's twelve, fifteen thousand, ten thousand people. You look at a Clinton rally. You have fifteen hundred, two thousand.'

That is when Perino on Fox's "The Five" laid the truth on him:

'It is a real disservice to his supporters to lie to them that those polls don't matter. You can not take twelve thousand people at a rally that are your definite supporters they are going to show up for the campaign and then say the polls are wrong.'

But that didn't stop Bolling from his pack of lies. He tried to pass off the idea that people who state they are voting for Clinton in the polls aren't really voting.

'He claimed that rally size was the only significant presidential election measurement.'

Perino wasn't having any of Bolling's obvious malignant statistics:

'That's exactly what we said in 2012. The people who supported Romney were told that the polls were wrong. Romney's going to win, and they were so mad and disappointed.'

That is when Greg Gutfeld joined in the debate:

'Yeah, they stopped watching because they thought we lied to them, and we deserved it.'

Perino was hot about Bolling's lies, so she kept unwinding the lies on Twitter:

Getting a few things off of my chest cold: When it comes to political analysis, I make you a promise - I will never lie to you. -- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Many of you write, wanting me to tell you GOOD things about the gop chances this year. I wish I could do that. But I WILL NOT LIE TO YOU.

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

In 2012, I fell for "the polls are wrong" mantra. I felt sick election night, realizing I'd been suckered into a fall sense of complacency.

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Romney was not going to win in spite of the "rigged polls" - and I vowed that night that I would NEVER EVER fall for that again

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

The Dems start with 242 electoral college votes to win. They need 270. Even I can do that math - it isn't hard.

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Sure there are 11 weeks to go and a lot could change. I expect the polls to tighten a lot after Labor Day. But you can't win a general...

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Election with the current state of campaign. Think of how fast 11 weeks goes. Nov 8th will be here before you can buy any Xmas presents.

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Some of you call me Debbie Downer, Negative Nancy, or even Pollyanna. I've been called a Pragmatic Snob (is there such a thing?)

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

But I will not lie to you about the state of this race. I won't do it. No amount of peer pressure digital or otherwise can move me.

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

So I'm going to keep being a voice that says yes on the one hand but not the OTHER FREAKING HAND, the future of this party is at risk.

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Maybe you want the party to be at risk. maybe it SHOULD be at risk. But I won't be a party to delusion that crowds - established polls

-- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) August 18, 2016

Clearly, Perino is greatly concerned about how Fox News is impacting the Republican Party and how the current Republican situation could harm Fox News.

The idea that polls make no difference is way off base.

After all, Bernie Sanders brought in huge crowds by any measure, but particularly as compared to Hillary Clinton. But by Bolling's logic, Sanders should have won in the Democratic primaries. He didn't.

Basically, crowd size at a political rally is meaningless.

Why is Fox News presenting "news" so false that its hosts cannot bear to regurgitate it? The network clearly believes its audience is unthinking and will believe anything. The truth is, when people cannot swallow Boilling's hype, Fox News will suffer.

First Trump General Election Campaign Ad Has 1 Lie Every 4 Seconds
August 21, 2016 - 9:30am

Fact checkers have blown apart Donald Trump's first general election campaign ad, by finding that the television spot contains one lie every four seconds.

Trump's ad begins with a favorite lie of the GOP nominee that the election system is rigged against Americans. PolitiFact has rated this a pants on fire lie, "While there are isolated examples of bought local elections, experts say it cannot be replicated on a national scale. While it is possible to tamper with electronic voting machines, there is no evidence deliberate malfeasance has altered any election."

The ad said that there is a flood of Syrian refugees coming into the US. According to an ABC News fact check, "The vetting process typically takes from 18-24 months. To expedite the process for Syrian refugees, the Obama Administration launched a surge operation with the hopes of reducing the time to three months in hopes of resettling some 10,000 refugees by fall 2016.

According to the New York Times, "the onerous and complex web of security checks and vetting procedures has hampered the expedited process."

Trump's ad claimed that illegal immigrants who commit crimes get to stay in the US, but this is also false. According to a Washington Post fact check, "We reviewed cases from 2014 and 2015 involving 76 people charged with activities relating to foreign terrorist organizations. The majority of those cases involved naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. There were both naturalized and natural-born U.S. citizens (including those of Caucasian, African American or Hispanic descent). Many of the naturalized citizens had arrived in the country as children, and therefore, not recent immigrants."

The ad accused undocumented immigrants of skipping the line and collecting Social Security. PolitFact also rated this statement as not totally true, "Also, it's important to note that illegal immigrants pay an estimated $12 billion in payroll taxes to Social Security and don't receive any benefits. So Trump is leaving out a significant part of the picture when it comes to taxes and undocumented workers."

O'Reilly does the very same thing, all the Republicans cry about illegals getting government benefits, but they never mention that they pay in $12 billion in payroll taxes, some how they also forget to mention that.

Trump claimed that Clinton's immigration plan would open the borders, but an AP fact check found that this wasn't true, "It's not true that Clinton's plan would create open borders. Her plan does call for a pathway to citizenship that would allow people currently in the country illegally to stay, but only after going through a series of steps to become a citizen. On enforcement, Clinton has called for focusing on "detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety," but not ending enforcement outright."

Trump's ad also lied about having a plan and lied about keeping the borders secure.

All total, theTrump ad managed to jam seven lies into 30 seconds. Trump is airing an ad that tells a lie to voters once every four seconds.

When Democrats suggests that Trump is running a campaign of lies, this is exactly what they are referring to. If Donald Trump is talking, or in this case, if his campaign is running a commerical, the odds are good that he/it is lying.

Never has a candidate been so willing to pile so many lies on top of each other at such a rapid pace. Donald Trump is trying to lie his way to the White House, which is why it is vital that each of the GOP's nominee's false statements get the scrutiny that they deserve.

Hannity Praises Trump For Prompter Use After Years Of Slamming Obama For It
August 21, 2016 - 8:30am

I usually do not write about Sean Hannity because he is so much of a lying right-wing idiot I could do a whole website on his lies and spin, but I am writing about this to show just how biased and dishonest he is, and of course O'Reilly and his so-called media watchdog Bernie Goldberg never said a word about any of it.

In fact, O'Reilly does a weekly media watchdog segment on the Factor with Bernie Goldberg, but they never find any bias from Hannity, or anyone at Fox News, ever. Not one time has O'Reilly and Goldberg talked about bias on his own show, or at Fox, they only find so-called bias at CNN, MSNBC, etc.

And btw, the bias they do claim to find is isolated cherry picked examples of so-called liberal bias, they use an example or two from a segment or two, but they never do actual scientific studies that review their shows 24/7 for a week or a month.

They pick one liberal comment from a network that runs 24/7 and claim it shows their bias, when you could also find comments of conservative bias on the same network, but they ignore that, proving they are biased and their examples are a joke.

I could watch CNN or MSNBC for 24 hours and find 10 examples of liberal bias and 10 examples of conservative bias, so it's almost equal, with MSNBC being a little more liberal than CNN. But O'Reilly and Goldberg never mention the conservative bias, they only mention the liberal bias, which is just laughable and shows what liars and spin doctors they are.

Here is what Hannity said about Trump and the teleprompter.

Sean Hannity hosted the new Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway to praise Donald Trump's use of a teleprompter during a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, despite Hannity's past obsession with criticizing President Obama's use of a teleprompter.

Hannity has spent years attacking President Obama's use of a teleprompter to give speeches. He has claimed that Obama "has a teleprompter on each side of the bed when he goes to sleep every night, if he doesn't actually put it in the bed" adding "most Americans have figured out that you take away that teleprompter, he's in trouble."

Which is just laughable, because Obama is a very smart man and could go on for hours without a teleprompter, in fact, Obama is one of the smartest Presidents we have ever had, and does not need a teleprompter at all.

Speaking to Conway, Hannity said, "I like Trump on prompter myself, my own personal preference," adding Trump's usage of a teleprompter indicated "he found the secret sauce, and he's still Trump being Trump."

So Donald Trump read from a teleprompter and somehow he has found a secret sauce? Are you kidding me, a 5 year old could also read from a teleprompter. And hannity spent years slamming Obama for using a teleprompter, but as soon as Trump does it, he praises him as if he cured cancer, it's ridiculous and it shows what a massive tool Hannity is.

Hannity is probably the most biased and dishonest person in all of cable news, and anyone who watches him is just stupid. I would say 90% of what Hannity says is a lie, and the other 10% is right-wing spin and propaganda, virtually nothing he says is 100% true, and if you believe anything he says you need to see a doctor.

Here is a partial transcript:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Let me ask you this. He gave two speeches, this is what I -- this is what I think is the secret sauce.

KELLYANNE CONWAY: Yes.

HANNITY: He only talked about Hillary and Obama, he was on prompter. I like him on prompter myself, my own personal preference. But he stayed on a very powerful Donald Trump message. It was totally him, and he made very powerful points, but he outlined the failures and offered solutions.

Bill O'Reilly Is Promoting A Trump Is Close & Can Still Win Narrative
August 20, 2016 - 8:30am

Here are examples of Bill O'Reilly's bias for Donald Trump. While complaining every night that the media is biased against Trump because they hate him, which is not true, they are not biased against him and they do not hate him.

The media loves Trump, because they get big ratings when they talk about him. And they are not biased against him, Trump is so bad of a candidate and he says so many lies and crazy statements they media simply reports on his terrible campaign and his dishonest and crazy comments.

If a Democrat was just like Trump and saying the same lies and crazy things the media would cover him the very same way. O'Reilly and the Republicans who support Trump just do not like that the media reports every crazy thing Trump says, and fact checks his lies.

In fact, Hillary Clinton is getting almost as much negative coverage as Trump, but not as much. Trump gets more negative coverage because he tells more lies and says more crazy things, a day does not go by where Trump gives a speech and says something racist, crazy, or dishonest, and that is why he gets negative coverage every day, not because of any media bias.

O'Reilly is promoting the narrative that Trump is still close and he can still win. He does this by ignoring almost all the polls, by ignoring almost all the negative stories about Trump, and by saying you should not believe the media because they have a bias against Trump.

He did the very same thing for John McCain when he ran for President, and he did the very same thing when Romney ran for President, and now he is doing it for Trump. They were all Republicans and O'Reilly clearly showed his bias for all of them, by promoting them and ignoring the polls, while crying that the media is biased against them.

And btw, it did not work, and does not work. Because 90% of the Factor viewers are Republicans who are already voting for Trump. Almost no Democrats or Independents watch the Factor, and the few that do are just watching to see what the biased and crazy O'Reilly will say next, like slowing down to look at a car crash.

I know liberals and Independents who watch O'Reilly once in a while, but every one of them tell me they do it just to see how crazy and biased he is, and that they never believe a word he says, because they can clearly see his right-wing bias. O'Reilly says the liberals and Independents who watch him prove he does not have a bias, which is just laughable, because at best it's 10% of his viewers, and they only watch to laugh at him and see his bias in action.

A lot of them write to me and tell me they watched him once or twice and laughed at how stupid and biased to the right he is, and they also tell me they will never watch him again because they can not stand his arrogant and angry tone towards anyone not a Republican, and his clear right-wing bias.

Just look at how O'Reilly reports on Trump, he claims he is not a conservative, that he has a no-spin zone, that he reports on both sides equally, and that he has no bias for Trump or against Clinton.

Then every position he takes is for Trump, and against Clinton, 95% of his guests are Republicans, and the show is like it was produced by the Trump campaign. It's about as pro-Trump as you can get, only Hannity is more pro-Trump than O'Reilly.

And for the record, O'Reilly loves to say his critics know nothing about him because they do not watch his show. I watch the Factor almost every night, I do miss it once in a while, because after doing this for 16 years I sort of already know what O'Reilly is going to say and do about Trump and Clinton.

I basically watch the Factor every night, so I know what I am talking about. Yes I have a liberal bias, but I mostly quote O'Reilly from his own transcripts, or a video from his show, then fact check his bias for the Republican and show his lies and bias with facts that can be checked out.

Everyone has a bias, including me. But I quote O'Reilly then prove he is wrong, biased, or both. The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he denies he has a bias, says he has a no-spin zone, and says he is fair to both sides with an equal number of conservative to liberal guests, which is all a lie, it's a con, and O'Reilly is a lying right-wing con-man.

Here are some examples. O'Reilly says he has an equal number of conservative and liberal guests, then 99% of the shows he does are all Republican guests with sometimes 1 liberal on the show. In an average show he has 5 to 7 Republican guests, and 1 liberal guest.

And 99.9% of the time when that 1 liberal does get on the show he or she is on with a conservative at the same time, so they can barely get a word in and have very little time to talk. O'Reilly usually let's the conservative talk without cutting them off or talking over them, because they always agree with him, then as soon as the liberal starts talking O'Reilly or the conservative guest cut them off or talk over them, and always disagree with them.

Just watch the show and you will see what I am talking about, it happens almost every time. Basically the liberal is only put on for O'Reilly and the conservative to make fun of and call stupid for their position on whatever the issue is they are discussing. It's a 2 on 1 with 2 Republicans against the 1 liberal, they are talked down to, told they are wrong, and barely get to speak.

And to O'Reilly that is a fair and balanced no-spin zone, which is just laughable, and even a 5 year old can see it if they just watch the show one time. I keep records of the guest list, and what party they are in, most shows are 7 to 1, or 7 to 0.

That's 7 Republicans to 1 or 0 liberals, but no show is ever 7 to 1 or 7 to 0 for the liberals, in the 16 years I have watched the Factor not one show has had more liberal guests than conservative guests, not one, ever. In fact, the most liberals I have ever seen on 1 show was 2, and that is very rare, it only happens maybe once a month, if that, probably less.

And the liberals that do get on are almost never on alone to discuss the issue with O'Reilly. But almost all the conservatives are, the conservatives are almost never on with a liberal, very rarely does it happen. I would say 99% of the time a liberal is on with a conservative guest, and O'Reilly, while 99% of the conservative guests are on alone, with no liberal guest to counter what they say.

O'Reilly does that on purpose, so it looks like the liberal is always wrong, because 2 conservatives are sitting there telling them they are wrong. While the conservative guests are on alone so there is nobody there to tell them they are wrong, which makes it look like they are always right, and they almost always agree with O'Reilly, so that makes it look like he is right too.

Just watch when O'Reilly makes a point, with his talking points memo or some other point, then he throws to a guest and says this: "Where am I going wrong?"

And the conservative guest says this: "You are right and I agree with most of what you said." This happens almost every show. O'Reilly does that on purpose to make it look like he is right about everything, and most of the time no liberal is on to disagree with either one of them.

That is classic O'Reilly right-wing spin, that he calls a no-spin zone.

Right now his main spin tactic is spinning the polls and ignoring them at the same time. He mostly ignores all the polls that show Clinton way ahead of Trump, to focus on the one or two biased or questionable polls that have Trump barely losing to Clinton.

This is done to keep Republican voters thinking Trump still has a chance to beat Clinton, to send a message to them to make sure they get out and vote in November, because if they do Trump can win. Even though, deep down O'Reilly knows that Trump is a disaster and that he has virtually no chance to beat Clinton.

He hopes that Trump can get enough white votes to win, but it is not going to happen. Trump would need at least 70% of all the whites to vote for him, to make up for not getting any votes from the blacks, latinos, and the poor, which is just not going to happen. Romney could not even get 70% of the white vote, and he was a rich white guy running against a black man, while Trump and Clinton are both white, so Trump has zero chance of getting 70% of the white vote.

And I will say this, if Trump gets 70% or more of the white vote in November I will shut this website down. That is how confident I am it will not happen. And if it does not happen, Trump has no chance to win.

Now look at how O'Reilly reports on the election polls and the electoral college maps. Let's talk about the electoral college maps first, O'Reilly totally ignores them, because they all show Trump getting crushed by Clinton.

He never says a word about any of them, the three I know of are Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight.com, Larry Sabato and his crystal ball, and Real Clear Politics. None of them are partisan political guys, they do not give their opinions, they do not say if they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, nobody knows what party they are in.

They all do non-partisan analysis of the polls, they average the polls and look at what party won which state in the last presidential election in 2012, then they come up with an electoral college prediction. It is all done in a scientific and non-partisan way. And they all have Clinton crushing Trump, roughly 340 to 350 to 170 to 190, for Clinton, none of them have Trump over 190, which is worse than Romney did against Obama in 2012, he got 206.

It shows that Trump is a terrible candidate and that he is doing badly, which is why O'Reilly does not report any of it. Instead he cherry picks one poll that is not a real poll, that shows Trump only 1 point behind Clinton, while ignoring the other 12 polls that have Clinton 6 to 10 points ahead, including his own Fox News poll that has Clinton 10 points ahead, O'Reilly never even mentioned it, or tried to explain why it has her 10 points ahead.

He just ignores it, his own network poll, it's as if it never came out to O'Reilly, because it shows Clinton 10 points ahead and he hates that. It goes against his narrative that Trump is close and can still win, so if all you whites get out and vote Trump can win. Which is just a lie, O'Reilly is lying to you.

Trump has no chance, he can not win with the white vote only, it is impossible, For one thing, Clinton is also white, so she is going to get a lot of the white vote, way more than Obama did against Romney.

And btw folks, whites are now 72% of America, so for Trump to win he would need every single one of them to vote for him, and that is never ever going to happen.

But here is what really shows the truth.

In 2012 whites were 72% of the electorate, Romney got 59% of the white vote, and that was a white man running against a black man, While Obama got 39% of the white vote. A black man got 39% of the white vote. Clinton will get much more than that, she will probably get at least 45% of the white vote, and that means Trump can not win.

And for the record, right now, as I type this, Trump is at 50% with whites, so he is not even close to the 70% he needs to win with the white vote only. And every week his support among whites goes down, he is losing white votes the more he talks.

In 2008 74% of the electorate was white, McCain got 55% of the white vote and Obama got 43% of the white vote. So as you can see the percentage of whites in the electorate goes down a percentage or two every 4 years, that is because minorities, blacks, and latinos are having more kids than whites, so the whites are losing voters more and more in every election.

In fact, the Census Bureau projects white children will be the minority by 2020, which is only 4 years from now. In other words, Trump can not win with white votes only.

Notice that O'Reilly ignores all this information, while promoting the narrative that Trump can win if enough whites get out and vote. It's all a lie folks, Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing liar who is lying to you, and that is a fact. He is a spin doctor for the Republican party and his friend Donald Trump. Almost nothing he says is true, it's almost all right-wing spin, and that is a fact.

Just watch his show and find out for yourself, look at what he says then check to see if it's true or just his opinion. Most of the time it is just his biased opinion, and he has other biased right-wingers on to agree with his biased opinion to make it look like he is right.

It's almost all spin, and spin for the Republicans, he never spins anything for the Democrats, ever. The O'Reilly Factor is a 99% right-wing spin zone, with a 99% right-wing host, who has 99% right-wing guests on to agree with him 99% of the time. And that is a proven fact, the no-spin zone is a lie, it's just a slogan, and a dishonest one.

Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist, he is a partisan right-wing op-ed column who talks on a biased right-wing cable news tv show.

And one last thing, Bill O'Reilly has no power to change any votes or to get anyone to vote for Donald Trump, it did not work when McCain ran against Obama, it did not work when Romney ran against Obama, and it will not work for Trump against Clinton.

O'Reilly has on average 2.7 to 3 million total viewers a night, that is total viewers. We have 320 million people in America, that means 317 million of them do not watch the O'Reilly Factor. And most the people I ask about O'Reilly do not even know who he is, I have to tell most of them who he is when I tell them about this website and what my blog is about.

And of that 2.7 to 3 million, about 90% of them are Republicans who agree with O'Reilly and already plan to vote for Trump. So O'Reilly can spin out all the right-wing propaganda he wants, it just will not matter, and it will not get one person to vote for Trump, because they are already Trump voters.

Report: Ailes Used Fox News Budget To Target Journalists In Smear Campaigns
August 20, 2016 - 7:30am

What a shocker, Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about any of this, shocking, NOT!

Former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes used portions of the Fox budget to hire consultants, political operatives, and private detectives to conduct surveillance campaigns against perceived enemies, including journalists critical of Fox and Ailes, according to a report from New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman.

Parent company 21st Century Fox announced in July that Ailes would be resigning following allegations of sexual harassment from former Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson and at least 25 other women. Subsequent reports have indicated Ailes was only part of a decades-long culture of sexual harassment at Fox.

Sherman reported that Ailes used revenue from Fox's budget to hire consultants, operatives, and detectives that reported only to him and would work in a special Black Room to conduct operations against people he targeted both inside and outside the company.

Sherman wrote that "Targets of the campaigns included journalists" such as Sherman himself and reporters from Gawker. He also wrote that multiple Fox employees participated in these operations, including Fox contributor and Ailes lawyer Peter Johnson Jr. and Fox contributor Bo Diehl, and that Fox's CFO "approved budget expenditures throughout this period," along with Fox's general counsel.

Sherman reported in his 2014 Ailes biography that Ailes had masterminded the creation of a blog called "The Cable Game” which was used to attack Fox rivals and critics and was authored in part by Fox contributor Jim Pinkerton.

From the August 7 article:

But with Ailes gone, Fox executives are now looking closely at how Ailes spent Fox money. And what they are discovering is that, beyond the sexual harassment claims, Ailes was also able to use portions of the Fox budget to hire consultants, political operatives, and private detectives that reported only to him, according to a senior Fox source.

Last week, according to the source, Fox News dismissed five consultants whom Ailes had hired to do work that was more about advancing his own agenda than Fox's. One of the consultants, Bert Solivan, ran negative PR campaigns against Ailes's personal and political enemies out of Fox News headquarters, a source said.

According to one highly-placed source, Solivan worked out of what Fox insiders called the Black Room, an operation Ailes established around 2011 to conduct PR and surveillance campaigns against people he targeted both inside and outside the company.

The Black Room was located on the 14th floor of the News Corp building at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, a quiet part of the office that housed Fox News Latino and some marketing and promotions employees.

Fox employees Ken LaCorte and Jim Pinkerton, veteran political operatives who've worked with Ailes since the 1980s, also worked with Solivan, the source said, adding that Ailes’s personal lawyer, and Fox contributor, Peter Johnson Jr. advised the team.

Targets of the campaigns included journalists John Cook and Hamilton Nolan, who have aggressively covered Ailes for Gawker. According to one source, private detectives followed Cook around his Brooklyn neighborhood and Fox operatives prepared a report on him with information they intended to leak to blogs.

(According to the source, one proposed line of attack claimed that Cook -- whose wife, Slate news director Allison Benedikt, is Jewish -- was anti-Semitic.)

Sherman was also the target of an operation, a highly-placed source told said: In 2012, while he was researching a biography of Ailes, Fox operatives set up web pages to attack his reputation, and Fox funds paid for Google search ads against his name that linked to the sites. One source also said private investigators employed by Fox contributor Bo Dietl were instructed to follow him and my wife.

The allegations about Ailes's questionable use of Fox resources raise the issue of how much other high-ranking officials knew about his activities. Fox News CFO Mark Kranz, for instance, approved budget expenditures throughout this period, and general counsel Dianne Brandi approved contracts.

And btw folks, back when I first started oreilly-sucks.com in 2000, O'Reilly and Diane Brandi sent me a letter trying to get me to stop selling advertising on my website.

They told me some lame story about how I was illegally using the O'Reilly name and it was against the law for me to sell ads using his name, even though the site is called O'Reilly Sucks, and he is a public figure, so I knew they were full of it. I wrote her and asked her to sue me, and I never heard from her again.

Through a spokesperson, both Kranz and Brandi said they had no knowledge of expenditures for surveillance and online attacks.

Manafort Resigns From Troubled Trump Campaign
August 19, 2016 - 10:30am

Paul Manafort, installed to run Donald Trump's campaign after the firing of his original campaign manager, handed in his resignation on Friday, signifying the latest tumult to engulf the candidate, whose standing in the polls has steadily dropped since the Republican Party's convention in July.

Manafort left nearly a week after a New York Times report about problems within the Republican presidential nominee's campaign helped precipitate a leadership shake-up. His departure reflects repeated efforts to steady a campaign that has been frequently roiled by the unpredictable behavior of its first-time candidate.

Manafort was also dogged by reports about secretive efforts he made to help the former pro-Russian government in Ukraine, where he has worked on and off over several years. Those news reports were blotting out much of the press coverage of the candidate this week. And they contributed to Manafort becoming viewed with trepidation by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and a major force within the campaign, particularly after a number of false starts since the Republican National Convention, according to three people briefed on the matter.

"This morning Paul Manafort offered, and I accepted, his resignation from the campaign," Trump said in a statement. "I am very appreciative for his great work in helping to get us where we are today, and in particular his work guiding us through the delegate and convention process. Paul is a true professional and I wish him the greatest success."

Manafort, a veteran strategist who had managed Republican nominating conventions in the past, was hired by the campaign in late March, as Trump was facing a protracted delegate slog in his effort to capture the Republican nomination. When he joined the campaign, he was seen as a peer to Trump, 70, and someone whose advice Trump might heed. In fact, Manafort had pushed for the selection of Mike Pence, the Republican governor of Indiana, as Trump's running mate.

But until this week, the role of campaign manager had remained empty since the June ouster of Corey Lewandowski, who played into Mr. Trump's most aggressive instincts and with whom the candidate had a level of chemistry that he never forged with Manafort, according to several advisers who witnessed them interact. Trump has continued to seek out Lewandowski's counsel since his firing.

Since the convention in Cleveland, Mr. Trump has engaged in a series of self-defeating battles, including belittling the mother of a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq and threatening to withhold an endorsement from House Speaker Paul D. Ryan. Aides have tried a range of efforts to rein in his impulses, including adding different travel companions.

Conservative Charlie Sykes Admits Right-Wing Media Is A Joke
August 19, 2016 - 9:30am

Here is something O'Reilly will never talk about, and a person he will never have on as a guest to discuss it.

Conservative radio host Charlie Sykes did in an interview with Business Insider where he admitted that the right-wing media has created an environment in which facts no longer matter to many Republican voters.

"We've basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There's nobody. Let's say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it's a lie," Sykes said.

"The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that. 'By the way, you know it's false.' And they'll say, 'Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.' Or they'll say, 'I saw it on a Facebook page.' And I'll say, 'The New York Times did a fact check.' And they'll say, 'Oh, that's The New York Times. That's bullshit.'"

He also went on to explain that as a conservative radio host, he has even faced backlash for fact-checking Trump, saying many people will call him a sell out for doing so.

"We've created this monster," he added. "Look, I'm a conservative talk show host. All conservative talk show hosts have basically established their brand as being contrasted with the mainstream media. So we have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media. And by the way, a lot has been justifiable. There is real bias. But, at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there."

While I disagree on the so-called liberal bias in the mainstream media (Just because liberals are more factual than conservatives doesn't make the mainstream media biased toward the Democrats), he is absolutely right in saying that a large part of what the conservative media has become is this propaganda machine that constantly seeks to ignore factual information.

What I am seeing is a lot of the conservative media going from simply spinning information toward a conservative slant to becoming blatant conspiracy theorists.

Here is one example, Sean Hannity, one of the most well-known personalities on Fox, has spent the last week or so pushing absurd conspiracies about Hillary Clinton's health.

And what's been the so-called evidence many who believe this nonsense have been using? A picture, from February, when she slipped on ice that some on the right are trying to pass off as something that recently occurred. Other than that, this story is pure garbage, but it's news that's been featured on a major cable news network many many times.

Even fringe right-wing propaganda sites like Breitbart have somehow become credible news, while I've seen more and more Republicans using InfoWars (a site that sells nuclear fallout gear and claims basically every mass shooting is a false flag) to support their nonsense.

What the GOP, O'Reilly, and the conservative media have done is create what's essentially a political cult. It's a party driven and supported by people who think credible news is all biased, fact-checking is fixed and the only truth they believe is what those who are feeding them propaganda will tell them.

Here is a fact, the right-wing news sources in America have a bias for Republicans, and the way they see it is if you do not report the news the same way they do then you are biased and favor the Democrats. That is not bias, it is their opinion of what is bias, and they are wrong.

They compare all news reporting to what Fox News does, especially O'Reilly, and if you do not do it just like them, then they label you part of the liberal media. Which is ridiculous, and it is not proof there is a liberal bias in the media. It's propaganda and attempted brainwashing, and some people believe it.

Even now, Donald Trump is setting up a potential loss in November by saying that the only way he's going to lose is if the election is rigged. So, that way, if he does lose, you can bet that the big push within the conservative media is going to be searching for any story they can twist into some bogus proof that there was voter fraud and Hillary Clinton didn't really win.

Though most of these stories (like we saw during the primaries) are often based on people who are writing about these incidents not knowing what the hell they're talking about, they are creating a story based on their own ignorance.

We are reaching a dangerous point in this country where nearly half the nation has become cult followers of a conspiracy-driven political party, and a right-wing media that is nothing but lies. And if the Republican party and the few sane conservatives left on the right-wing don't do something about this soon, these crazy people are going to tear this country apart.

Right-Wing Calls Foul On Media Polls About Clinton & Trump
August 19, 2016 - 8:30am

This is how dishonest the right-wing media in America is, and that includes Bill O'Reilly, who also questions the media polls, only citing one cherry picked poll he selected that has Clinton 4 points ahead of Trump.

O'Reilly ignored the 15 other polls that have Clinton 8 to 10 points ahead of Trump, including his own network, the Fox News poll has Clinton 10 points ahead of Trump. But O'Reilly never even mentions it, or the other 14 polls that all have Clinton far ahead of Trump.

This is how ridiculous and dishonest O'Reilly and the right-wing media are. All the polls have Clinton easily beating Trump, but O'Reilly and the right are still saying the polls are biased against Trump because they are all done by the so-called liberal media, even though these same polls have the same numbers the Fox News poll has.

And we clearly know that Fox News is not part of the so-called liberal media. It's ridiculous, they just can not admit Trump is losing badly and that he is a terrible candidate. In fact, I think the polls are underestimating the hate for Trump, and I would not be shocked to find out Trump is actually more than 10 points down.

Real Clear Politics even has an average of 10 or so polls, and they average them, even if you do that Clinton is still 7 points ahead, and that includes the biased to the right Rasmussen poll that has Clinton only 1 point ahead.

Rasmussen has Trump at 42%, where he has been stuck for months. He can not get any higher. And I have news for some right-wingers, he can not win the White House unless he gets up to about 49%, if not 50%.

And really it's not the total vote that matters, it's the electoral college vote. Obama only beat Romney by 4 points, 51 to 47, but he crushed Romney in the electoral college, 332 to 206. So the percent of the vote a candidate gets is pretty much meaningless, all that matters are electoral college votes, and Clinton is killing Trump in the electoral vote.

Conservatives Slam Hannity For His Trump Cheerleading
August 19, 2016 - 7:30am

In an column titled "Sean Hannity's Veneration of Ignorance," The Wall Street Journal editor Bret Stephens wrote a scathing critique of Hannity's excuses for Trump, calling them "disgraceful, combining oily self-absolution with venomous obloquy for" Republicans who recognize that Trump is "an epic GOP disaster."

Stephens added that "Today's GOP is on the road to self-immolation, thanks in part to the veneration of ignorance typified by Hannity."

In his weekly newsletter, National Review senior editor Jonah Goldberg blasted Hannity for defending Trump's shtick instead of holding Trump to his promise to pivot, calling out the Fox host for failing to challenge Trump to become more disciplined.

Goldberg noted that Hannity "will no doubt one day receive the Golden Hair Helmet for his Stakhanovite effort to get Donald Trump the nomination," but added that Hannity and other Trump defenders are "Trump's worst enemies because they are enabling him and by enabling him, they are sabotaging Trump's campaign."

Townhall columnist John Hawkins criticized Hannity for his "cream puff interviews" of Trump and slammed Hannity for giving Trump a "tongue bath" every night and misleading his listeners by giving them "skewed information" about Trump's chances of winning.

Calling Hannity's show "the most useless waste of an hour that Fox News could possible offer up," RedState's Susan Wright castigated the Fox host for "eschewing the numbers of more reliable polls" and suggesting that Trump's number of social media followers compared to Clinton's indicates Trump will win the election.

Wright called this "an entirely new level of seat sniffing," and concluded, "Mr. Hannity, you are pathetic, sir."

In a series of tweets, Forbes contributor Josh Jordan criticized conservative media figures including Hannity for blaming the #NeverTrump movement instead of "just admitting they purposefully sold you a lemon."

And you could say the same about O'Reilly, who constantly defends Trump and says he has a good chance to beat Hillary Clinton. When all the electoral maps have Clinton crushing Trump about 350 to 180, or worse.

But O'Reilly never mentions any of that, while saying polls in August are meaningless, then citing one poll that only has Trump 4 points down in the popular vote. While ignoring all the other 12 polls that have Clinton 7 to 15 points ahead of Trump.

Stelter: Some Conservatives Say Breitbart Is A White Nationalist Publication
August 18, 2016 - 10:30am

CNN's Brian Stelter: Many Conservatives Disavow Breitbart News And Critics Call It A White Nationalist Publication. He also said that many Conservative Writers And Commentators Say 'Don't Call It Conservative, It Does Not Represent The GOP'"

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:

BRIAN STELTER: Breitbart is so far to the right it's almost off the screen. In fact, many conservative writers and commentators say "Don't call it conservative, it does not represent the GOP."

In many cases, Breitbart is an alt-right site, some critics even call it "white nationalist." No matter what you call it, no matter what you think, if you thought Trump would seek out a more moderate voice to run his campaign, think again.

Conservatives Beck & Loesch Call New Trump CEO Worst Person On Earth
August 18, 2016 - 10:00am

Wow, he must be really bad if Glenn Beck thinks he is the worst person on the planet, and it's not just Beck, the conservative Dana Loesch thinks the same thing.

Beck: "Steve Bannon Is Quite Possibly The Most Dangerous Guy In All Of American Politics"

Beck: "Steve Bannon Is One Of The Worst People. And Now He's Become The CEO Of The Trump Campaign"

Here is a partial transcript from the August 17 Glenn Beck Radio Show:

BECK: He is quite possibly the most dangerous guy in all of American politics. I mean he makes Roger Stone, correct me if you guys disagree with me, he makes Roger Stone look like Mary Poppins.

Look at this line-up. Roger Stone who was in the Nixon White House. Roger Ailes who was in the Nixon White House.

GRAY: And now Steve Bannon.

BECK: Steve Bannon who is one of the worst people. And now he's become the CEO of the Trump campaign. Wait wait wait. And he is not leaving Breitbart.

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

Dana Loesch had even more to say, from her show:

DANA LOESCH: When I heard the news this morning that Paul Manafort was basically demoted, Kellyanne Conway seems like a very pleasant person, I don't have any experience with her, I think I've met her once or twice. But the campaign CEO that was just installed this morning I do have experience with, and I actually know quite well. And I will say that one of the worst, most hellacious years of my entire life involved this individual.

And I have to question whether or not the campaign is sincere about winning a victory against Hillary Clinton by instituting someone like this as the CEO of the campaign. I also have to question what we as conservatives expect from our media. Andrew Breitbart was one of my dearest friends. I talked to him an hour before he died. And that his -- everything that he stood for was against an incestuous media.

This is a different story for me. Because I went through a very personal hellacious period in my life brought on by someone's idiocy. So this is has taken a bit of a turn and I'm not quite sure how to approach it to be honest with you.

But all I know is one of the worst people on God's green earth was just instituted as the chairman and CEO of the Trump campaign. And if you are, as I am, not wanting to see Hillary Clinton in the White House, you need to seriously, seriously be concerned about that.

O'Reilly's Voter Fraud Proof Was Debunked On His Own Show 4 Years Ago
August 18, 2016 - 9:00am

Tuesday night Bill O'Reilly argued that Mitt Romney's failure to receive any votes in the 2012 presidential election in 59 divisions in Philadelphia was evidence that widespread voter fraud exists in presidential elections.

Even though the claim was debunked, investifated, and proven false on O'Reilly's own show one week after the 2012 election.

O'Reilly invited lawyers Kimberly Guilfoyle and Stacy Schneider to discuss the prevalence of voter fraud in presidential elections. While both Guilfoyle and Schneider agreed that voter fraud is extremely rare, O'Reilly pointed to "reports in Philadelphia that nobody voted for Romney" as proof that voter fraud exists and asked if these reports have been investigated.

O'Reilly himself investigated and debunked these allegations in 2012. Following the election, O'Reilly hosted Fox's Megyn Kelly to investigate the "shenanigans" and why Romney got zero votes in a number of Philadelphia divisions.

Kelly explained that "the same thing happened to John McCain" in 2008 because "the divisions with the unanimous Obama votes have large black, inner-city populations."

Furthermore, following the 2012 election, The Philadelphia Inquirer investigated the claim of voter fraud and the voting patterns in those 59 divisions in Philadelphia and reported that they are overwhelmingly Democratic, black, and politically uniform:

-- About 94 percent of the 633 people who live in that division are black. Seven white residents were counted in the 2010 census.

-- In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920.

-- Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's 3rd division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.

-- Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him.

The ward's 15th division, which also cast no votes for Romney, also cast no votes for McCain in 2008. Thirteen other Philadelphia precincts also cast no votes for the Republican in both 2008 and 2012.

-- Nationally, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for Obama, according to exit polls, so it's not surprising that the president did even better than that in some areas.

O'Reilly Cherry Picks One Poll That Has Trump Close To Clinton
August 18, 2016 - 8:30am

This is how biased Bill O'Reilly is folks, there are 6 major polls out on the election, and 5 of them have Clinton 6 to 9 points ahead of Trump, one poll has Trump 1 point behind Clinton.

And guess which poll O'Reilly reported on, the one poll with Trump only 1 point behind, of course. It is the LA Times/USC poll.

Real Clear Politics has 6 polls they use to get an average, here they are:

Economist/YouGov - Clinton +6
NBC News/SM - Clinton +9
Reuters/Ipsos - Clinton +6
Bloomberg - Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post - Clinton +8
La Times/USC - Clinton +1

They have Clinton with a 6 point lead, 47 to 41.

O'Reilly ignores the other 5 polls to only report the one poll that has Trump close, what a joke, if that's not bias for Trump, what is it?

How can a so-called honest journalist ignore the 5 polls that have Clinton 6 to 9 points ahead, and only mention the one poll that has Trump only 1 point down.

And btw, RCP also has an electoral college projection, Clinton 272, Trump 154. But O'Reilly ignores that, when that is what decides the election, not the popular vote polls. Obama only beat Romney by 4 points in the popular vote, but he crushed him in what counts, the electoral college vote, 335 to 206.

O'Reilly is also ignoring the poll from Nate Silver, he has Clinton ahead of Trump by 7 points, 48 to 41. His electoral college prediction is 353 to 183 for Clinton, and he has Clinton with a 90% chance to beat Trump, who is at 10% to beat her.

And let's not forget this, the Breitbart poll also has Clinton winning by 5 points, and the Fox News poll has Clinton up by 10 points, but O'Reilly never mentions either one of them. While saying the polls that have Clinton winning by 6 to 9 points are biased against Trump, it makes no sense, because if they have a liberal bias against Trump, why do the conservative polls show the same results?

O'Reilly ignores it all, as if none of it was even published. To cite and report on one poll from the LA Times and USC that has Trump close. It's ridiculous, and about as biased as a person can get. And this is the guy who complains about media bias against Trump every night (even though nobody cares) while he is being biased for Trump every chance he gets.

O'Reilly Defends Trump Hiring Steve Bannon From Breitbart
August 18, 2016 - 7:30am

Which violates his own rules, he says you can not excuse bad behavior by one person to defend another. Then he does the very same thing, he is saying it's ok for Trump to use Bannon because Clinton is using John Podesta and Media Matters.

And btw, quoting Trump and reporting it is not the same as a dirty tricks campaign guy lying to people, it's not even close, but O'Reilly makes the comparison anyway, but when Democrats do it to Republicans he says they are being unfair and biased, but when he does it somehow it's ok.

Notice that O'Reilly did not have a segment on Bannon, or that he is a dirty tricks guy, he was mentioned in a segment, but O'Reilly defended him and barely talked about him. He did not provide any details about who Bannon is or what he has done in the past, no quotes, no video, nothing. That was done to cover for him and make excuses for him, but if he was a Democrat dirty tricks guy O'Reilly would have done a special segment on him with quotes, examples, and video.

Even Glenn Beck says Bannon is one of the worst persons in America. Here is a partial transcript.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I get the point that if Mr. Trump is going to campaign on a rigged election theory, it creates cynicism. I get it. But that's really a very minor part of his presentation, is it not? Aren't you nitpicking him?

GLENN BECK: No. Did you see who he just made the CEO of his campaign? One the dirtiest, nastiest human beings alive.

O'REILLY: Well we just talked about that. But he needs somebody to go up against Podesta and Media Matters and George Soros. Come on, you know the other side. You know it's playing the other side.

Trumpanic at the Trumptanic! Breitbart News Takes Over Failing Campaign
By: Steve - August 17, 2016 - 10:30am

If you needed a sign the Trump campaign is failing, here it is. Donald Trump is merging his failing campaign with Breitbart News and dumping Manafort and everyone else telling him to tone it down.

Manafort will stay on the campaign, but Kellyanne Conway will begin running the campaign, and Steve Bannon of Breitbart will be the CEO.

Trump, whose presidential bid has been stumbling badly in recent weeks, is reshuffling his campaign's senior leadership. The Republican nominee tapped pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager and Breitbart News Chairman Stephen Bannon as campaign chief executive, Conway confirmed to POLITICO early Wednesday morning.

The news was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. Trump told the paper "I want to win, and That's why I'm bringing on fantastic people who know how to win and love to win."

Campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who had been effectively running the campaign for the last two months, will stay on in his current position.

But the shakeup seems to represent a diminution of his authority at a time when Trump's campaign is sliding in polls versus Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and has been badly damaged by a string of controversies stemming from Trump's own impolitic pronouncements.

The hiring of Bannon - a brash former Goldman Sachs banker with no experience running a political campaign - was widely seen Wednesday as a sign that Trump intends to embrace the pugilistic, divisive style of campaigning that he believes won him the GOP nomination.

Known as a devil-may-care conservative, Bannon's populist and nationalist sympathies reflect his longstanding disgust with both major political parties. And like Trump, Bannon enjoys needling the political establishment. The businessman boasted in his statement Wednesday that Bannon had once been called the "most dangerous political operative in America."

Yet for longtime aides and supporters loyal to Trump, Bannon's hiring is cause for concern. "Bannon will play to Trump's worst sensibilities," said a source close to the Trump campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Trump's decision to hire Bannon followed months of conversations between the pair. Bannon urged the impulsive, angry presidential nominee to ignore people who wanted him to tone it down, according to The Washington Post.

The advice resonated with Trump, who has resisted calls to pivot throughout his campaign. "I am who I am," Trump said in an interview with a Wisconsin TV station Tuesday. "I don't want to change. Everyone talks about, 'Oh, well you're going to pivot, you're going to.' I don't want to pivot. I mean, you have to be you. If you start pivoting, you're not being honest with people."

Now that's funny, after telling a million lies during the campaign he is now worried about being honest with the people, what a joke. Trump is the biggest liar in the history of politics, and he can not even spell honesty.

RedState's Leon H. Wolf wrote that Bannon's Breitbart flatters Trump and has repeated "every fantasy as fact." Wolf wrote that the hire shows that Trump judges people's character "solely by how nice they are to him" and the hire is either a desperate play or a signal that Trump "knows he's already lost and wants to reward people who helped him get this far."

And btw, Trump has said there is no trouble in his campaign, if that is true why is he doing this in the middle of his campaign?

The question now is how will the Trump butt kissing O'Reilly spin this, or will he even report it. I am guessing he will report it, and spin it as good news for Trump, when everyone else says it is bad news.

Breitbart Says Their Poll Will Prove The Media Is Biased Against Trump
By: Steve - August 17, 2016 - 10:00am

They said they would prove the media bias against Trump with a poll of their own that would show Trump actually beating Clinton. But there was one problem with it, their poll came up with the same results all the other polls have, Clinton beating Trump, oops!

Aiming to address a recent slew of "mainstream media" polls showing Hillary Clinton holding a decisive lead over of Donald Trump, Breitbart News conducted its own survey. But the conservative news site came up with similar results.

In a poll out Sunday from Breitbart and Gravis Marketing, Clinton led a four-way contest with 42 percent of the vote to Trump's 37 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson earned 9 percent of the vote, while the Green Party's Jill Stein received 3 percent.

Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow explained in a statement accompanying the survey that the site would launch its own series of polls to provide "an accurate assessment" of the 2016 race.

"It's an open secret that polls are often manipulated and spun to create momentum for a particular candidate or issue," Marlow said. "Breitbart News Network's first national poll marks the start of a major initiative to give our readers an accurate assessment on where the American people stand on the key topics and people of the day -- without the mainstream media filter."

And they failed to show a difference, their poll pretty much mirrors the other polls, and did not show Trump beating Clinton. In fact, they proved that the Republicans who cry about media bias and poll bias aginst Trump are liars who are simply putting out right-wing propaganda and spin, and that includes the so-called Independent Bill O'Reilly.

And btw, Fox News polls also have Clinton beating Trump. But of course they ignore that too, while claiming all the polls and the media are biased against Trump, as the right-wing polls say the very same thing.

They also fail to mention anything about the electoral college projections by Nate Silver or Larry Sabato, who both have Clinton crushing Trump roughly 350 to 190. They ignore it, just as O'Reilly does every night on his show, while trying to tell his viewers that it is a close race and Trump still has a chance to win, when he knows that is a lie and Trump has about a 10 percent chance to win.

Lying Trump Once Supported US Troop Withdrawal From Iraq
By: Steve - August 17, 2016 - 9:00am

And he even said if it leads to more violence or a civil war, he is ok with that. But he slams Obama and Clinton for doing exactly what he supported, and acts like he never supported the US troop withdrawal in Iraq, when he clearly did. While ignoring the fact that it was Bush who created ISIS, and it was Bush who signed the SOFA that mandated the US troop withdrawal by a set date, a date that was set to expire after Bush left office.

Last week, Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that President Barack Obama was the "founder" of ISIS and blasted Hillary Clinton as a "co-founder" of the terror group that has taken over large swaths of Iraq and Syria.

Even though Obama voted against the Iraq war as a Senator, was not in the White House yet, and Clinton was not secretary of state when ISIS originated.

When a conservative radio host on Thursday asked if Trump meant that the Obama administration had "created the vacuum" in the region that allowed ISIS to grow, the GOP nominee stuck to his crazy statement: "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS."

Fact: The founder is ISIS was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Next, Trump claimed he was being sarcastic. Then at a campaign rally, he added, "But not that sarcastic." And on Monday, with a speech on national security that Trump read off a teleprompter, he had a chance to declare what he really thought about Obama, Clinton, and ISIS.

After repeating the lie that he had opposed the Iraq War before the invasion, Trump did not restate his "founder" claim, but he said that because of Obama and Clinton, "Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose."

He added, "the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS." He insisted that Obama's withdrawal of US troops from Iraq (which actually was a Status of Forces Agreement reached with the Iraqi government by President George W. Bush) that "led directly to the rise of ISIS."

Here's the problem for Trump, if being wildly inconsistent and attacking an opponent for holding a position that Trump himself once advocated is a problem: 10 years ago, Trump called for a complete US withdrawal of troops from Iraq and indicated that he didn't give a damn if this led to civil war and greater violence there.

He even predicted that such a move would cause the rise of "vicious" forces in Iraq. But Trump believed this would not be the United States problem. That is, Trump was in favor of the very actions that he now wrongfully blames Obama and Clinton.

In a 2006 CNBC interview, Trump was asked to critique Bush's performance in the White House. Trump immediately brought up the Iraq War:

"I would like to see our president get us out of the war in Iraq because the war is a total catastrophe. I would like to see President Bush get us out of Iraq, which is a total mess, a total catastrophe, and it's not going to get any better. It's only going to get worse. It's a mess."

Trump was passionate and insistent. Bush had to get the hell out of Iraq right away:

"What you have to do is get out of Iraq. You can do it nicely. You can do it slowly. You can do it radically."

Trump supported the do-it-fast approach. And he noted that a US withdrawal should proceed, even though it would precipitate more violence in the region and the worst and most violent forces would benefit. It's almost as if Trump foresaw the rise of ISIS, but didn't believe that this mattered for the United States:

"I would announce that we have been victorious in Iraq and all the troops are coming home and let those people have their civil war. And, by the way, no matter if we stay or if we leave, the most vicious person that you've ever seen in your life. Saddam Hussein is going to be like a nice guy compared to the one who's taking over Iraq. Somebody will take over Iraq, whether we're there or not, but probably when we leave, will take over Iraq. He will make Saddam Hussein look like a baby."

Trump did not mince his words and he stated his solution:

"I just said, announce victory, get them home. Let's say, Victory, Tremendous. Have a big thing in the streets. Then get out real fast before you get shot. Let's get home…Hey, hate us over there. Now how, how, do you. The people that like us hate us. Those are the good ones. Then you have the double hate where they wanna just shoot us. But how do you solve that problem? You got to get out of Iraq."

Trump was clear at the time: The United States had to remove its troops, even if that would cause a civil war and a dramatic expansion of violence and terror in Iraq and the region.

Now he slams Obama and Clinton, who were not in office, and not in charge of US foreign policy at that time, for supposedly implementing the policy he demanded. By Trump's own standards (sarcastic or not) he is at least an honorary founder of ISIS.

Former Trump Plaza Executive Tells Us About The Real Donald Trump
By: Steve - August 17, 2016 - 8:00am

These are quotes from an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star newspaper by Jack O'Donnell, he worked with Trump as a CEO for 3 years, and he wrote a book about it. This is the real Donald Trump, we know it from watching him, but this confirms what we thought the real Trump is like in private.

Jack O'Donnell: I know Trump, and he's not fit to be president

Trump is Trump, and he always has been.

I will be upfront and begin this column by stating that I am not a Donald Trump fan. When I go the polls this November, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

But unlike many pundits and average citizens, I have made my decision based on actually knowing Trump. I worked for him for three years in Atlantic City. From 1987 to 1990, I was senior executive at the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. The last half of my time with Donald, I was the president and chief operating officer of the business.

At the time, Trump Plaza was the No. 1 casino on the East Coast. The property dominated the competitive landscape from both a revenue and earnings standpoint. We had a national presence through the sport of boxing -- hosting 33 world-championship fights during my time alone.

We hosted the first pay-per-view event for rock and roll with the Rolling Stones. We produced the largest professional cycling event ever in the United Sates, the Tour de Trump. We had a strong, positive image, and Trump Plaza was the place to be in Atlantic City.

It is now history what happened to Trump's casinos after I left the organization: All three of his properties eventually were routed through the bankruptcy courts as a result of his mismanagement. I ended up writing a book about my experience with Trump, "Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump -- His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall."

Yes, it was a tell-all book. But it was written to set the record straight on lies Trump told about three of my friends and fellow executives who tragically died in a helicopter accident. You see, Donald Trump tried to blame these men, after their deaths, for his lack of experience, basic business acumen and greed. I owed it to my friends to not let him get away with it.

Over the course of the past 26 years, I have been contacted maybe two dozen times by people in the media doing stories about Trump, always asking for a comment on something he was doing or had said.

I developed a very simple response to these requests. I always politely told the reporters that I could not comment: "My book stands on its own, I have nothing to add. And besides, I have grown and changed over the years; I assume Donald has, too, so it would be unfair for me to comment."

I assumed the Trump I knew back then had changed. Last summer changed my thinking.

The day Trump announced he was running for president -- the day he declared war on all Mexican people by calling them rapists and drug dealers, and vowed to wall them out of the United States -- I remember saying to myself aloud, "Oh my God, Donald Trump has not changed at all in 26 years!"

Back then, Donald Trump's ego was as big as it is today. He was short-tempered, he was judgmental without facts, he judged people based on their clothes or the color of their skin. His attention span was so small it was almost impossible to have a strategic conversation with him about the business.

He would say something one minute and change his mind the next. He would demand something be done one way, only to criticize that directive later, never taking blame. He never said he was sorry for anything. He was crude and sexist toward women, he was a philandering fool publicly. He would humiliate his wife without a second thought.

Donald Trump was humorless, cold and selfish. He would hurt the little guy if he could see even the slightest gain for himself. He refused to pay his bills, he sued anyone who got in his way. He threatened people like myself for telling the truth.

I am horrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. I know first-hand that he lacks the intelligence, nor does he have the attention span to process the complexities of running our great country. The vision of him sitting in the War Room during a national crisis should frighten every American.

Sitting with the Joint Chiefs, secretary of defense, secretary of state and others, he would be forced to do something he is not capable of doing: listening to others. In the coming weeks, the Trump campaign is going to try and present a new Donald Trump, a more presidential Donald Trump.

There are going to be claims that he now gets it, and he will be on message to beat Hillary Clinton. And when he does go off script, they will spin, blaming someone else. There will be constant reassurances from Trump's surrogates that he understands what it takes to lead the country.

Well, from where I sit, Trump has not changed one bit. He was not capable of running his business without hurting others back then; he is not capable of running our country today without hurting others.

Whatever Trump does, it will be to serve himself. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. I am sorry to say there is no change coming.

Conservative Legal Scholars Prefer Liberal Supreme Court To President Trump
By: Steve - August 17, 2016 - 7:00am

Donald Trump is so bad of a candidate that conservative legal scholars would rather see Hillary Clinton put liberal justices on the supreme court, than support Trump. Now that is bad, when people in your own party support the person in the opposing party, it shows just how bad Trump is and what low support he has from his fellow Republicans.

Some Republicans have argued that conservatives skeptical of Donald Trump should vote for him anyway, if only to prevent Hillary Clinton from nominating liberals to the Supreme Court. But the right's leading legal scholars reject that idea: the risks of a President Trump would outweigh his influence on the high court.

"The only glimmer of hope in the Trump fiasco" is the list of 11 judges the candidate put forward as suitable Supreme Court nominees, said Richard Epstein, a Hoover Institution Fellow and professor at both New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School.

But that is based "on the questionable assumption that a man of his mercurial temperament and intellectual ignorance will keep to his word," he said.

Even if a President Trump did honor that promise, "influence on the courts take time, and foreign affairs and domestic crises come up immediately," Epstein said.

And that's not a risk the highly respected conservative legal scholar thinks is worth taking. "He is wholly unfit to deal with either of these two areas. In all other matters he is deficient," Epstein added.

These conservative legal luminaries distancing themselves from Trump has the potential to undermine one of the few remaining threads tying the candidate to the Republican establishment. For some senators, it may give an additional push to allow consideration of President Barack Obama’s nominee to the court, Merrick Garland, based on the belief that he would be better than any potential Clinton pick.

Trump, however, remains confident that skeptical Republicans will inevitably vote for him out of concern for the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.

"Even if people don't like me, they have to vote for me. They have no choice," Trump said in July. "Even if you can't stand Donald Trump, even if you think I'm the worst, you're going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court."

"The court is important, to be sure - but not nearly that important," said retired Temple University Law School Professor David Post, who now writes for the conservative website the Volokh Conspiracy.

"With all due respect to my colleagues who might feel differently, this one strikes me as a no-brainer."

The next president might end up only filling a single seat on the court, Post said.

"The idea that it makes sense to trade a single justice for all of Trump's terrible baggage - his bullying, his ignorance, his appalling tendency to shoot his mouth off without thinking, and all the rest of it - strikes me as thoroughly preposterous," he added.

Ilya Somin, who teaches law at George Mason University and also blogs for the Volokh Conspiracy, argues that a Trump presidency might even be worse for the courts than a Clinton one.

"Trump has a terrible record on constitutional issues," he said. "He seeks to gut freedom of speech and constitutional property rights, and undermine constitutional constraints on executive power even more than Bush and Obama have."

"Moreover, over the long term, a Trump victory increases the likelihood that the GOP will become a big-government xenophobic party hostile to civil liberties and opposed to most constitutional constraints on government power - much like the far-right nationalist parties of Western Europe, whose platforms are very similar to his," he continued.

"Such a party is likely to do far more to undermine the Constitution than even a Hillary Clinton victory."

Nate Silver Has Trump At Less Than 1% In His Home State Of New York
By: Steve - August 16, 2016 - 11:00am

Remember when Al Gore was running for President, and he was losing to Bush in his home state of Tennessee. Back then O'Reilly hammered Gore for losing in his very own home state, he said if a person is running for President and they can not win their home state, with the people that know him best, he does not deserve to be the President.

So we fast forward to 2016 and we find that Donald Trump is not only losing in his home State of New York, he is getting crushed. But not one time has O'Reilly said that Trump does not deserve to be the President because he is losing in his home state, as he did with Gore when he ran against Bush in 2000.

Which is just more proof O'Reilly is biased for Trump, he has two sets of rules, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, especially when that Republican is his friend of 30 years.

O'Reilly not only never says Trump does not deserve to be President because he is losing in his home state, he defends almost everything Trump says, and tries to cherry pick polls to spin for Trump, while ignoring state polls that have him getting crushed, and the electoral college predictions that have Trump stuck around 180 to 190 electoral votes, while Clinton is around 350 to 360.

So Trump says he can win New York. Okay, let's take a look. Trump said this on April 28, 2016:
TRUMP: "You know, no Republican other than me will campaign in New York. They won't campaign. They assume that is lost. If somebody ever won New York, it totally, with the Electoral College, it totally changes the map. I think we will win New York. I really do."
And now let's take a look at reality, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has Trump with a 0.5% chance to win New York, yes you heard me right, Trump has a 0.5% chance to win New York.

Gore did lose his home state, but he only lost by 4 points to Bush, 51 to 47. Trump is losing by 20 points to Clinton, 55 to 35, which is not even close.

Giuliani Lies About No Terrorist Attacks Before Obama Took Office
By: Steve - August 16, 2016 - 10:30am

Earth to Rudy Giuliani, you are a liar. The 9-11 terrorist attack that killed 3,000 Americans happened in September of 2001, and that was 8 months after George W. Bush moved into the White House. So the biggest terrorist attack on American soil happened with a Republican in Power.

But in the world of Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani it never happened.

The guy who exploited 3,000 dead Americans for political gain now seems to forget Sept. 11 ever happened. Rudy Giuliani isn't just most known for being the mayor of New York City during the deadliest terror attacks in American history. He's also known for being the low life who tried to exploit that American tragedy to further his political career.

Think about it, he was the mayor of New York when the biggest terrorist attack on American soil happened, and he acted like he did something good, when it was not good, and it pretty much ended his political career. Giuliani and the Republicans slam the people in power when terrorist attacks happen, but only when a Democrat is in power, when it's himself or a Republican, they praise them and then later forget it even happened, on purpose.

As Joe Biden once appropriately said, "Rudy Giuliani, there's only three things he mentions in a sentence - a noun and a verb and 9/11 and I mean, there's nothing else. There's nothing else."

Nothing else is right. It's likely why his pitiful 2008 presidential campaign couldn't even make it through January of that primary season. Now, all these years later, Rudy Giuliani's favorite topic seems to have suddenly slipped his mind.

In his introduction of Donald Trump today in Youngstown, Ohio, Giuliani claimed that "we didn't have any successful radical Islamic attacks in the US" before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took power in 2009.

Giuliani, with a straight face, said this: "Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

Wrong! We had the 9-11 attacks in 2001, while Bush and Cheney were in power, a full 8 years before Obama was elected President.

In order to fit the narrative that the evil in today's world is a product of two people - Obama and Clinton - the former New York mayor can't bring up the fact that the worst terrorist attack in the history of the country took place eight years before Obama even took office.

Giuliani certainly can't remind voters that he and a Republican president presided over it. Instead, he goes full Trump and rewrites history in a way that totally erases any pre-Obama/Clinton terrorism. The world was a terror-free utopia before these two Democrats came to power.

For a guy who exploited 3,000 dead Americans for political gain, this should come as no real surprise.

Trump Campaign Manager Took Millions In Secret Payments From Russia
By: Steve - August 16, 2016 - 10:00am

Talk about media bias, here it is, real media bias. By O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republican news sources. They are biased by ignoring stories like this, they all ignore them, then cry media bias, when they are more biased than anyone. It's just laughable, the worst media bias sources are crying about media bias, it's pathetic.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort's name has turned up in a ledger of illegal payments that were made by a network in Putin's sphere of influence in Ukraine.

What say you O'Reilly?

From the NY Times:

Ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych's inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court.

Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin.

Anti-corruption officials say the payments earmarked for Mr. Manafort, previously unreported, are a focus of their investigation. While Mr. Manafort is not a target in the separate inquiry of offshore activities, prosecutors say he must have realized the implications of his financial dealings.

Trump's campaign manager's name appeared in an illegal off the books ledger that came from a system where Russia strongman Putin exerts an overwhelming influence.

Suspicion was already growing that Putin was attempting to manipulate the US presidential campaign through Trump, and this report, which is rumored to be the tip of the iceberg as a series of upcoming stories are going to shed a great deal of light on the ties between Trump's presidential campaign and Putin.

The Republican Party has a whole new set of problems thanks to Donald Trump. The man that the Republicans handed their presidential nomination to is this close to being outed as a puppet for an adversarial foreign country. The election was already going badly for the GOP, but this story is about to make things a whole lot worse.

O'Reilly & Fox Silent On Trump Campaign Manager Getting Russian Money
By: Steve - August 16, 2016 - 9:00am

On August 15, 2016, Fox News had no coverage of the August 14 New York Times report that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort allegedly received "$12.7 million in undisclosed payments" from former Ukrainian President Viktor "Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012."

MSNBC and CNN have reported extensively on the story. National security experts and foreign affairs and national security journalists are calling the Times report serious and staggering, with one going so far as to say, "This article alone should finish the Trump campaign."

As expected, Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about it. Now imagine if Hillary Clintons campaign manager was accused of the same thing, Fox and O'Reilly would report on it every day until the election.

According to the Times, "Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials."

CNN Hosted NY Times Andrew Kramer Who Explained: Ukraine's "Investigative Anti-Corruption Bureau Has Discovered 22 Instances In A Ledger Of Off-The-Books Accounting That Mentioned Manafort's Name."

MSNBC Terror Analyst Malcolm Nance: "Mulling Over Significance Of Manafort New York Times Article. I'm Terrified That This Is Tip Of A Serious Intelligence & National Security Iceberg."

BuzzFeed Foreign Correspondent Mike Giglio: "The Alleged Ties Of Trump's Campaign Manager To Pro-Russia Political Corruption In Ukraine Are Staggering."

O'Reilly said nothing, zero, nada, as in not a word. This was a big NY Times story about a foreign government paying millions of dollars to the senior Trump campaign manager, in New York, the city where O'Reilly lives and works, and he still ignored it.

But he had plenty of time to do the stupid and worthless Jesse Watters segment, about him going to Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama was on vacation. Which is just ridiculous, and Bill O'Reilly should stop calling himself a journalist, because he is nothing but a Trump stooge.

Stelter Slams Trump For Using Made-Up Articles From Fringe Websites
By: Steve - August 16, 2016 - 8:00am

Stelter: "If He's Going To Hold Up Made-Up Articles. How Can We Believe What He's Actually Saying?"

The insane Trump now claims he is running against the crooked media.

This nonsense about media bias by Trump is ridiculous, if you are running for President and you give speeches every day saying crazy things and putting out insane lies, the media is going to report it. Then you have no right to cry about media bias, when they are simply doing their job.

Especially when all you do is print out dishonest and biased charts and articles from biased and dishonest websites, like foxnews.com and other fringe websites that just make stuff up. Trump is causing his own problems, because he is an out of control dishonest candidate, he reads things on the internet with unchecked sources, then has his staff print it out, when it's all just made up garbage.

Here is a tip for Trump, if you do not want the media to report on your crazy lies, stop going on tv and saying the crazy lies. Try using some valid stats from an honest source, then the media will not make you look so bad. Your bad media coverage is your own fault, and you are a terrible candidate.

And btw, this is the exact same thing O'Reilly does. When O'Reilly is slammed by the media and people on the internet for a racist or crazy lie he said, he attacks the people on the internet as partisan hacks and claims the media is corrupt and biased against him.

When all they did was quote him word for word, making the racist statement or the crazy lie. In fact, I would not be shocked to find out O'Reilly is an adviser to the Trump campaign and he is telling Trump what to do, because half the things Trump does is the exact same thing O'Reilly does no his show.

A Trump spokesman Jason Miller was on CNN to talk about it, and he pulled the old I have not seen it garbage to avoid the question during the entire interview. Then he tries to change the subject as a distraction tactic, but Stelter was not falling for it, he just kept asking about it, and Miller kelt refusing to answer the question.

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's Reliable Sources:

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): Let me ask you about Trump holding up charts at his rallies. He says he's a chart guy now, I love that line from him. This is an example.

He was holding up a chart here, in some cases they're printouts of Fox News graphics, but this one, this is actually from a fringe right wing website. He's holding up a chart here that shows alleged donations from Middle Eastern countries to the Clinton Foundation.

But if you look at this website, BeforeItsNews.com. This is a crazy website to be honest with you. It's got alien stories, conspiracy theories, UFO stories, stuff like that. Anybody can post to that site. Who checks this data ahead of time to make sure the sources are accurate and reliable?

JASON MILLER: Brian, on this particular chart, I haven't seen that particular chart before, so I can't comment on that.

STELTER: So who on the campaign gave it to him? Somebody printed it out, put it in his hands, and sent him up on that stage.

MILLER: But Brian, again, when we're talking, so -- two things here. Number one, on that particular chart, I have not seen that, these are usually produced with our policy department. But again, going to the point of what Mr. Trump is talking about, is how the American economy is going down and is not doing well under President Obama --

STELTER: He's got a -- but if we can't -- no. We can't start with the facts. If he's going to hold up made-up articles or made-up charts from fringe websites, how can we believe what he's actually saying?

MILLER: Brian, again, are you saying that our economic growth right now is going in the right direction? Are you saying that American homeownership is in a good place right now?

STELTER: I'm saying that I want every presidential candidate -- Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, every other candidate -- to hold up charts that are accurate and that are well-sourced. I prefer for them to not rip them off the internet from creepy websites.

MILLER: Brian, what I'd like to see is a chart from Hillary Clinton showing where those emails went. That's what I would like to see.

STELTER: So you think she that she should hold up charts as well. But that's not the point of Donald Trump's charts. Where is he getting this stuff, who's vetting this stuff, before it goes up on stage?

MILLER: Brian you've already heard me give the answer, as far as I hadn't seen that particular chart. But again, the point that Mr. Trump has been making is about the American economy. And if Hillary Clinton wants to own this third term under Obama, then she has to own the terrible economic record as well.

NY Times Article Says Trump Is Erratic And Beyond Coaching
By: Steve - August 16, 2016 - 7:00am

And the sources for the story are people who actually work for the Trump campaign, but Trump denies it anyway, even though we all know it's true, we see it every time he speaks, so we did not really need the insiders to tell us about it, we can see it all on our own.

Quote: "In private, Trump's mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries."

Donald Trump took to Twitter to throw a tantrum on Saturday after The New York Times published a story about his failing presidential campaign.

The story, titled "Inside the Failing Mission to Save Donald Trump From Himself," documents how a group of Trump confidants met with the Republican nominee on June 20th and urged him to "make that day a turning point" in his campaign.

That was back in June folks, and he ignored them. Proving that he is nuts, because he thinks he is doing just fine the way he is going now, and ignoring all the advice he gets from the experts in his campaign and his own family.

"He would have to stick to a teleprompter and end his freestyle digressions and insults, like his repeated attacks on a Hispanic federal judge," the Times reported was the plan following the June meeting.

After that plan failed, the newspaper reports that many in Trump's inner circle have given up and now describe him as "beyond coaching."

From The New York Times:

Nearly two months later, the effort to save Mr. Trump from himself has plainly failed. He has repeatedly signaled to his advisers and allies his willingness to change and adapt, but has grown only more volatile and prone to provocation since then, clashing with a Gold Star family, making comments that have been seen as inciting violence and linking his political opponents to terrorism.

Advisers who once hoped a Pygmalion-like transformation would refashion a crudely effective political showman into a plausible American president now increasingly concede that Mr. Trump may be beyond coaching. He has ignored their pleas and counsel as his poll numbers have dropped, boasting to friends about the size of his crowds and maintaining that he can read surveys better than the professionals.

Which proves that he is not only crazy, he is delusional, because he thinks what he is doing is working, when it's not. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has Trump at 9 percent to win, and Clinton at 91 percent to win, but he still thinks he is doing great, when in reality he is a disaster to himself and the Republican party.

It doesn’t take a political expert to notice just how bad Trump is doing. The Times was simply shining a light on what most of us had already knew was going on behind the scenes.

Trump's need to whine about every criticism only shows that the Times reporting is true -- that Trump is erratic, temperamental, and unwilling to change his behavior.

Although the reporting was eye-opening to a few people, most voters don't need a story in The New York Times to tell them what they already know to be true about Trump. Just watching one speech he gives proves that he is a disaster, and everyone can see it.

Trump just will not admit it, he is just like O'Reilly after he makes a racist statement and gets slammed for it by everyone, then he denies it was racist, and slams the people who said it was, even though it was.

Cuomo: Trump's Claim Of Media Bias Fails On Every Level Of Fact That You Could Apply To It
By: Steve - August 15, 2016 - 11:00am

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's New Day:

ALISYN CAMEROTA (CO-HOST): Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here. I think that there does need to be a distinction drawn between the media, which some people lump all sorts of television shows and reality shows, and journalism. And journalism is not supposed to curry favor with any particular candidate. They're supposed to point out hypocrisy and everything else. Do you think the coverage of Donald Trump has been unfair, Brian?

BRIAN STELTER: Carl Bernstein says, "Journalism is the best obtainable version of the truth." That line always sticks in my mind when I think about campaign coverage. I think reporters are trying to get to the best version of the truth with Donald Trump. And he is an especially hard candidate to cover.

Sometimes there are missteps. And sometimes it does, I'll be the first to say, sometimes it does feel like there is a pile-on going on because we live in this world of saturation media coverage where everything gets hammered home ten times again and again.

That said, there's some serious controversies to cover with this candidate. He's loose with the facts, he has a tendency toward conspiracy theories, and if he doesn't think we're going to hold him accountable, he has another thing coming.

BILL CARTER: Well, exactly. If you say something outrageous day after day after day, you can't then say you're not covering my opponent enough. He is making all the reasons for us to cover him very emphatic. We have to do it. What are we supposed to do? Not say, "Oh, that's a pretty outrageous thing for that guy to say"?

CHRIS CUOMO (CO-HOST): I think that his argument fails on every level of fact that you could apply to it.

Trump Adds Proven Liar Betsy McCaughey To Economic Advisory Council
By: Steve - August 15, 2016 - 10:00am

Her Claim To Fame Was Having Helped Popularize Mythical Obamacare Death Panel Lies.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced that his campaign was expanding its so-called "economic advisory council" to include New York Post columnist Betsy McCaughey, a serial liar with no economic expertise and a long track record of promoting outrageous lies through conservative media.

And Trump only added her after he was slammed by almost everyone for having 13 white men (who are not economists) on the panel.

According to an August 11 press release from the Trump campaign, McCaughey and eight others will join Trump's team of economic advisers, adding to a group that had been pilloried by journalists and policy experts for initially including no women and only two individuals with more than an undergraduate background in economics.

McCaughey, a former one-term lieutenant governor of New York, has no background or experience in economic policy but gained considerable acclaim in the conservative media in 2009 when she alleged that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare" would create "death panels" to ration care for sick and elderly patients.

PolitiFact.com awarded the death panel charge the Lie of the Year.

Since sparking the death panel myth in conservative media, McCaughey has been a frequent and outspoken critic of the Obama administration.

McCaughey recently suggested that the United States was "heading into a recession" despite being unable to cite any evidence to back up her claim.

She has claimed for years that Obamacare was doomed to fail and could ruin the American economy, only to be proved wrong time and again.

In 2014, McCaughey became a go-to expert for right-wing outlets hoping to stoke fear about the spread of Ebola in the United States.

She has also never quite given up on her bogus lie that Obamacare would create "death panels" that enforce end-of-life decisions for American citizens.

When confronted with her lies on the September 11, 2014, edition of The Daily Show, McCaughey walked off the set rather than answer the questions.

Trump Now Says He Would Send U.S. Citizens To Gitmo
By: Steve - August 15, 2016 - 9:30am

And there is just one small problem with that, "Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions."

For a guy who clearly lacks the required policy knowledge to assume the presidency, it's no surprise that almost every proposal he has put forward during this campaign is either unrealistic and ridiculous or illegal and unconstitutional.

Add Trump's latest idea to the "illegal" column.

When asked in an interview with the Miami Herald about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Trump said he was fine with sending Americans there.

"Would you try to get the military commissions, the trial court there, to try U.S. citizens?" Miami Herald political reporter Patricia Mazzei asked the Republican nominee during the interview.

Trump's response: "Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems and I don't like that at all. I don't like that at all. I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine."

Here's the problem: That would be illegal.

As the Miami Herald reported, "Under current federal law, it's illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions. Changing the law would require an act of Congress."

Federal law. Acts of Congress. Oh, please. Very few - if any - of Trump's proposals show any regard for these things.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has proposed a slew of policies that aren't just contrary to American values, but would be in violation of U.S. federal laws or international agreements.

The Republican nominee has said he would kill the family members of suspected terrorists - even if they have no connection to actual terrorist attacks or plots.

As PolitiFact has reported, a section of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that Trump's idea would be in violation of the international pact:

According to Common Article 3, people who are taking no active part in the hostilities "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."

Trump's proposal to expand torture would also be a violation of this international contract. Not to mention the fact that torture doesn't work.

Trump's plan to bar an entire religion from coming to the United States is also clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment (freedom of religion) and the equal protection clause.

A presidential candidate proposing even one of these ideas should be disqualifying, as it shows a complete lack of regard for international norms and American values. Trump is proud to make all of them central to his campaign.

These are ideas that have no place in the United States of America, and anyone who wants to implement them has no place in the White House.

Ex-GOP Senator Urges RNC To Replace Trump
By: Steve - August 15, 2016 - 8:30am

Former Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.) is urging Republican leaders to replace GOP nominee Donald Trump, Politico reported.

Humphrey, a strong critic of the GOP nominee, wrote a letter Tuesday to New Hampshire's three representatives to the Republican National Committee encouraging them to take the party's nominee off the ticket.

He argued that Trump's comments at a rally earlier Tuesday, where he appeared to joke about gun owners taking action against Hillary Clinton. was "the last straw."

"If this is not the straw that breaks the camel's back, if this outrage is not sufficient to inspire courage in the Republican leadership, not just Reince Priebus but Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, then surely the Republican Party has lost its moral conscience," he said in a phone interview with Politico.

Now think about this, how many of these former Republican Senators and other government officials has O'Reilly had on the Factor to discuss their opinions of Trump, answer: zero.

O'Reilly will not put any of them on his show, because he is a biased Trump supporter himself and he does not want to make Trump look bad.

Reality Check: Bush Is To Blame For ISIS
By: Steve - August 15, 2016 - 7:30am

Any one who says Obama is to blame for ISIS is a lying dishonest fool that is lying to you. And nothing they say can be trusted, because the facts show George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are to blame for ISIS and all the problems in the middle east.

Think about it, there was no ISIS before Bush and Cheney illegally invaded Iraq (based on lies about WMD's) after the 9-11 terrorist attacks in America. Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and Bush went into Iraq anyway. They screwed it up so bad it is why ISIS was created.

I will say what some people in the mainstream media will not say: All this chaos in the Middle East began when George W. Bush invaded Iraq, triggering a massive destabilization of the entire region. Though most of us know that already. Well, at least those of us who know how to think for ourselves.

But it wasn't just Bush invading Iraq that caused all of this. It was the complete incompetence shown by his administration following Saddam's removal from power that was real problem.

He took us to war based on a lie, with no plan on what to do after Saddam was out of power, and absolutely no exit strategy. And after he signed the SOFA agreement requiring all of our troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, it was only a matter of time before some radical Islamic group tried to take over Iraq.

And let me state another little fact since I'm on the subject: Had the Bush administration told the American people that going into Iraq would have required a decade (or realistically longer) commitment, nobody signs off on that. You don't sell the Iraq War to the American people by saying, "This mission will require an indefinite American presence in Iraq."

In fact, Cheney said the war would not even last 90 days, he said we would invade, remove Saddam, and then all the people in Iraq would love us and thank us. Do not forget that, Bush and Cheney were wrong about everything in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now even if we defeat ISIS, driving them out of Iraq, it's only a matter of time before another group takes their place. Unless, of course, thousands of American troops stay behind.

President Obama really only has two options:

Start another war, or let ISIS continue doing what they're doing. And let's face it, the second option - really isn't an option.

Don't think for a moment that it was just a coincidence that Bush signed the SOFA so that American combat operations would end right after he left office and the complete removal of all U.S. forces would happen a couple of years later.

Bush and Cheney knew that once American troops were gone, Iraq would slip back into chaos. And whoever the next president turned out to be would be the one blamed for it.

And that's exactly what happened. Bush and Cheney caused the mess, and set it up so that the next President would be in office when the crap hit the fan after the troops came home.

If not for the absolute incompetence shown by the Bush administration with their handling of Iraq, the world would have never heard of ISIS. But, like clockwork, Republicans have been right there this whole time blaming all of this chaos on President Obama. Just like they have with every other mess the Bush administration left him to clean up.

Thomas Friedman Destroys Trump In NY Times Article
By: Steve - August 14, 2016 - 10:30am

From Thomas Friedman:

In September, I wrote a column warning that Donald Trump's language toward immigrants could end up inciting violence. I never in my wildest dreams, though, thought he'd actually - in his usual coy, twisted way - suggest that Hillary Clinton was so intent on taking away the Second Amendment right to bear arms that maybe Second Amendment enthusiasts could do something to stop her. Exactly what? Oh, Trump left that hanging.

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment," Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday. "By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Of course Trump's handlers, recognizing just how incendiary were his words, immediately denied that he was suggesting that gun owners do anything harmful toward Clinton. Oh my God, never. Trump, they insisted, was just referring to the "power of unification." You know those Second Amendment people, they just love to get on buses and vote together.

But that is not what he said. What he said was ambiguous - slightly menacing, but with just enough plausible deniability that, of course, he was not suggesting an assassination. I am sure that is what Trump's supporters will say, too. But Trump knows what he is doing, and it is so dangerous in today's world.

People are playing with fire here, and there is no bigger flamethrower than Donald Trump. Forget politics; he is a disgusting human being. His children should be ashamed of him. I only pray that he is not simply defeated, but that he loses all 50 states so that the message goes out across the land - unambiguously, loud and clear: The likes of you should never come this way again.

Ignore The GOP Propaganda: Clinton At 90.8% Chance To Beat Trump
By: Steve - August 14, 2016 - 10:00am

Ignore all the right-wing propaganda from the media, O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republicans who support Donald Trump. The electoral college projections from Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com still have Hillary Clinton at 90.8% to beat Trump.

Trump is at 9.2% to beat Clinton, which is laughable. And it shows how bad Trump is really doing, notice that neither Trump, O'Reilly, and any Trump supporter ever mention the predictions from Nate Silver. That's because they want you to think Trump has a chance to win so the Republicans will get out and vote.

It's the exact same thing that happened when Obama ran against Romney, except Trump is far worse than Romney, and will lose as bad or worse than Romney did to Obama in 2012.

The media wants you to think it's still a close horse race so they can get big ratings for their election reporting, when it is not close and they know it, Trump is stuck at 40% of the vote, where he has been for months, and about 180 to 190 electoral votes, which is worse than Romney did in 2012.

You can not win a presidential election with 40% of the vote, or less than 200 electoral votes, Clinton is at 353 electoral votes right now, which is almost 100 more than she needs to win. Trump can not even break 200, which is pathetic.

And if whatever media source you use for election news does not report what Nate Silver and Larry Sabato are saying about the electoral votes, they are dishonest, and you should find another source for your news.

And btw, Larry Sabato has it 347 for Clinton and 191 for Trump, which is almost exactly what Silver has it. He is another electoral college expert, who has been a guest on the Factor, so O'Reilly knows who he is and that he is a non-partisan election expert. But he still does not report on his crystal ball electoral college predictions.

Larry Sabato is an American political scientist and political analyst. He is the Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. He is also a New York Times best-selling author, has won two Emmys, and is recognized as one of the nation's most respected political analysts.

Nate Silver is an American statistician and writer who analyzes baseball and elections. He is currently the editor-in-chief of ESPN's FiveThirtyEight blog and a Special Correspondent for ABC News.

In 2012 and 2013, FiveThirtyEight.com won Webby Awards as the "Best Political Blog" from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences.

In the 2012 United States presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Moron At Fox Says Clinton & Obama To Blame For Crazy Trump Statements
By: Steve - August 14, 2016 - 9:00am

Yes, you heard me right. This far-right propaganda stooge at Fox (Kimberly Guilfoyle) is actually blaming Clinton and Obama for all the crazy things Trump says, which is just laughable. Instead of blaming the insane Trump for all his lies and insane statements, she blames Clinton and Obama, saying they are baiting Trump into making the crazy statements.

Even Greg Gutfeld was not buying it, saying she is turning Trump into a spoiled child.

From the August 12 edition of Fox News The Five:

ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): Alright, K.G., so he says ISIS founder, she says ISIS recruiter. At the end of the -- I mean, what's the difference?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Oh, well it's just a double standard. And Newt points it out there, because this is specifically about what what word economy, like -- Trump's trying to do it in three, instead of ten. It's the mind of the businessman, he's always looking to, like -- nail it down, get it done, say what he's saying. He knows what he's thinking, but it's about now being very careful to choose your words to make sure that they don't misconstrue it.

And what you've seen is a concerted effort, really -- it's like the most unholy partnership of all time between the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, constantly making comments trying to bait Trump into saying something that will sidetrack him, and then the mainstream media refusing to cover the same things when Hillary says it -- but it's -- which is very difficult to catch, given the fact that it was like, what, 240-plus days before she did a press conference to answer a question?

They're protecting her to make sure that they're safe, that they're in a safe space for HRC, and then Trump is out there answering questions every day.

GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): You're turning him into a spoiled child. He can rely on you guys to explain, isn't it exhausting to explain?

Conservative Economist Admits Trump Tax Plan Will Not Work
By: Steve - August 14, 2016 - 8:00am

From the August 12 edition of Fox Business Making Money with Charles Payne:

CHARLES PAYNE (HOST): What do you think?

BEN STEIN: Well I don't think Mr. Trump's plan is going to work very well. I don't think we need that tax cut when we’re running deficits the size we are running. I think the evidence that tax cuts stimulate business in any kind of meaningful way at least, not to sufficient to overcome the tax revenue loss is extremely poor to put it mildly. I think the idea of cutting taxes on the rich in a time when there is so much concern about inequality is not a good idea.

Trump Spokeswoman Is A Lying Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - August 14, 2016 - 7:00am

She actually said it was Obama who invaded Afghanistan and said it is Obama's war. Which is not only a lie, it's 100% insanity.

Obama was an Illinois State Senator in 2001 when Bush and Cheney invaded Afghanistan, he was not even in the actual Senate, let alone President. Obama was not sworn in as President until January of 2009, a full 8 years after the invasion of Afghanistan under Bush and Cheney.

Obama had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan at all, zero, nada, he did not even vote for it because he was not in the Senate, or the President. Obama was in the Senate when Bush invaded Iraq, and he voted no, and that is a proven fact.

The Trump spokeswoman who said that should never be allowed on tv again, and if I see her on a news show I am going to change the channel as fast as I can because she is a joke and a liar.

Here is the story:

A spokeswoman for Donald Trump's presidential campaign blamed President Barack Obama for invading Afghanistan - a foreign policy decision he never made.

Quote: "Remember we weren't even in Afghanistan by this time," Katrina Pierson told CNN early Saturday. "Barack Obama went into Afghanistan creating another problem."

Quote: "That was Obama's war," she declared later in the program, when asked to clarify if she meant Obama was responsible for its launch.

In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan took place in 2001 after the attacks on September 11 of that year. Obama was a state senator in Illinois at the time. Being president was nothing but a dream for him back then.

When he did end up in the White House in 2009, the war in Afghanistan was still going on. And Obama made ramping up U.S. presence there a central plank of his foreign policy platform during his campaign to be president.

Too many resources had been spent on Iraq, he argued, and not enough on the country from which al Qaeda actually planned the attacks.

There is good reason to conclude that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent war created the mess we have now. And Obama will leave office with American troops still there. But there is a reason it is widely described as America's longest war.

It's because it started in 2001. Not, as Pierson implied in 2009.

Bush Institute's Former Director Says He Will Vote For Clinton
By: Steve - August 13, 2016 - 10:30am

The founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute announced on Twitter Tuesday that he had joined other officials from past GOP administrations who say they will vote for Hillary Clinton this November, "in part to save the Republican party."

"In voting for Secretary Clinton in this election, we will also be voting for Republicans in Senate and House races," James Glassman said in a statement while launching the group R4C16, or Republicans for Clinton 2016.

"Retaining the Congress is critical for those of us who, unlike the man the GOP nominated, continue to believe in the principles of the party of Lincoln and Reagan - liberty and respect for the individual."

Glassman has held several prominent journalism jobs, chaired the Broadcasting Board of Governors and served as an undersecretary of state. In 2009 he became the founding executive director of the former president's Dallas-based public policy think tank - part of the presidential center.

70 Top Republicans Ask RNC To Cut Off Funds To Reckless Trump
By: Steve - August 13, 2016 - 10:00am

More than 70 Republicans have signed an open letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus urging him to stop spending any money to help Donald Trump win in November and shift those contributions to Senate and House races.

The letter comes as a number of Republican senators and high-profile GOP national security officials have come forward saying they cannot vote for Trump.

"We believe that Donald Trump's divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck," states a draft of the letter obtained by POLITICO.

"This should not be a difficult decision, as Donald Trump's chances of being elected president are evaporating by the day."

Former Sen. Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire and former Reps. Chris Shays of Connecticut, Tom Coleman of Missouri and Vin Weber of Minnesota are among the Republicans lending their name to the letter.

Close to 20 of the co-signers are former RNC staffers, including Mindy Finn (former RNC chief digital strategist), Christine Iverson Gunderson (former RNC press secretary), Virginia Hume Onufer (former RNC deputy press secretary), Beth Miller (former RNC field communications division director), Heather Layman (former deputy press secretary), B. Jay Cooper (former RNC communications director under four chairmen) and Patrick Ruffini (former RNC ecampaign director).

Republican Andrew Weinstein, a vocal anti-Trump Republican, is one of the operatives organizing the letter, which began circulating earlier this week and is expected to be sent next week. Weinstein served as director of media relations for the Dole/Kemp presidential campaign and was deputy press secretary to then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Weinstein said that the letter is coming from "People who want the party to protect its majorities in the Senate and the House. It's not an endorsement of anybody."

The letter ticks off a series of Trump actions that they believe have "alienated millions of voters of all parties," including, attacking Gold Star families, positive comments about violent foreign leaders and encouraging the Russian government to find Clinton's lost emails.

"Those recent outrages have built on his campaign of anger and exclusion, during which he has mocked and offended millions of voters, including the disabled, women, Muslims, immigrants, and minorities," the letter states.

"He also has shown dangerous authoritarian tendencies, including threats to ban an entire religion from entering the country, order the military to break the law by torturing prisoners, kill the families of suspected terrorists, track law-abiding Muslim citizens in databases, and use executive orders to implement other illegal and unconstitutional measures."

Fox News Was Spying On Other Journalists
By: Steve - August 13, 2016 - 9:00am

Notice that O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, now imagine what he would say if we found out the CEO of CNN or MSNBC was using corporate money to pay people on the staff to spy on reporters at Fox, and make threats against them about stories they reported on, O'Reilly would report it every day for a week and call for the Feds to investigate.

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's New Day:

BRIAN STELTER: In terms of the money, this is Gabriel Sherman's reporting in New York magazine. He's been a leader on this story, wrote a book about Roger Ailes a number of years ago. A lot of what he's reporting I think reporters have suspected for a while.

I'll give you an example. About ten years ago I found out a woman at Fox News, who was a low level staffer, was spying on me. I was in college at the time. So I was going out on what I thought were dates. Chris, I thought these were dates.

These were not dates to her. She was actually reporting back to Fox News about me. She was reporting back about what I thought of her and about CNN and MSNBC and Fox. Because I was a reporter on the beat, they were actually spying on me that way.

Now I didn't think that was a big deal at the time. I thought it was the way Fox operates. Fox is a political organization. But now we know they were actually sending out private investigators. They were tailing other reporters.

BILL CARTER: They were following reporters around. We knew covering Fox you'd have to deal with that. You'd get a call from them saying, "You better be right on this story" or the implication was, "We'll dig into your past, we'll dig into your private life."

STELTER: So we sort of knew but now we know much much more. Because these reports, like from Gabriel Sherman, saying that money, that Ailes was using Fox News money, for his own private spending.

Fox Host Tells Republicans Against Trump To Shut Their Mouth
By: Steve - August 13, 2016 - 8:00am

From the August 12 edition of Fox News Outnumbered:

SANDRA SMITH (CO-HOST): Donald Trump responding to a letter signed by more than 70 Republicans including former members of Congress urging the RNC to cut off funding to his campaign. The letter asks RNC chairman Reince Priebus to focus party resources on ensuring the GOP majorities in the House and Senate, basically portraying Trump's campaign as a lost cause.

DAGEN MCDOWELL (CO-HOST): These Republicans though, come on, people, he is your nominee, like it or not. Where were you a year ago or more? As my mother would say, if you can't say something nice, shut your mouth.

Crazy Trump Says Only Way Clinton Can Win PA Is Cheating
By: Steve - August 13, 2016 - 7:00am

Donald Trump has totally lost his mind, now he says the only way Hillary Clinton can beat him in Pennsylvania is if she cheats.

The Republican nominee, speaking at a rally in Altoona, Pennsylvania, repeated his concerns about the fairness of the election.

"The only way we can lose, in my opinion - I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here," he said.

"She can't beat what's happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat."

Trump has repeatedly claimed the election is "rigged" against him, laying some of the blame on the media. Trump based his opinion on crowds at his political events, which is just insane. And btw, Trump said the Republican primary was rigged for him to lose, then he won, and he said it was not rigged.

Trump is like a 5 year old child, when a poll has him winning he promotes it and says it is valid, but when a poll has him losing he says it is wrong and a fraud. And even when polls have him losing Pennsylvania by 9 points he says it is rigged and that the only way Clinton can beat him is by cheating. Even though the size of crowds at a political event are no measure of how people will vote, or how many.

Trump is trailing Clinton by more than 9 points in Pennsylvania polls, one of several key battleground states in which he has slumped recently.

Nate Silver has Clinton 7.9 points ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania. And other polls have her 9 points or more ahead of Trump, not one poll has Trump winning Pennsylvania, none, not any, ever. He is losing in Pennsylvania, so if he loses it will simply show what the polls said, and that is not cheating, now if the polls showed him winning then she won, he might have a point.

Trump is an idiot, plain and simple, and if anyone votes for this fool I truly feel sorry for you.

FiveThirtyEight.com: The Polls Aren't Skewed Trump Really Is Losing Badly
By: Steve - August 12, 2016 - 10:00am

From Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com:

We've reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the "unskewing" of polls has begun - the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.

If any of this sounds familiar - and if I sound a little exasperated - it's probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct now.)

The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama's margin.

Now the unskewers are back, again insisting that pollsters are using more Democrats than they should, and that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans should be equal, or that there should be more Republicans.

They point to surveys like the recent one from ABC News and The Washington Post, in which 33 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats compared to 27 percent as Republicans. That poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by 8 percentage points.

But let's say this plainly: The polls are not "skewed." They weren't in 2012, and they aren't now.

North Carolina Spent $5 Million Dollars Defending Voter ID And Lost
By: Steve - August 12, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly and his far-right stooge fill-in Eric Bolling have ignored the entire story and not said one word about it. Even though O'Reilly and Bolling spent months saying there is nothing wrong with all these Republican passed Voter ID laws and that they do not discriminate against the poor or minorities. While court after court has disagreed with them, ruling they do discriminate against the poor and minorities who mostly vote for Democrats.

The court even said the Republicans looked at voting patterns etc. and targeted the poor and minorities to suppress their vote. But O'Reilly supports the laws and defends them, while saying they are needed, which is all right-wing propaganda, because the laws are not even needed, there is almost no voter fraud in America, it's less than 0.5 percent, and almost never happens.

Here are the facts about the story that O'Reilly is not telling you.

North Carolina's Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature spent more taxpayer money defending their voter ID law -- which was recently struck down as unconstitutional -- than the state spent hiring outside lawyers over the previous decade.

New data reveals state leaders spent nearly 5 million dollars since 2011 defending a voting law that bears the mark of intentional discrimination, according to the federal court that ruled against the state in July.

The law in question eliminated same-day voter registration, cut a full week of early voting, barred voters from casting a ballot outside their home precinct, ended straight-ticket voting, and scrapped a program to pre-register high school students who would turn 18 by Election Day. It also mandated one of the country's strictest voter ID requirements, which does not count student IDs.

Before passing the law, the court found, the legislature studied the voting habits of African Americans, and "with almost surgical precision" got rid of the voting accommodations they depended on the most. As the vast majority of black voters in the state -- as well as the nation -- lean Democrat, the civil rights groups that challenged the law characterized it as Republicans attempt to maintain political power.

"It shows the North Carolina Republicans are afraid of free and fair elections and being accountable to the voters for their actions."

After learning how much the state had spent trying to uphold the law, Rep. Cecil Brockman (D-Guilford) said such spending was indefensible.

"There are so many more important priorities for the state instead of defending taking away the rights of our citizens," he said. "We should be making it easy for everyone to vote in our state. I'm very happy that the court overturned this blatant racism against African-American voters."

According to the same report, North Carolina Republicans spent an additional $3.5 million defending their heavily gerrymandered voting maps from lawsuits arguing they are racially and politically motivated.

While the state split nearly evenly between Democrats and Republicans in 2012, Republicans won 9 of the state's 13 seats in the U.S. House, and nearly 75 percent of the seats in the state legislature thanks in large part to rigged district maps drawn by Republicans.

Brockman says his own District 60 is a prime example. "It shows the North Carolina Republicans are afraid of free and fair elections and being accountable to the voters for their actions," he said. "They wanted to tilt the balance in their favor."

The new spending data comes as some North Carolina counties consider more election changes likely to trigger legal challenges.

The Republican-controlled county that holds Greensboro, a city with a rich history of civil rights activism, attempted this week to slash the number of early voting sites in half, scrapping the locations most-used by the county's black voters and students. The plan would have also eliminated Sunday voting, which has been heavily used by African American church groups in previous elections.

Wake County, the seat of the state capitol Raleigh, tried to do the same. A Republican on the county's Board of Elections called a vote on a plan to cut early voting sites on university campuses and end Sunday voting.

Both county plans were defeated after community members and voting rights organizers rallied in opposition by the hundreds. Jen Jones with the advocacy group Democracy North Carolina called these votes a tremendous victory, but warned other counties in the state may pursue similar cuts that negatively impact voters of color.

"After the Fourth Circuit ruling striking down the state’s voting restrictions, the only control the GOP now has are the Boards of Elections they have in almost every county," she explained. "Sites can be cut, even popular ones, at the discretion of the county board, and hours can be cut too."

Sean Hannity Flipped Out After WSJ Editor Calls Him Dumb
By: Steve - August 12, 2016 - 8:00am

Fox News Sean Hannity is one of the most partisan far-right people on all of cable news. But no matter what you might think about Hannity, there's no doubt he is a powerful figure within the GOP and the conservative media. I hate him and can not even watch him for 2 minutes, but I have no doubt he knows the inner workings of the Republican party and the conservative media as much as anyone.

Which is why I found his recent public meltdown awesome.

In case you do not know what's been going on, Hannity went off on the GOP and conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and editor Bret Stephens.

During his radio show he took aim at Republican leadership because many refused to blindly support Donald Trump's inexcusable comments directed at the parents of fallen American hero Capt. Humayun Khan:
If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain. I have watched these Republicans be more harsh toward Donald Trump than they've ever been in standing up to Barack Obama and his radical agenda.

They did nothing, nothing -- all these phony votes to repeal and replace Obamacare, show votes so they can go back and keep their power and get reelected. Sorry, you created Donald Trump, all of you. Because of your ineffectiveness, because of your weakness, your spinelessness, your lack of vision, your inability to fight Obama.

I'm getting a little sick and tired of all of you. I am, honestly, I am tempted to just say I don't support any of you people ever.
So basically he was whining because Republicans chose to govern as opposed to wasting taxpayer time and money shutting our government down (like Ted Cruz did) in a political fight they knew they couldn't win.

It's important to note that he used the words "you created Donald Trump." If Hannity were truly someone who supported the GOP presidential candidate, why would he use that phrase in a negative way?

And the hypocrisy of his comments are astounding. Here we have someone who has built a career off of spinning out far-right propaganda that's been a huge reason why so many people support a racist clown like Trump, trying to blame Republicans for not achieving the impossible.

Meanwhile, pundits like him have frequently lied to conservatives about what was or wasn't realistic -- which is a big reason why so many are disgusted with the party and turned to an idiot like Donald Trump.

That's how Trump got to where he is today. It's people like Sean Hannity who've sold conservative voters lie after lie, blaming the establishment for not accomplishing things he knew they could never accomplish.

While the GOP definitely shoulders a lot of the blame for someone like Trump being as successful as he's been, the truth is, the hyper-partisan conservative media, of which Hannity is a leading figure, has really been the driving force behind Trump winning the GOP's presidential nomination.

Enter WSJ columnist Stephens who sent this tweet out mocking Fox News dumbest anchor:

Fox News dumbest anchor had a message for y'all:

-- Bret Stephens (@StephensWSJ) August 5, 2016

Hannity didn't take Stephens comments that well. On Thursday night, he sent out several tweets in response to Stephens criticism:

Wsj genius. Where were u when Boehner punted on the power of the purse a added nearly 5 trillion in new debt?

Where were you when R party refused to use the power of the purse to defund Obamacare ?

Where were you dumbass when in 2014 R's said the would stop Obama's illegal and unconstitutional exec amnesty?

It's arrogant, elitist, enablers like you that never hold R's accountable that created the opening for Trump!!

If Hillary wins I will hold assholes like you accountable. You will be responsible for her Supreme ct selections.. -- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) August 5, 2016

And he wasn't done. On Friday, he continued his childish tantrum against Stephens:

Lol. Not at all. I love kicking your ass, and showing Twitter what an arrogant, out of touch elitist you are.

Instead of 23,000 Twitter fans hearing from you. I shared your ignorance with my 1.5 m and 15 m radio listeners! YW

Exclusive -- Sean Hannity Bludgeons Wall Street Journal Editor Bret Stephens As 'Arrogant Elitist'

-- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) August 6, 2016

Yes, that's a 54-year-old multimillionaire so-called media professional throwing a hissy fit on Twitter because another member of the media called him dumb.

Hannity's childish behavior was pathetic, but the way he acted and some of the things he said tell an even bigger story.

He is clearly projecting his anger toward leaders of the GOP and Mr. Stephens, but his real issue is that Trump's the presidential candidate. He mentioned the creation of Trump -- twice. Then when you look at his overall tone, Hannity comes off as a far-right conservative who's realizing:

Donald Trump is an absolute nightmare of a presidential candidate. That, even though he's criticizing others for Trump's rise, he knows deep down that he's a big reason why someone like Trump has become so successful, so he's trying to put the blame on others.

His party is in a whole lot of trouble. Trump could very well cost Republicans a lot of power in Congress. And it's very likely Hillary Clinton is going to win in November.

For someone like Sean Hannity, who is nothing more than a cheerleader for anything and everything conservative to appear a bit erratic and overly defensive -- while also referring to Donald Trump in a negative way a couple of times -- tells me that, even as conservative as the Fox News host is, he realizes the Republican party will get screwed this November.

The Party Of Honest Abe Is Now The Party Of Lying Trump
By: Steve - August 12, 2016 - 7:00am

Historians see Trump as the biggest liar in presidential politics. Ever. But of course O'Reilly will never report this, or admit it, because he is biased for Trump.

Win or lose this November, Donald Trump is headed for the record books regardless, presidential historians say, albeit with an admittedly dubious achievement: the most lie-prone candidate in the two centuries of the republic.

"In American history, we've never had a major presidential candidate who fabricated facts with the regularity of Donald Trump," said Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University. "He just simply makes up things."

In the span of a few days last week, Trump falsely claimed that the NFL had sent him a letter complaining about this autumn's debate schedule, when in fact it had not. He claimed that the Koch brothers had tried to meet with him about offering their support, when in reality they had no interest in doing so.

And, most astonishingly, he claimed he had seen a video showing hundreds of millions of dollars being unloaded from a plane in Iran, fabricating embellishments about the video's provenance, even after his campaign conceded that no such video existed.

Theda Skocpol, a government and sociology professor at Harvard, agreed that Trump's dishonesties have set a new standard. "Trump lies constantly and shamelessly. I do think he is in new territory," she said.

GOP leaders trying to attack Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over her problems with honesty, meanwhile, are growing increasingly frustrated with their own candidate's near-daily false statements. "What can I say? We nominated a fabulist," said one top Republican official privately. "There's no defending that."

Trump's willingness to say things that are probably untrue, of course, is not something that began with his campaign. The 70-year-old has been known for his exaggerations and outright fabrications for decades.

When he bought the Eastern Airlines Washington-to-New York shuttle in 1989 and renamed it Trump Airlines, he claimed, without any facts, that the other carrier operating that route did not maintain its planes as well as he did.

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, he claimed stakes in properties in which he had no ownership interest, but was merely licensing the use of his name or was in line to collect a percentage of future profits.

When confronted by lawyers in a 2007 deposition about this, he at first insisted that he was correct, but then replied that not having ownership was actually smarter because it was not possible for him to lose any money should the investment tank.

In 1991, at the age of 45, he invented a pseudonym for himself, called a gossip columnist and told her that "his boss," Donald Trump, was dating Italian model Carla Bruni, when in fact he'd met her only once, a year earlier.

Last summer, in the early stages of his campaign, he told a Rolling Stone reporter riding aboard his private jetliner that it was larger than Air Force One - even though his Boeing 757 is nowhere near the size of the modified 747 used by the president.

And this spring - still stinging from former GOP nominee Mitt Romney's speech ridiculing his various failed branded businesses - Trump pointed to a table of raw steaks and declared them "Trump Steaks," even though that product has not been available for close to a decade.

A Republican consultant close to the Trump campaign, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said Trump's behavior is typical among wealthy candidates he has worked with.

"All those years in public life, nobody cared about the veracity of statements they made outside their business, which is the only place truth matters to them," the consultant said. "Many people (close staff and family) let him go on about things for years and just roll their eyes, some afraid to say, 'Stop it.' Because it's a sideshow, doesn't matter. Then, suddenly, it matters. But the habit is there, set in stone."

In Trump's case, whether the word lie technically describes his falsehoods is unclear. By definition, lying means knowingly and purposefully misrepresenting facts. In Trump's case, he often appears not to understand the difference between what he is saying and actual reality.

Meaning, they think he is so crazy he thinks his lies are actually true.

"I can't think of any presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, in recent American history who wasn't accused of lying. It's the nature of the job, almost, to skew facts toward a political end," said University of Memphis historian Aram Goudsouzian.

"But Trump lies more frequently, and on a larger scale. Most important, even when confronted with contrary evidence, he still insists that he is right. It is a special kind of delusion."

"There have been candidates who embellished reality. Ronald Reagan sometimes remembered things that he actually remembered from a movie," Rice University's Brinkley said. "Nixon lied on purpose. He was lying to advance an idea forward. Donald Trump doesn't even know he's doing it, it's so much part of his modus operandi."

He added: "There's something psychologically warped with someone who sees no distinction between facts and fiction at all. The sign of crazy is when someone believes his own bullshit. And he believes his own B.S.: Everything he says is true because he said it."

Reagan's confusion, as it turned out, may have been an early symptom of the Alzheimer's diagnosis that was revealed in 1994, nearly six years after he left the White House.

Trump's need to invent facts about his own success appears to be a trait associated with narcissistic personality disorder, according to mental health professionals who have studied his public remarks, with the possibility that the malady may be antisocial personality disorder -- formerly known as sociopathy.

Whether Trump's behavior is actually a sign of mental illness is something only a professional assessment could determine, and it's unknown whether Trump has ever sought one. His campaign did not respond to queries, and the physician who wrote a letter attesting to Trump's health -- which closed with the line: "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" -- declined to speak to The Huffington Post.

An analysis by PolitiFact showed Trump scoring the worst among the major party candidates running for president this election, with 77 percent of his checked statements rated as false. Clinton, in contrast, only had 28 percent rated false.

Shawn Steel, an RNC member from California and another fundraiser for Trump, conceded that Trump's willingness to lie made it much harder for his side to attack Clinton. "Any of the other 16 candidates would have had a much easier time of it," he said, adding that it didn't help that Trump's lies were so obvious and easily refuted.

And the GOP consultant worried that Trump will be unable to control what's become part of his lifestyle. "Truth hasn't mattered for decades, so when it does matter it's too late to change bad habits," the consultant said.

Trump Follows O'Reilly Playbook After Making Stupid Statements
By: Steve - August 11, 2016 - 10:30am

Have you noticed what Donald Trump does after every time he makes a stupid, offensive, or racist statement, he does exactly what O'Reilly does when he does the very same thing. First he says it was a joke, and that he was just joking, then he says it was just a big misunderstanding and that the media misrepresented what he said and meant, then he says there was no intent to offend anyone or insult them.

And all during it they both claim the media is biased against them for reporting it, when all they did was their job, it's called journalism. When a public figure makes a crazy, racist, or offensive statement it is going to get reported, case closed. It is not media bias, it's journalism, especially when you have the #1 rated cable news show, or you are running for President.

That is what Bill O'Reilly does after every time he is caught by the media making a stupid, offensive, or racist statement. And Donald Trump does the very same thing, most likely he learned it from O'Reilly, or maybe O'Reilly learned it from Trump, but one thing is for sure, they both use the exact same tactics after they screw up.

And in case you have been under a rock and you do not know this, O'Reilly and Trump are good friends who have known each other for 30 years, they even go to Yankees games together. I would bet that O'Reilly gives Trump advice all the time, in private, but of course that is total speculation.

I do know one thing for sure, they are both right-wing idiots who make stupid, racist, and offensive statements all the time that get them in trouble. Then they spend the next 2 or 3 days trying to spin it, and usually fail, but they do it anyway, and use the very same tactics.

O'Reilly has been doing it for 16 years on the Factor, and now Trump is doing it almost every day as a joke of a candidate for President.

GOP Worried About White Working Class Voters Leaving Trump
By: Steve - August 11, 2016 - 10:00am

The fact that white working class voters are dumping Donald Trump is the source of deep panic sweeping through the Republican Party.

And as expected O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it, because he is too busy giving Trump softball interviews to help him spin all his lies and crazy positions on the issues.

Ed Kilgore of New York Magazine pointed out Trump's troubling drop with white working class voters, "A new NBC/Wall Street Journal survey showed his lead among non-college-educated white voters dropping to 49-36. Similarly, McClatchy/Marist pegs it at 46-31.

These are not world-beating numbers. And you have to wonder: If Trump is losing his special appeal to the voting category that has long been his campaign's base, where is he supposed to make that up?"

And that is the problem with a white men only vote strategy, if the white men get mad at you and start leaving, you have nobody else to make that up.

With Trump getting crushed with women, Hispanic, and African-American voters, his campaign has nowhere to go to make up any support that he loses with white working class voters.

Recent polling showed white voters and male voters moving towards Hillary Clinton. There is literally nowhere for Trump to go to get the votes that he needs to win the White House if he doesn't dominate with white working class voters.

White working class voters have been a bedrock voting group for the Republican Party. And what scares Republicans most is that the white working class voters who flip to Clinton will also vote for Democrats for the House and Senate. The down ballot impact of Trump's campaign collapse could be felt in congressional races.

Trump has alienated so many voters that his base of support consists of conservative white male voters over age 65, and that is about it.

Trump hasn't added any new voters to his column, which is why he is floundering in the 30%-40% range of support.

If any significant number of white working class voters abandon the Republican Party for Clinton, the result will trigger an earthquake down the ballot that will be a disaster for the Republican Party.

Republicans should be scared because voters may make them pay in November for their foolish decision to nominate Donald Trump.

Joe Scarborough Is Now Saying The GOP Must Dump Trump
By: Steve - August 11, 2016 - 9:00am

And remember this, Scarborough used to support Trump a few months ago. He was even being slammed by media critics who were saying he was biased for Trump and giving him softball interviews. He is also a life-long Republican who now thinks the GOP should dump him and get a new candidate.

Scarborough wrote an op-ed on August 9th, saying the GOP should Dump Trump, here it is, word for word.

The Muslim ban, the David Duke denial, the "Mexican" judge flap, the draft dodger denigrating John McCain's military service, the son of privilege attacking an immigrant Gold Star mother and the constant revisionism and lying about past political positions taken are but a few of the lowlights that have punctuated Donald Trump's chaotic chase for the presidency.

Any one of these offenses would have disqualified any other candidate for president. But the Republican nominee remained competitive against a historically weak Democratic nominee on the promise of bringing radical change and dramatic disruption to Washington.

That appears to be changing. Post-convention polls show Trump falling behind by double digits both nationally and in must-win swing states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia.

And the political ride will only get rockier for Trump in the coming days after he suggested that one way to keep a conservative Supreme Court after Hillary Clinton got elected would be to assassinate her or federal judges.

Trump and his supporters have been scrambling wildly all day to explain away the inexplicable, but they can stop wasting their time. The GOP nominee was clearly suggesting that some of the "Second Amendment people" among his supporters could kill his Democratic opponent were she to be elected.

The presidential candidate that House Speaker Paul Ryan endorsed tried to explain away his suggestion of an assassination by telling Sean Hannity his comments were meant to unite supporters before the election.

It's too bad for Trump and his supporters that his comments related to what Hillary Clinton would do after being elected and nominating Supreme Court justices that gun owners would not like.

We are in uncharted waters but that does not mean that the way forward is not clear. It is.

1) The Secret Service should interview Donald Trump and ask him to explain his threatening comments.

2) Paul Ryan and every Republican leader should denounce in the strongest terms their GOP nominee suggesting conservatives could find the Supreme Court more favorable to their desires if his political rival was assassinated.

3) The Republican Party needs to start examining quickly their options for removing the Republican nominee.

A bloody line has been crossed that cannot be ignored. At long last, Donald Trump has left the Republican Party few options but to act decisively and get this political train wreck off the tracks before something terrible happens.

The GOP O'Reilly & Trump Are Out Of Touch With Reality On Jobs
By: Steve - August 11, 2016 - 8:00am

The Republican party, Bill O'Reilly, and Donald Trump repeat over and over how we must bring jobs back to America, they say Obama is a terrible President and we need more jobs.

And it is all nonsense, it is nothing but right-wing propaganda from the Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump. O'Reilly even lies that the average hourly earnings are down, when they are actually up for the year. They are all lying, and the facts prove it.

Quote from the reuters.com July jobs report:

U.S. employment rose more than expected for the second month in a row in July and wages picked up, bolstering expectations of faster economic growth, and raising the probability of a Federal Reserve interest rate increase this year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 255,000 jobs after an upwardly revised 292,000 surge in June, with hiring broadly based across the sectors of the economy, the Labor Department said on Friday. In addition, 18,000 more jobs were created in May and June than previously reported.

Highlighting job market strength, average hourly earnings increased a healthy eight cents and are up 2.6 percent year on year, while workers put in more hours.

"The July jobs report was everything you could have asked for and more. Provided the strength in jobs is confirmed with other economic data, the Fed will have sufficient reason to hike (rates) this year," said Michelle Meyer, a senior economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York.

Wake up and open your eyes, we have had 77 straight months of positive job growth under President Obama, and that is a fact. That is 6.5 years of job growth, which proves the Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump are lying to you that we need to bring jobs back, because they are already back, and have been for over 6 years.

The DOW is over 18,000 and close to another record high, and the S&P set a new record high. The Dow is only about 100 points away from its all-time high of 18,351.36. The S&P 500 closed above 2,137, surpassing the previous all-time record set back in May 2015.

This is a fact, and it was done under President Obama. The Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump all ignore it, they never say a word about any of it. While telling you Obama is a terrible President and the economy is in chaos. When we are setting records for job growth month after month and year after year, and the stock market is setting record highs every other month.

Under President Obama the Unemployment Rate Remained Unchanged at 4.9% in July 2016.

When George W. Bush left office in January of 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent. And we lost another 3.9 million jobs in the 6 months after that. Then the Obama economic policies started to work and the unemployment rate went down as jobs increased. And now we have over 250,000 jobs being added almost every month, with unemployment at less than 5 percent.

THESE ARE FACTS!

The Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump ignore it all. At not only do they ignore it, they lie that we need to bring jobs back, and that Obama is a bad President, while everything is doing great, except for the GDP which is a little weak, but it is still showing positive growth.

And here is one more FACT Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump are ignoring. The economy always does better with a Democrat in the White House. Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump say vote for Trump to improve the economy, but the facts show that if you want to improve the economy you should vote for a Democrat.

Here are 7 facts about Presidents and the economy:

1) Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

2) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

3) Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

4) Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

5) Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

6) The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican administrations

Ask the Republicans to explain that, ask O'Reilly to explain that, ask Trump to explain that, they cant. In fact, they ignore it and deny it, and they will not even talk about it. They even try to say Democrats add more to the debt than Republicans do, which is also a lie, because Republican Presidents have added more than 2.5 times to the debt than Democratic Presidents.

Look at the facts, they show that the Republicans, O'Reilly, and Trump are lying to you. You should vote based on the facts, and when you look at the facts it is all bad news for Republicans. Now if you vote for Trump you are part of the brainwashed fools crowd that believe right-wing propaganda, and you are wasting your vote based on lies.

Media Critics Slam Right-Wing Media Coverage Of Trump
By: Steve - August 11, 2016 - 7:00am

Finally someone in the media is pointing out how biased Fox, O'Reilly, and right-wing talk radio are for Trump, and how they spin for him.

With All Due Respect Ridicules Right-Wing Media's Parallel Universe Of Donald Trump Coverage. And of course O'Reilly and his so-called media bias expert Bernie Goldberg never say a word about any of this, because they are part of it at Fox, and O'Reilly is friends with Trump, so he is the worst about it, except for Hannity.

Fox's Greta Van Susteren is so biased in her coverage for Trump she even Questioned Her Own Networks Poll Showing Hillary Clinton Beating Trump. While never doing it when Trump was ahead, or even close. As soon as the Fox poll showed Clinton way ahead suddenly she says her own poll could be wrong.

Here is a partial transcript:

MARK HALPERIN (HOST): If you have been watching Fox News lately or listening to talk radio, you may have picked up on some repeating themes when it comes to coverage of Trump and Clinton. One is that the polling showing Trump behind can't possibly be right. Another is that the media is generally biased against Trump and finally, a reminder that Trump continues to draw very big crowds. Here’s what all that sounds and looks like.

So, Donny, they're talking more about polls and media bias and crowd size than they are about Trump's message, very similar to what we heard at end of the 2012 campaign for Mitt Romney and his supporters. Is this kind of stuff preaching to the faithful, largely in these audiences, is it helpful or hurtful to Trump’s campaign?

DONNY DEUTSCH (CO-HOST): It's preaching to their audience, which, A, loves conspiracy theories. I mean, they’re in a business. Fox News -- we’re all in a business here. So they're talking to their audience. What they're saying is so ignorant and stupid, stupid for the candidate and stupid actually, factually. Believe it or not, statistically there are more negative mentions of Hillary Clinton, starting last year, versus Donald Trump in all the media.

HALPERIN: They're wasting time not talking about his message, easily converted. Yes, it revs up the base a little bit, but I think it is so diluted. It is so unscientific, it is so unrigorous, it’s so off the point of needing a comeback. Trump needs a comeback. He needs a comeback. If he’s going to win, he needs to come back. And they're out there saying the polls are wrong because his crowds are bigger?

Romney was sure he was going to win, and Fox and the talk radio news loop is -- it's death to them. It is like a parallel universe in which Trump is going to win and then the real universe happens.

DEUTSCH: If you think about if you're Fox and you're talking to the audience, what else are you saying at this point?

DOJ Finds Racial Bias In The Baltimore Police Force
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 11:50am

UPDATE -- 6:00pm - 8-10-16: On the Wednesday Factor show the far-right fill-in for O'Reilly (Eric Bolling) has no plans to discuss the DOJ report on the Baltimore police being racist and unconstitutional. Just as O'Reilly does, he plans to ignore the entire report. In fact, I would bet that even though O'Reilly is on vacation, he tells Bolling what to report on and what not to report on.

Instead of reporting on the DOJ report about the Baltimore police, Bolling will do two segments on the new bogus Clinton e-mail scandal, one segment on the Trump 2nd amendment threat comments, one segment on the divide in the GOP, one segment on sanctuary cities, that nobody cares about, and one segment on media bias against Trump with a Republican guest only from the biased joke of a media watchdog group, the Media Research Center, with no Democratic guest for balance.

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

Ok Bill O'Reilly, the report is in. You said we should wait for the DOJ report before we discuss it or say the police in Baltimore have racial bias, even though the evidence already showed it, so the report is in, and you were wrong, they found racial bias and other problems. The report also found that they were using unconstitutional practices, which is worse than racism.

Now let me see you report on it as you promised. I'll be holding my breath waiting.

A Justice Department investigation found that the Baltimore Police Department engages in unconstitutional practices that led to disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests of African-Americans, and excessive use of force against juveniles and people with mental health disabilities.

The Department of Justice monitored the department's policing methods for more than a year at the request of the Baltimore Police Department, after the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in police custody. The report attributed the widespread practices to "systemic deficiencies" in training, policies, supervision and accountability structures.

Though the report does not reference Gray, his death continues to loom large over the city's attempts to heal and rebuild. The federal civil rights report comes weeks after charges were dropped against the remaining officers facing trial in Gray's death.

From BPD officers, command staff and union representatives, to city leaders and advocacy groups, everyone who spoke to DOJ investigators acknowledged "significant problems" that undermined efforts to police "constitutionally and effectively," the report said."

"Nevertheless, work remains, in part because of the profound lack of trust among these groups."

For example:

-- About 44% of the stops occurred in two small predominantly African-American neighborhood that contain only 11% of the city's population

-- Hundreds of individuals were stopped at least 10 times during this period, and seven were stopped more than 30 times

-- Only 3.7% resulted in citations or arrests

-- From 2010 to 2015, prosecutors and booking supervisors rejected more than 11,000 charges made by BPD officers because they lacked probable cause or did not merit prosecution

What say you O'Reilly? How much do I bet that you never even mention this report?

Former NSA Director Slams Trump 2nd Amendment Comment
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 11:40am

Partial transcript from CNN's The lead with Jake Tapper:

JAKE TAPPER (HOST): I want to play for you this comment that Donald Trump just made at a rally, that the Clinton people are saying this is him joking about Hillary Clinton getting assassinated.

TAPPER: How do you interpret what he said?

MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, Jake as you and I were just commenting, we're both native English speakers, and when I heard that for the first time, that was more than a speed bump. Alright?

That's actually a very arresting comment. And it suggests either a very bad taste reference to political assassination and an attempt at humor, or an incredible insensitivity. It may be the latter, an incredible insensitivity to the prevalence of political assassination inside of American history, and how that is a topic that we don't ever come close to, even when we think we're trying to be light-hearted.

TAPPER: There was an attempt on Donald Trump's life a few weeks ago, actually, and the Secret Service got involved.

HAYDEN: Well, let me say if someone else said that outside of the hall, he'd be in the back of a police wagon now, with the Secret Service questioning him.

HAYDEN: I used to tell my seniors at the CIA, you get to a certain point in this business, you're not just responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what people hear.

Retired Gen. McCaffrey Says Trump Has The Wrong Character To Be President
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 11:30am

Here is a partial transcript from Hardball with Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS (HOST): General, I want to hear from you first, because you are not in the business of offering up foreign policy or certainly not political opinion.

RETIRED GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY: Well, I think you're right. I tend to talk about policies critically or supportive, I tried to be analytical but I stayed away from candidates. And by the way, I'm not here to endorse anybody's campaign.

But it seemed to me, Chris, listening to Mr. Trump and by the way I object to the notion that his problem is he's going off script. We are actually hearing Trump and his actual views.

And his views were praising Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, praising Putin, being apparently unaware that he's actually invaded another country and seized ground, threatening NATO, loose talk about nuclear proliferation and then finally, the final straw to me was his insulting behavior to this grieving mother of one of our young troops killed in action.

One of 60,000 killed and wounded fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This guy it seems to me has the wrong character to be President of the United States.

Trump Calls On 2nd Amendment People To Do Something About Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 11:00am

And then of course after telling the gun nuts to take out Clinton, and getting caught saying it, the Trump campaign says he was just joking, and that by 2nd amendment people he just meant people who are unified.

What a load of bull. And if anyone believe that excuse they are just stupid. Trump said it and he meant it, and it was just another stupid and dangerous statement from Trump.

During a rally on Tuesday in Wilmington, North Carolina, Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, said that "Second Amendment people" might be able to prevent Hillary Clinton from picking Supreme Court Justices.

"If she gets to pick her judges," the increasingly incoherent Trump said to his audience. "There's nothing you can do, folks, although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I dunno."

The crowd hardly seemed bothered by Trump's suggestion that someone kill Hillary Clinton in order to preserve the Second Amendment (Trump had earlier lied that Clinton would make gun ownership illegal). Instead, they laughed at what Trump is now calling a joke. Which btw, is exactly what O'Reilly does when he is caught saying something racist or just stupid, he says it was a joke.

It's probably not surprising that the Trump campaign's rhetoric would firmly embrace the clear call of violence. "Lock her up," has become an increasingly popular chant among Trump supporters who have rhetorically married their perception of Clinton's criminality with an inevitably rigged election.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and ally, previously called for Clinton to be "brought to justice - arrested, tried, and executed for murder."

Another Trump adviser, Al Baldasaro, has said that Clinton should be "shot for treason"; the Secret Service subsequently investigated him.

Numerous media figures reacted with shock, condemning Trump's remarks and questioning whether the Secret Service would investigate him. Media figures also took issue with the Trump campaign's spin that Trump was just talking about Second Amendment people voting.

Here is a sample of the media reaction from across the political spectrum:

Emily Cahn @CahnEmily

A major party nominee suggesting, jokingly or not, that people assassinate their opposing candidate is not funny. It's terrifying.

Benjy Sarlin @BenjySarlin

Tomorrow's spin today: Trump just meant Second Amendment activists should vote against her in November.

That's not what he said, though...

Josh Marshall @joshtpm

So Trump now moving on from suggesting Clinton stealing election to suggesting supporters assassinate her?

Anthony Zurcher @awzurcher

Flaw in Trump explanation: He said "2nd Amendment people" could do something "if she gets to pick judges" - implies it's after she's elected

Robson Fletcher @CBCFletch

This is beyond the pale, even for Trump.
Basically saying: If I lose the election, go ahead and revolt/assassinate.

Sam Stein @samsteinhp

Trump spin says he meant 2nd Amendmenters could stop Clinton's election.

His comment was about stopping nominees she'd have after election

Geraldo: Trump's 2nd Amendment Comment Could Be A Federal Crime
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 10:00am

From the August 9 Fox News The Five:

GERALDO RIVERA (CO-HOST): This is a federal crime if he means what he said.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): That's why they said it's not what it is.

RIVERA: If Donald Trump is suggesting that someone who is a gun person can do something about Hillary Clinton -- I'm telling you that this slip of the tounge, this joke, this is a joke like a mother joke. This is a lead balloon balloon joke. This is a really --

ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): It was a bad joke, but there was no intent.

DANA PERINO (CO-HOST): It goes back to the careless.

RIVERA: That's kind of careless. It is so profoundly careless it falls into the area of "What the hell?"

PERINO: Imagine if someone said, if she had said or somebody said that about Donald Trump. Like carelessly say, "Oh, well maybe someone will assassinate him." We would all be going crazy and saying how inappropriate it was and making the point that Geraldo did, which is that is actually a crime.

Republican Senator Susan Collins Says She Will Not Vote For Donald Trump
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 9:00am

Senator Susan Collins of Maine announced Monday that she will not vote for Donald Trump, joining a growing list of GOP officials who have come out against the mogul for president.

Collins writes in a Washington Post op-ed published online Monday night that three incidents led her to conclude that the GOP nominee lacks essential qualifications to be president: his mocking of a disabled reporter, his intense criticism of a U.S.-born federal judge who is Mexican American and, most recently, his attacks against the Muslim American parents of an Army captain who was killed in Iraq.

"My conclusion about Mr. Trump's unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics," Collins writes. "Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities."

Collins becomes the latest in a growing group of Republican senators who have said they will not vote for Trump. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska has vocally opposed the mogul for months. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina told CNN in May that he also did not intend vote for Trump.

Economic Advocate Says Trump Economic Proposals Rigged For The Rich
By: Steve - August 10, 2016 - 8:00am

Eric Schoenberg is one member of the group called the Patriotic millionaires, who argue for economic equality. They believe taxes are too low for the rich, and too high for the poor and the middle class.

Here is a partial transcript from the Monday O'Reilly Factor with the fill-in host Eric Bolling:

ERIC BOLLING (GUEST HOST): Do you like or dislike this 15 percent corporate tax rate, down from 35 percent?

ERIC SCHOENBERG: Our perspective is that at a minimum the government shouldn't be increasing the overall level of inequality in the system. And the problem with all of these proposals is that's exactly what the impact is going to be. We don't know what the impact of this will be on the income taxes of Donald Trump because he hasn't released his income taxes.

BOLLING: Why are you focused on Donald Trump? How about the other 390 million, 999 thousand --

SCHOENBERG: Let's talk about an item that actually has an impact, which you just said in last segment, you're fully in favor of -- the elimination of the estate tax. One thing we can say with certainty based on Donald Trump's estimate that he has a $10 billion fortune, this plan is going to save him $4 billion.

BOLLING: So, let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Donald Trump put together this tax, this economic plan -- wide-sweeping, wide-ranging economic plan -- so that he can save money on his own taxes? So he could leave his kids --

SCHOENBERG: $4 billion, and my question for Donald Trump is why --

BOLLING: Why am I taxed for the second time when I leave my -- whatever I have earned to my son? Why is that a good idea?

SCHOENBERG: Well, let's also be clear. Your prior guest said, you know, there are lots of people who spend time worrying about estate taxes. The estate tax effects two out of every thousand Americans, the very richest 0.2 percent of the population. These are not people that I thought Donald Trump was expressing great concerns about.

BOLLING: I'm not sure that's accurate. You're saying --

SCHOENBERG: It's absolutely accurate -- two out of a thousand people.

BOLLING: Anyone who leaves money to an heir is going to be effected by the estate tax.

SCHOENBERG: Only if they have an estate of more than $10 million, as a couple.

BOLLING: I think it's $5 million.

SCHOENBERG: It's $5 million as an individual. And again, my question is, I would love to see Donald Trump and explain why it is in the interest of the average American worker for his family to save $4 billion.

If you actually look at these proposals, the beneficiaries are going to be the wealthy people. Let's go back to the question you asked about lower tax rates on corporations.

Now, I happen to have the -- I'm the chairman of the board of a corporation, which is an S corporation. As I understand it, although the details aren't very clear, he also intends to lower my tax rate to 15 percent on that income, and I'm asking a simple question: Why should I pay such a lower rate on my income than the average American worker pays on their own income?

Nate Silver 8-9-16 Presidential Election Update
By: Steve - August 9, 2016 - 11:00am

As of today Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has Hillary Clinton with a 95.5 percent chance to be the next President, Trump is at 4.5 percent to win.

Silver has Clinton at 381 electoral votes, to Trump's 165, with 270 needed to win Trump is not even close and Clinton is way over the votes needed.

Silver also has Clinton winning all 14 battleground states, including the big three, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And she is ahead by 7 points or more in all three, so it's not even close.

Silver also has Clinton at 49.8 percent of the popular vote, while Trump is stuck at 40 percent, which is where he has been for a long time, and where he will probably stay.

And btw, it's not just Nate Silver with numbers like this, Larry Sabato has the crystal ball electoral college predictions and he has it almost the same. Sabato has Clinton at 347 to Trump's 191.

Trump is doing worse than Romney, who got 206 against Obama, and the stooges at Fox, including O'Reilly all said Romney was going to win back then. Now Trump is losing worse that Romney and they are now saying Trump is going to win. It's just laughable, O'Reilly and Fox are lying to you, while ignoring the electoral maps with the electoral college projections that all have Clinton crushing Trump.

And as of today neither Bill O'Reilly (or his biased far-right fill in host Eric Bolling) has said one word about any of these predictions, not one time. They both ignore it, even though Nate Silver is the #1 election and electoral college expert in the country right now.

Donald Trump Will Lose Because Of Donald Trump - Not Voter Fraud
By: Steve - August 9, 2016 - 10:00am

Donald Trump is already teeing up excuses as to why he might lose the election to Hillary Clinton in November.

In a softball interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday night, Trump said he is "very concerned" about voter fraud costing him the race.

Trump said this:
Well, I'm looking at all of these decisions coming down from the standpoint of identification/voter ID. And I'm saying, what do you mean? You don't have to have voter ID to now go in and vote and it's a little bit scary and I've heard a lot of bad things.

Four years ago, I was hearing a lot of bad things having to do with the Romney campaign where when the vote came out there were some districts that were shockingly different from what they were anticipated to be.

I've been seeing it and I've been hearing it a lot. The whole thing with voter ID identification I think is really - I mean people are going to walk in, they are going to vote 10 times maybe. Who knows? They are going to vote 10 times. I am very concerned and I hope the Republicans are going to be very watchful and I hope the authorities are going to be very watchful.

Because I want to tell you - I believe it's going to, just like Bernie Sanders 'I said it was rigged,' well it's rigged here too believe me. So I just hope the Republicans are going to be very watchful.
The decisions the Republican nominee is referring to are those being made by federal courts to strike down right-wing voter ID laws in several states. While advocates of those laws claim to be fighting fraud at the polls - a problem that doesn't exist - they're actually just making it harder for certain groups of people to vote.

Those groups just happen to vote in large numbers for Democratic candidates.

What is irking Trump is that the courts are seeing right through this effort, which means more people will be able to legally cast their ballot against him in November. And the Republicans hate when more people vote, because when they do the Democrats usually beat them.

When the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out North Carolina's voter ID law last week, they said, "The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision."

In North Dakota, a federal judge rejecting that state's voter ID law said, "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."

Not only is voter fraud nonexistent in North Dakota - it's virtually non-existent across the country.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice:
The Brennan Center's ongoing examination of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators.

Our report "The Truth About Voter Fraud" reveals most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless -- and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.
To underscore that point, Vox put together a handy chart using information from Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School and US Elections Project. Their data shows that, between 2000 and 2014, there were over 800 million votes cast in general elections in the United States. Of those ballots, there were only 35 credible cases of voter fraud.

In other words, people are more likely to see a UFO than they are to commit voter fraud.

Trump's recent comments suggesting that foul play in ballot boxes across this country will cost him the election are baseless. Trump will lose because of Trump - not because of some ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theory from O'Reilly and his far-right friends.

Author Who Saw Trump Tax Returns Says He's Lying About His Wealth
By: Steve - August 9, 2016 - 9:00am

Donald Trump's unreleased tax returns are a lot like his hair -- an elaborately constructed façade that covers over the embarrassing truth.

Timothy O'Brien, who interviewed the real estate developer and reality TV star while researching his 2004 book, "TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald," appeared Wednesday morning on CNN, where he explained what he found after the titular subject of that book sued him for libel.

"During the course of that litigation, my lawyers deposed him about his taxes and we got his tax returns," O'Brien said. "I think there's very practical things in those documents that Trump doesn't want to produce because they're going to undermine a whole series of claims and remarks he's made on the campaign trail over the last year."

O'Brien is prohibited from discussing specifics about Trump's wealth under terms of the lawsuit settlement, but Trump was repeatedly called out during a two-day deposition for exaggerating his wealth -- which the author set at $250 million.

"Obviously, the tax returns won't get at his net worth, but it will show his income, and income is one pillar of how much money someone's actually making, obviously, and how robust their business is," O'Brien said.

"I think he might have hesitations revealing that. He's repeatedly on the campaign trail described himself as a generous philanthropist, as a very big backer of that, so there's very little public information available that shows that he's actually been a philanthropist. Certainly in New York, he's not known as a major philanthropist."

The tax returns could also undercut his arguments against illegal immigration and globalization, said O'Brien, a contributing editor for Bloomberg View.

"He's also spent a large portion of his time on the campaign trail criticizing American companies for operating overseas at the expense of the American worker," O'Brien said.

"We know he sources a lot of his clothing overseas, he hires workers for his hotels and resorts from overseas, and the tax returns could reveal some of that."

But there's more to Trump's tax returns than revealing the lies he's whipped up on the campaign trail, O'Brien said.

"I think, at the end of the day, what the really crucial thing is, he's running for the highest office in the land, he's running to be one of the most powerful people in the world, and the taxes would show what kind of financial issues and pressure would come to bear on him in the office," he said.

"That's the reason historically that presidents have revealed and released their taxes."

Right-Wing Media Echo Chamber Pushed Republicans To Be Divorced From Reality
By: Steve - August 9, 2016 - 8:00am

WSJ's Bret Stephens: "If You Spend Your Time Listening To Certain Cable Shows. You End Up Having This Kind Of Conversation That's Just Increasingly Divorced From Reality"

Partial transcript from Morning Joe:

JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): What do we -- I don't want to speak for you. I'm a registered Republican, I don't know if you are or not. I'm a conservative, I certainly know you're a conservative. How much do we look at our own party and say, well, you look at a lot of polls and in some states 50 percent of people not only wanted to ban Muslims, they wanted to ban mosques in America. Shouldn't we, after this election, have a post-mortem, not just about the candidates we nominate, but the party that we're in?

BRET STEPHENS: Well, I think the point you're making is an important one, in that too much of the Republican Party became an echo chamber of itself. And so, if you spend your time listening to certain cable shows all the time, listening to nobody else, if you're prone to the kind of conspiracy theories that whiz around on Twitter or certain fringes of the internet, you end up having this kind of conversation that's just increasingly divorced from reality.

The people coming over the border, from south of the border, is not a horde of Libyan jihadists, but you would think, talking to some large segment of the GOP base, that that's the kind of challenge that we face. Trade is not hurting working class Americans. Trade is helping working class Americans.

But, again, because of the echo chamber that we created -- and by the way, one large problem I would add, and a wise Republican friend of mine made this point, because of redistricting, because red districts are so red, and the only challenges that incumbents face are primary challenges, we are moving in a kind of a self-polarizing direction. That doesn't help the country, doesn't help the Republican Party.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, I mean basically -- and you saw it even with Mitt Romney's campaign. They watched Fox News. They still believed at two in the morning that -- they were still -- or at least they believed late into the evening, when everyone else knew the election was over, that they were going to win, because their entire campaign apparatus was inside the bubble. The Republican Party has been inside the bubble now for too long.

STEPHENS: Well it's a kind of a Pauline Kael phenomenon. I guess she was the New York or New York Times movie critic who said, "I can't believe Richard Nixon won, all my friends voted for George McGovern."

SCARBOROUGH: Didn't know a single person that voted for Nixon, right.

STEPHENS: And a lot of people have no idea that Trump is headed for a historic defeat. That's why, I think the larger the defeat, in a sense, the healthier it will be for the Republican Party. At least if it doesn't bring Paul Ryan's speakership down with him and there's a kind of healthy divided government, because it might be a wake-up call to those Republicans who have existed in this little thought bubble of their own that this isn't a winning form of politics.

50 Top GOP National Security Officials Sign Letter Opposing Trump
By: Steve - August 8, 2016 - 11:00am

This is unheard of, 50 top Republican party officials are saying they do not want Donald Trump to be the President. They signed a letter saying he should never be the President.

And a look at the preview for the O'Reilly Factor Monday, shows that as expected O'Reilly will not say one word about this story.

50 of the Republican Party's most experienced national security officials will not vote for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, they wrote in an open letter released Monday.

"We are convinced that Trump would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well-being," said the former officials, many of whom held top positions in the George W. Bush administration.

"Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President," they added. "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."

Signers include some of the best known intelligence, defense and security experts of the past two decades: Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.

The letter, which was first reported on by The New York Times, represents yet another blow to Trump's ongoing effort to win over top Republicans. That job that has become significantly more difficult in recent weeks, as Trump has feuded with the family of a fallen soldier and threatened repeatedly to abandon NATO.

The missive also raises questions about who might agree to serve in a hypothetical Trump administration and offer the former reality TV star advice on national security issues.

Trump has repeatedly sought to distance himself from some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration, such as the war in Iraq, which Trump claims he opposed in 2003. Even so, it's safe to assume that Trump's campaign would have welcomed support from top members of the national security apparatus.

In closing, the 50 officials wrote, "We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history."

Speaker Ryan Privately Warning Trump Could Cost Republicans The House
By: Steve - August 8, 2016 - 10:00am

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is privately warning Republicans that Donald Trump could cost Republicans control of the House.

From the NY Times:

At a recent conference of Republican donors, Paul D. Ryan, the speaker of the House, warned that even the party's substantial majority in that chamber might be in jeopardy.

"The conclusion has become that the guy is incorrigible," said Thomas M. Davis III, a former House member from Virginia who is still close to many of the party's leaders. "He's going to leave our candidates with no choice but to go their own separate way."

There is no unity down ballot. Republican House incumbents don't have a popular nominee to come into their districts and campaign with them. With all of the attention being on Trump's endless series of negative headlines, Republicans are caught in a bad publicity machine.

House Republicans aren't going to have any help in their bids for reelection. What they do have is an unpopular presidential nominee who could drag them all down with him if he loses. There is no message for incumbents to run on. House Republicans are in a position where many of them are going to have to run away from their party's presidential nominee.

What Speaker Ryan is dreading is an election where Republicans lose a double digit amount of House seats, and Ryan is left with a smaller House majority that is made up of the far right Republicans that reside in districts that supported Trump.

Paul Ryan could find himself in an even worse situation than John Boehner experienced. Ryan could be facing a Democratic White House and Senate, but he could also be stuck with a small majority that will be torn apart by their differences.

It might be easier for Ryan to lose the House to Democrats than to try to govern with a tiny majority that will be deeply divided.

A Clinton landslide could cost Republicans the House, and even if it doesn't, Trump's candidacy could result in a lose-lose situation for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Trump Adviser Says Trump Great On Foreign Policy Because He Talked To Him
By: Steve - August 8, 2016 - 9:00am

This is for real, it is not a joke. The Fox Analyst And Trump Adviser Walid Phares Actually Said He Has Confidence In Trump's Foreign Policy Expertise Because He Heard Him, He Met Him, And They Looked At Maps."

I wish I could say that I was making a joke, but I am not, that is actually what he said. It's about the same as Sarah Pain saying she has foreign policy experience with Russia because she can see it from her house, it's just ridiculous, and shocking that a so-called analyst/adviser would say something so crazy.

Here is a partial transcript from a Fox show called Happening Now:

JENNA LEE (HOST): Why do have confidence in Donald Trump, Walid. To think that he, unlike your thoughts on this current administration, would be able to handle these sort of relationships in the Middle East that are quite tenuous at best?

WALID PHARES: Because I heard him, I met him, we looked at maps, I heard what the partners are saying. He can mobilize public opinion. Remember, one of the problems that President Obama had, and even the last two years of the presidency of Mr. Bush, they could not mobilize anymore of the American public to confront the threat.

We have been de-mobilized. He can mobilize them. As long as he has the right direction and the right experts, of course in the future, then he could do it better than others, in my view.

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

And now a reality check, Donald Trump has no foreign policy experience at all, none. And it is scary to even think of him as the President dealing with foreign countries. Thankfully, Trump will never beat Clinton so we will not have to worry about it.

There Is No Actual Voter Fraud Problem In America
By: Steve - August 8, 2016 - 8:00am

The non-partisan and non-political Brennan Center's ongoing examination of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators.

Our report "The Truth About Voter Fraud" reveals most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless -- and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.

Voter fraud is not acceptable in our elections, but we must find a balance and not impose solutions that make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.

In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up - when any exists - is not usually deemed newsworthy.

Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

These claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters. Overly restrictive identification requirements for voters at the polls -- which address a sort of voter fraud more rare than death by lightning -- is only the most prominent example.

"Voter fraud" is fraud by voters.

More precisely, "voter fraud" occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system.

This sounds straightforward. And yet, voter fraud is often conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with other forms of election misconduct or irregularities.

Mislabeling problems as "voter fraud" distracts attention from the real election issues that need to be resolved. It draws attention away from problems best addressed, for example, by resource allocation or poll worker education or implementation of longstanding statutory mandates, and instead improperly focuses on the voter as the source of the problem.

The most common example of the harm wrought by imprecise and inflated claims of "voter fraud" is the call for in-person photo identification requirements.

Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls -- an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.

By throwing all sorts of election anomalies under the "voter fraud" umbrella, however, advocates for such laws artificially inflate the apparent need for these restrictions and undermine the urgency of other reforms.

Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas, concisely tied all of these strands together in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article concerning a highly controversial battle over photo identification legislation in Texas.

Masset connected the inflated furor over voter fraud to photo identification laws and their expected impact on legitimate voters:

Among Republicans it is an "article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections," Masset said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

This remarkably candid observation underscores why it is so critical to get the facts straight on voter fraud. The voter fraud phantom drives policy that disenfranchises actual legitimate voters, without a corresponding actual benefit. Virtuous public policy should stand on more reliable supports.

There have only been a handful of substantiated cases of individual ineligible voters attempting to defraud the election system. But by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.

In part, this is because fraud by individual voters is a singularly foolish and ineffective way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud in connection with a federal election risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, in addition to any state penalties.

In return, it yields at most one incremental vote. That single extra vote is simply not worth the price. Instead, much evidence that purports to reveal voter fraud can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters.

Here is one example, from a 2004 election in Wisconsin.

The allegations of voter fraud related to the 2004 general elections, in which 277,565 votes were cast in Milwaukee, and 2,997,007 votes were cast in all of Wisconsin.

There were 7 substantiated cases of individuals knowingly casting invalid votes--all persons with felony convictions.

This amounts to a rate of 0.0025% within Milwaukee and 0.0002% within the state as a whole. None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls.

In closing, actual voter fraud almost never happens. It is so rare you are more likely to be hit by lightning then to find actual voter fraud.

And anyone who tells you voter fraud is a big problem so we need voter ID laws is not only lying to you, they are biased and corrupt Republicans, and that includes Bill O'Reilly, who not only supports voter ID laws passed by Republicans, he defends them.

These voter ID laws are only put in place by Republicans who have a majority, there has never been a voter ID law passed by a non-Republican. They pass these voter ID laws to supress the vote by the poor, especially the older poor people, and minorities, because they mostly vote for Democrats.

Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans who tell you we need voter ID laws to prevent vote fraud are liars, they are corrupt, and they are biased partisan spin doctors who are trying to help Republicans get more votes in the elections.

And that is a fact. And btw, the voter ID laws the Republicans pass (in most cases) would not have even stopped the very rare cases of voter fraud we do have, so the laws they actually pass do not stop voter fraud, they only supress the vote with people who vote for Democrats.

Voter fraud experts say actual voter fraud is very rare, less than 0.2 percent of the votes cast, which is not enough to chance the results of an election. If you have 31 cases of voter fraud out of a million votes cast, it does not change the results of that election, and it's not even close.

You would need thousands and thousands of voter fraud cases to change the results of 99% of the elections, and that just does not happen, ever, not one time has actual voter fraud been proven to change the results of an election. It just does not happen, so there is no need for voter ID laws.

Donald Trump Is So Bad He Is At Less Than 0.5% In His Home State
By: Steve - August 7, 2016 - 11:00am

Remember when Trump won the GOP primary, he said he would beat Hillary Clinton and win his home state of New York.

Well guess what, that is never going to happen, it was just more lies from Trump.

Right now, as I type this, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has Hillary Clinton with a 99.7% chance to beat Trump in New York.

Yes, you read that right, she has a 99.7% chance to beat Trump in his home state of New york, Trump only has a 0.3% chance to beat her. That is not only less than 1%, it's less than 1/2 of 1 percent.

These projections are based on 14 polls taken in New York only. Clinton is crushing Trump in all 14, from 17 points to 27 points, it is not even close.

And btw, Republicans have not won New york in a very long time. No Republican has won New York since 1984, that's 32 years. So the odds of Trump winning New York are pretty much zero.

But he is still running around telling people he will win New York, when even he knows he is lying.

And of course O'Reilly is silent about all of it, but when Gore ran against Bush in 2000, and he was losing his home state, O'Reilly reported it every night and said if you can not win your home state you do not deserve to be the President.

Clinton is crushing Trump in his home State and not once has O'Reilly said Trump does not deserve to be President because of it, not only has he not said that, he does not even mention it, he ignores it. That is what O'Reilly does.

Top Republicans Planning An Intervention For Crazy Donald Trump
By: Steve - August 7, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is another Trump story that Bill O'Reilly has totally ignored.

RNC Chair Reince Priebus, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani are planning to hold an intervention to try to get Donald Trump the help that he needs to rescue his sinking campaign.

NBC News reported:

Key Republicans close to Donald Trump are plotting an intervention with the candidate after a disastrous 48 hours led some influential voices in the party to question whether Trump can stay at the top of the Republican ticket without catastrophic consequences for his campaign and the GOP at large.

Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus, former Republican New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are among the Trump endorsers hoping to talk the real estate mogul into a dramatic reset of his campaign in the coming days, sources tell NBC News.

The group of GOP heavyweights hopes to enlist the help of Trump's children - who compromise much of his innermost circle of influential advisers - to aid in the attempt to rescue his candidacy.

The Republicans are worried that Trump will reject the concept of an intervention, and refuse to listen to them.

In fact, the GOP is long past the point where an intervention would be helpful or useful with Trump. The damage has already been done. It would seem that the best case scenario would be that Trump stops behaving like a lunatic and doesn't take the entire Republican Party down with him in November.

Even if he wants to change, Trump has proven again and again that he can't. When he kicked the baby out of his rally in Virginia, Trump started out by saying all of the right things, but he has no impulse control, so seconds later he blurted out what he really meant and kicked a mother and crying baby out of his rally.

The idea that a major political party is considering an intervention for their Presidential candidate with about three months to go before Election Day is mind blowing.

Republicans are practically admitting that Donald Trump is unstable, and he needs help right now.

Trump Campaign Frisked & Banned WP Reporter From Pence Event
By: Steve - August 7, 2016 - 9:00am

So much for freedom of the press, you will not find it at Trump campaign events. O'Reilly and the Republicans cry about free speech all the time, then say nothing when actual reporters are banned from Trump campaign events.

The Trump Campaign showed its cowardice when it announced that journalists who asked tough questions of the candidate or reported negatively on the campaign would not be given press-credentials for future events. Then campaign security recently blocked a ticketed Washington Post reporter from attending a Mike Pence inaugural vice-presidental rally in Milwaukee, a regular, law-abiding private citizen who bought a ticket and showed up like all the other attendees -- which is a new low.

First, campaign security told the Washington Post's Jose DelReal that he couldn't bring a laptop or phone into the rally. Then, when he returned from locking his devices in his car, security frisked DelReal for hidden cellphones. Then, having found none, they told DelReal he still couldn't enter because "I don’t want you here. You have to go."

If we start banning citizens -- like Jose or Michelle Malkin or Rachel Maddow or anyone else -- from attending public events for one of the two people who will be our next president, we are sliding down a slippery slope to a future reality that is a very, very bad thing for our country.

To be clear: Jose was trying to cover the event for an established news organization. Although I think it is beyond ridiculous that The Post is banned from covering Trump, I suppose he retains the ability to decide who will be granted special access to his events.

But Jose then went and waited in line like everyone else. No special treatment. Yet he was clearly treated differently from other people seeking to attend the rally. A pat-down? Really?

A Post reporter was banned from a Trump-Pence rally yesterday. That should frighten you. [Chris Cillizza/Washington Post]

Seth Meyers Jokes That A Broke Trump Needs The Presidential Salary
By: Steve - August 7, 2016 - 8:00am

There have been many explanations offered for Donald Trump's refusal to release is tax returns, but Seth Meyers has one that is less ominous than illicit ties with Russia and more pathetic instead: Trump is broke.

According to Meyers, and here he addressed the Republican candidate directly,

Why I think Trump's not releasing his tax returns (he's broke)

-- Seth Meyers (@sethmeyers) July 29, 2016

"Trump, I think you're not releasing your taxes because you don't have any money. I think you're broke. I don't even think you have an accountant. I think you use TurboTax."

"You're not running for president because you want the power or you want to make America great, I think you need the $400,000 a year salary."

Trump benefited from a free ride courtesy of the mainstream media, which saw Trump as a ratings magnet. Fox News reported in late 2015 that,

"There is a general perception that he has all the money he needs," however, "he's spending less -- he hasn't had to open his wallet -- because of all the attention he's received," said Anthony Corrado, professor and campaign finance expert at Colby College in Maine. "His standing in the polls has allowed him to essentially ride this wave of support."

However, it turned out that free media coverage wasn't enough. We have seen many indications throughout the campaign that this may be true.

Colin Campbell observed at Business Insider in May that, Trump frequently brags on the campaign trail that he is self-funding his operation. But after putting in $1.8 million of his own money to jump-start his bid, he gave just over $100,000 to his campaign in the past three months. The bulk of his recent spending came from donations, most of which were relatively small.

Republicans were stunned in May to learn Trump's campaign was broke. How can this be? The guy is rich! Just ask him.

Still, by mid-June Trump was begging donors for money, and we saw him turn to a telethon - pretty far from financing his own campaign.

Trump highlighted his money woes in mid-July when he whined about Hillary Clinton having money to pay for ads, the implication being that he did not. Then there is the well known fact that he doesn't pay his debts to contractors, his repeated bankruptcies, and the revelation that the major American banks won't work with him anymore.

There is nothing far out in Meyer's joke that Trump is broke. His entire career has been a shell-game and his campaign has offered more of the same. Trump is a deadbeat, trying to pull one over on the American people after having so often doing the same to banks and others he has done business with.

Hannity & O'Reilly Give Trump More Air Time Than Anyone
By: Steve - August 6, 2016 - 11:30am

Donald Trump was by far the most frequently featured guest during Fox News economic news segments in the first half of 2016. Trump used a standing invitation for interviews from Fox News to fill the airwaves with misleading claims about the supposedly poor state of the economy, while dubiously promising to boost economic growth and job creation through trickle-down tax cuts and restrictions on free trade.

In the first and second quarters of 2016, Trump has been a featured guest during a cable prime-time segment focused on economic news and policy 40 times. Trump's presence on television dwarfed appearances by Sen. Ted Cruz (20) and Gov. John Kasich (10) -- his rivals for the GOP nomination -- as well as Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (9) and Hillary Clinton (4).

Trump's cable news dominance is mostly a product of Fox News favoritism, where he has appeared 36 times in the past six months -- 18 times in each quarter. During that period, Fox News aired 175 segments dedicated to the economy, and Trump appeared as a guest in over 20 percent of them. All of Trump's appearances came during interviews on The O'Reilly Factor and the Sean Hannity show.

And btw, in all that time and all those segments on the ECONOMY, no actual economists were on, none. Fox, Hannity, and O'Reilly never put any actual economists on to discuss the economy. They only use partisan paid stooges to spin you about the economy, and never have an actual economist on to tell the truth.

Fox hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have come under heavy scrutiny for the lavish amount of airtime they give Trump. Hannity has served as the poster boy of Fox News embrace of the GOP nominee, leading to him being ridiculed as a Trump fanboy for his fawning over the candidate.

O'Reilly's softball interviews have also been seen as embarrassing for the network, leading to accusations that Fox News lacks journalistic integrity and is merely backing Trump to boost ratings. New York magazine correspondent Gabe Sherman reported on May 17 that, "According to one Fox News producer, the channel's ratings dip whenever an anti-Trump segment airs."

With Trump being treated with kid-gloves by Hannity and O'Reilly, he was able to use his airtime to push his extreme and unworkable right-wing agenda.

Trump's claims have received criticism from across the political spectrum; conservative Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman slammed Trump on June 29 for his simplistic look at global commerce, which he called "a scam, skillfully pitched to fool the gullible," and echoed criticism of Trump from economist and Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Lawrence Mishel.

Fox's coverage of Donald Trump has been so biased it received special attention from Jon Stewart during a guest hosting appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Stewart took aim at Hannity -- referring to him only as Lumpy -- for his blatant hypocrisy in supporting Trump. This obvious turn around led Stewart to lament that "I'm sure it's easy for people without ethics or principles to embrace someone who embodies everything that they said they hated about the previous president for the past eight years."

The Website fivethirtyeight.com Now Has Clinton A 91.7% Favorite Over Trump
By: Steve - August 6, 2016 - 11:00am

I even sent an e-mail to Bill O'Reilly Monday, asking him to be a real journalist and report this information, and of course he just ignored it.

Trump had such a bad month in July and early August that Clinton is now crushing him in the presidential prediction from the #1 political expert in America, Nate Silver.

Silver now has Clinton with a 91.7% chance to win, and Trump at 8.3%.

Silver has Clinton with 367 electoral votes, to 169 for Trump.

Silver has Clinton with 49% of the vote, to 41% for Trump.

Silver also now has Clinton beating Trump in all 14 battleground states, from 5.8 to 14 points in each state but one, she is only ahead by 3.3 points in North Carolina.

Silver has Clinton ahead in all the big 3 states, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. She is leading by 5.8 points in Florida, 6.1 points in Ohio, and 8.4 points in Pennsylvania.

And you will never see any of this reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his far-right fill in host Eric Bolling, they both just ignore it.

O'Reilly reported that Trump had an 87% chance to beat Clinton when some right-wing loon at Stony Brook predicted it, but when a real political election expert reports that Clinton has a 91.7% chance to beat Trump O'Reilly is silent as a mouse. Proving he is a biased spin doctor for Trump, who should be sued for even calling himself a journalist.

Trump 13 Person Economic Team All White Men & No Actual Economists
By: Steve - August 6, 2016 - 10:30am

This is classic Donald Trump, set up an economic team with no women, no minorities, and no fricking economists. You cant make this stuff up, Trump is a clown running a circus.

Journalists and economic experts ridiculed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s 13-person economic advisory team, which was comprised entirely of white men and featured only two individuals with more than an undergraduate background in economics. Trump released the list in anticipation of a policy speech to be delivered at the Detroit Economic Club on August 8.

According to a document released by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign on August 5, the candidate has created a 13-man "economic advisory council" to guide and craft policy decisions.

The list features nine CEOs -- Tom Barrack, Andy Beal, Stephen Calk, Dan DiMicco, Steven Feinberg, Howard Lorber, Steven Mnuchin, John Paulson, and Steven Roth -- two GOP policy professionals -- Dan Kowalski and David Malpass -- and two guys who are sort of economists -- Stephen Moore and Peter Navarro. The team will be lead by Trump policy director Stephen Miller.

ThinkProgress detailed the background of Trump's "collection of 13 white men," including numerous controversial business dealings and long track records of "wildly inaccurate" economic predictions. The article concluded by highlighting how the lack of women on the advisory council seems to undermine the candidate's claims that he is "very, very good for women" and way ahead of the curve on women in the workplace.

Newsweek made note that "The bulk of the advisory team is millionaire and billionaire investors."

University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers, whose spouse Betsey Stevenson served as the chief economist at the Department of Labor and was a member of President Obama's formal Council of Economic Advisors, also slammed the Trump team's lack of diversity and expertise on Twitter:

"Of the 13 members of Trump's economic advisory council, only two have studied economics beyond an undergraduate level."

"Also, no actual economists."

Caught On Tape: Stunning Unfiltered Hate of Donald Trump Supporters
By: Steve - August 6, 2016 - 10:00am

Now here is something you will never ever see O'Reilly report on, because it shows the hate, racism, and overall anger in the Republican party by Trump supporters. They say things so bad you would not want your kids to hear it, and they are proud of it.

If there's anyone left in the United States who doesn't understand the depth of hate going on at the Republican nominee Donald Trump's rallies, they need to watch this and understand that it's not a one-off, this happens all the time.

The New York Times put out a chilling video of Trump supporters complied from their time on the trail covering Trump.

Warning: Not safe for work or kids, contains offensive language.



Put together by Erica Berenstein, Nick Corasaniti and Ashley Parker, the video is a compilation of their time following Trump rallies over the past year.

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, and never will either.

The reporters wrote that they witnessed "so many provocations and heated confrontations at them that the cumulative effect can be numbing: A sharp sting that quickly dulls from repetition."

They remark that this is a pattern not seen in connection with any other recent political candidate in any party and that's what makes it important, "But what struck us was the frequency with which some Trump supporters use coarse, vitriolic, even violent language -- in the epithets they shout and chant, the signs they carry, the T-shirts they wear -- a pattern not seen in connection with any other recent political candidate, in any party."

The Trump Campaign Is Falling Apart
By: Steve - August 6, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course you will never hear any of this from O'Reilly, because he is a Trump stooge who is never going to tell you the truth.

Here is a partial transcript with the Republican John Harwood:

JOHN HARWOOD: Things are really bad within the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump has come out of the convention period falling behind in the polls, prosecuting, losing in hopeless arguments with Gold Star family, with Paul Ryan and John McCain and Kelly Ayotte, and doing things that indicate that the professional campaign people who have been brought on to try to make him run an effective general election campaign are simply not breaking through with the singular style that he has of controlling the message every single day according to his whims.

And I've got to tell you, I just got off the phone with Vin Weber, who is a friend of Paul Manafort, a former lieutenant of Newt Gingrich in the House. He said he's rejecting the Trump candidacy and he doesn't believe that Paul Manafort will go down with this ship. So there are limits to the patience of everybody in involved, including the people working most closely with Donald Trump.

THOMAS ROBERTS (HOST): And so Paul Manafort, John, was brought in to kind of stabilize, be the adult in the room, so to speak, of someone to helm what it meant to get to the Republican National Convention, to secure the delegates, to secure the nomination. It's been a bare bones staff by any presidential standards. But would Manafort leave within the next three months or within the next month if things are that bad?

HARWOOD: I have no indication that he is preparing to leave, but Vin Weber is a good friend and ally of his, and so when he says I don't think Paul Manafort will go down with the ship, that tells me that there's a level of discontent that has some limit.

I don't know when the limit is, but you talked about adult in the room. Donald Trump has been rejecting repeatedly the political equivalent of adult supervision, and he is doing things in his own idiosyncratic style, but that is not consistent with moving from a primary campaign where he won in a very fractured Republican field and adding the votes that you need for a general election.

130 million people are going to vote. He has to be additive now, not shrinking, and he's doing the opposite.

July Jobs Report Prove O'Reilly, Trump, & The GOP Wrong
By: Steve - August 6, 2016 - 8:00am

For months Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, and the Republican party have said the country is in chaos and Obama is a terrible President. Even though the facts show them to be wrong, over and over, they just keep saying it hoping someone will belive their garbage.

And now another good jobs report shows they are wrong once again.

Contrary to O'Reilly, Trump, and the Republicans warped view of America as a disaster, we have now added 15.0 million jobs - continuing the longest streak of total job growth on record.

Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Adviser, said in a statement, "The economy added 255,000 jobs in July, as the unemployment rate held steady, labor force participation rose, and wage growth picked up."

The report continued, "U.S. businesses have now added 15.0 million jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in early 2010, and the longest streak of total job growth on record continued in July."

Contrary to Republican predictions about Obamacare being a job killer (a false prediction I have fact-checked many times but since Republicans keep parroting the already debunked talking point, it never gets old), Politico's Dan Diamond pointed out, "Since Obama took office, the health care industry has gained more than 2 million jobs."

He added, "Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. The private sector hasn't lost jobs since."

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed Republicans for doing nothing to help the economy or the people and ignoring Zika while they take the longest summer recess in 60 years, "Unfortunately, when it comes to creating jobs or addressing public health emergencies such as Zika, House Republicans have put their radical obstruction ahead of the needs of the American people. Hundreds of pregnant American women have been infected with Zika, and Republicans are taking the longest summer Congressional recess in at least 60 years."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said this is a historic milestone and that our economy clawed back from the crisis despite unprecedented obstruction by Republicans, "Today marks a historic milestone for America's economy. Over the last 77 months, we've experienced the longest streak in private-sector job growth on record, cut the unemployment rate by half and shrunk the deficit by more than two-thirds. Thanks to President Obama's leadership and Democratic policies in Congress - and despite unprecedented Republican obstruction and gridlock - our economy has clawed back from one of the worst economic crises in modern history. But there is still much more to be done."

The bizarre vision of America that Republicans fear-mongered about throughout their entire convention does not exist. It is another delusion in line with the video Donald Trump claimed he saw of the $400 million to Iran. It isn't real. The only basis Republicans have for this is the doom and gloom they manufacture under the softened lights at the partisan Republican PR outlet that is Fox News.

America is doing really well recovering from the 2008 Bush crash. We have a long way to go, which is why people should be very careful when they cast their vote this November.

Thank you President Obama, you have done a great job and most Americans are proud of you.

GOP Insiders Tell Politico Trump Should Drop Out
By: Steve - August 5, 2016 - 10:30am

Amid speculation that Donald Trump could drop out of the presidential race before Election Day, Republican insiders in key battleground states have a message for The Donald: Get out.

That's according to The POLITICO Caucus - a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states. The majority of GOP insiders, 70 percent, said they want Trump to drop out of the race and be replaced by another Republican candidate - with many citing Trump's drag on Republicans in down-ballot races.

But those same insiders still think it's a long-shot Trump would actually end his campaign and be replaced by another GOP candidate.

"I'd rather take our chances with nearly anyone else than continue with this certain loser who will likely cost the Senate and much more," said a New Hampshire Republican - who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously.

"The effect Trump is having on down-ballot races has the potential to be devastating in November," added a Florida Republican. "His negative image among Hispanics, women and independents is something that could be devastating to Republicans. Trump's divisive rhetoric to the Hispanic community at large has the potential to be devastating for years to come."

Trump has given no indication that he's considering quitting, and his campaign insists his perseverance is one of his best attributes. But two network reports recently suggested senior GOP leaders were eyeing how that process would work, just in case.

A Trump exit from the race after he's been formally nominated would trigger a rarely used vacancy rule in the national Republican Party's rulebook. That rule empowers the Republican National Committee - a 168-member panel that includes three GOP leaders from every state and territory - to select a replacement.

The RNC is extremely sensitive to any suggestion that it - the party establishment - is attempting to supplant the will of grass-roots Republicans, so invoking this process is already fraught with peril. But if the RNC's 168 members convened to pick a substitute candidate, each state's votes would be weighted based on the size of their delegation to last month's convention.

In this scenario, Republicans would likely struggle to find a consensus nominee, but immediate options would include Sen. Ted Cruz (the runner-up in the GOP primary), Trump running mate Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Insiders suggested a handful of replacement candidates: A Florida Republican said Paul Ryan "is the only one who can unite the party," while multiple others plugged Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Bill Kristol: Paul Ryan Doesn't Think Donald Trump Should Be President
By: Steve - August 5, 2016 - 10:00am

Basically, Kristol is saying that Ryan and a lot of other big name Republicans are telling him in private that Trump should not be the President. These are the leaders of the Republican party, and they do not think Trump should be the President.

Something O'Reilly will not report, as he blames the media for Trump doing so bad in the polls now, when even the leaders of the Republican party are saying Trump is not qualified.

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's Tonight with Don Lemon:

BILL KRISTOL: It was a fundamental mistake for the Republican Party, not a majority but a plurality of Republican voters, to nominate Donald Trump. People are seeing that now. It's a free country. People are entitled to run as independents. But again, let me talk about these Republican office-holders.

Obviously, Trump's the nominee. I'm not challenging that. Why do these Republican office-holders feel they had to do what they know is wrong? They'll tell you it's wrong in private, but in public they felt they had to go along, they had to bend the knee.

Paul Ryan, a man I respect very much, why is he even pretending to support Donald Trump? He doesn't think Donald Trump should be President of the United States.

Pro-Trump Super PAC Co-Chair Says Trump Making Case Against Himself
By: Steve - August 5, 2016 - 9:30am

O'Reilly and Trump say everyone is out to get Trump because they are biased against him and they do not like him. But the co-chair of a Trump super PAC says Trump is hurting himself with the stupid and crazy things he says, and he is not blaming the media or anyone but Trump himself.

Here is a partial transcript from Fox News Fox & Friends:

ED ROLLINS: Donald Trump created this crisis. My concern, and obviously I'm a supporter and I'm going to be a supporter to the bitter end here, is that since the night he gave his acceptance speech, which was a very fine speech, every single day he's lost ground.

BRIAN KILMEADE: What about his decision to not back Sen. McCain, said I never really liked him. And say he's not quite there yet with Paul Ryan?

ROLLINS: Well it's absurd. First of all he's complaining and he's saying the media is against him. As you know from the station you work on and I participate in, there are many people in the media very pro-Trump.

There's certainly The Washington Post, and The New York Times and others are against Trump. So why go do an interview with The Washington Post and basically attack the House speaker, attack Sen. McCain, instead of saying, "Listen, I look forward to working with Speaker Ryan and a Republican majority when I get to be the president"?

The most important thing you've got to do is you gotta go make the case against your opponent and make the case for himself. And so far he's making the case against himself and very little against his opponent.

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

And for the record, the media is not out to get Trump, the facts show that Donald Trump is a racist far-right idiot who acts like a spoiled 5 year old rich kid, not a grown man who is the head of a political party running for President.

The media is simply reporting the truth, and O'Reilly and his right-wing friends do not like that, because they do not cover for Trump like they do, and Fox News. I guess they forgot about the millions of dollars in free publicity the media gave him that got Trump where he is today.

They did not have a problem with the media then, but now that Trump is making a fool of himself and making it worse every day, they are blaming the media, when Trump is to blame for being a bad candidate and an idiot. The media is simply reporting the stupid things he says and does, do not blame them, blame Trump.

Donald Trump Does Not Understand Why He Can Not Use Nukes
By: Steve - August 5, 2016 - 9:00am

If you were looking for one reason to not want Donald Trump to be the next President, Independent, Democrat, or Republican, here it is. Donald Trump is so stupid he does not understand why we can not use the nukes we have. He asked three times why he can not use nukes, proving he is an idiot that just does not get it, and should never be allowed near the White House, let alone be the President.

Trump is a disaster, and if they do not dump him now and find a replacement he is going to get crushed in November by Hillary and possibly even destroy the Republican party.

About using Nukes: During a foreign policy briefing several months ago, Trump asked three times in an hour, "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

If you are not already terrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency, perhaps this latest revelation will wake you up.

We have already seen that Trump has no problem increasing the availability of nukes, after decades of nuclear non-proliferation efforts. But this is worse. Much worse. Because it turns out, he doesn't understand why he can't use them.

According to Joe Scarborough Wednesday morning, a foreign policy expert was trying to advise Trump and three times in a one-hour briefing, Trump asked, speaking of nuclear weapons, "If we have them why can't we use them?"

Here is a partial transcript:

SCARBOROUGH: I'll be careful here. Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

BARNICLE: Wow.

SCARBOROUGH: That's one of the reasons why he has - he just doesn't have foreign policy experts around him.

BARNICLE: Trump asked three times whether we can use nuclear weapons?

SCARBOROUGH: Three times in an hour briefing, "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

End of the world scenarios come to mind first. That's why we don't use nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, because each side had enough nukes to annihilate the other, they had a term for the resultant level of deterrence: MAD, or "mutual assured destruction."

The detonation of a single nuclear bomb or "warhead" would cause a local disaster on a scale that few people in the world have seen and survived. However, it should not be confused with the effects of a nuclear war, in which many nuclear bombs would be exploded.

That would cause the end of civilization in the countries concerned, and perhaps over the whole world, as well as radioactive contamination of whole continents, and terrible damage to the environment and ecology.

Given the possibility that Trump could have the power to cause our extinction, it is time, I think, that we recognize in Donald Trump somebody who is not only reckless, but catastrophically ignorant. In fact, our dictionaries are rapidly running out of words to describe somebody as dangerous as Donald J. Trump.

Republican Congressman Says He Will Vote For Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - August 5, 2016 - 8:30am

Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) is the first Republican member of Congress to announce he will vote for Hillary Clinton this November.

The third-term moderate Republican from upstate New York made the announcement in an interview and op-ed published by the Syracuse Post-Standard. Though Hanna said he'd never Trump as far back as March, he's gone a step further in wake of Trump's attacks on the family of a fallen Muslim U.S. Army Captain.

Hanna's op-ed, entitled "We should all be done with Donald Trump," explained his choice mostly in the context of how much he dislikes the Republican nominee.

Regarding the reasons he was resolved not to support Trump in the first place, Hanna wrote that they "were simple and personal. I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader."

"I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect," he continued. "I do not expect perfection, but I do require more than the embodiment of at least a short list of the seven deadly sins."

Hanna later pivots to Trump's aforementioned attacks on the family of Khizr Khan, whose emotional anti-Trump speech at the Democratic National Convention sparked an ongoing feud with Trump.

"In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line?"

Hanna wrote. "I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he's proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium. For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country."

In the interview with the Post-Standard, Hanna says Trump's criticizing of Gold Star parents left him "incensed."

"I was stunned by the callousness of his comments," he added. "I think Trump is a national embarrassment. Is he really the guy you want to have the nuclear codes?"

"While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton. I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead."

"Our response to the public's anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate."

Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) released statements criticizing Trump for his attacks on the Khan family, but didn't go as far as to withdraw their support, let alone say they'll vote for Clinton.

And there is more: Jeb Bush's top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, has left the Republican Party to become an independent, and says if the presidential race in Florida is close, she'll vote for Hillary Clinton.

Bradshaw, who's been close to the former Florida governor for decades and was senior adviser to his 2016 campaign, officially switched her registration to unaffiliated. She told CNN's Jamie Gangel in an email interview that the GOP is "at a crossroads and have nominated a total narcissist -- a misogynist -- a bigot."

Meg Whitman, a Hewlett Packard executive and Republican fund-raiser, said Tuesday that she would support Hillary Clinton for president and give a substantial contribution to her campaign in order to stop Donald J. Trump, whom she berated as a threat to American democracy.

"I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her," Ms. Whitman said in a telephone interview.

She revealed that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had reached out to her in a phone call about a month ago, one of the first indications that Mrs. Clinton is aggressively courting Republican leaders. While acknowledging she diverged from Mrs. Clinton on many policy issues, Ms. Whitman said it was time for Republicans "to put country first before party."

And of course O'Reilly does not report any of this, while reporting that Obama said Trump is unfit to be the President, as if only Democrats think that, when many long time loyal Republicans also feel the same way, O'Reilly just does not report it because they are Republicans and it makes Trump look bad.

Warren Buffett Says Trump Is Afraid To Release His Taxes
By: Steve - August 5, 2016 - 8:00am

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Monday campaigned alongside Democrat Hillary Clinton at a big rally in his home state of Nebraska, where he challenged Republican Donald Trump to release his tax returns and said he would personally drive people to the polls in November.

After delivering a forceful rebuke of Trump's recent statements about the Muslim parents of a decorated American soldier killed in Iraq, Buffett said he wanted to surprise Clinton and make a little news by announcing the launch of a get-out-the vote effort.

"I pledge today that on Election Day, Nov. 8, I will take at least 10 people to the polls who would otherwise have difficulty getting there," Buffett said.

Buffett also said he was backing a website, Drive2Vote, that would coordinate transportation to cast votes and that he had reserved a trolley that seats 32 people for the same purpose.

"I'm going to be on it all day. I'm going to do selfies, whatever it takes," Buffett said.

Buffett, a Clinton backer, said his goal is to generate the highest voter turnout in the congressional district that includes Omaha of any in the country. Nebraska is one of just two U.S. states that award electoral votes in presidential elections by congressional district.

Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate is based in Omaha, stressed that this gives power to Omaha residents to affect the outcome of the election.

Buffett earlier challenged Trump to release his tax returns, something that presidential candidates typically do. The New York businessman has said he cannot do so until the Internal Revenue Service has completed an audit.

"Now I've got news for him," Buffett said. "I'm under audit, too, and I would be delighted to meet him anyplace, anytime, before the election.

"I'll bring my tax return, he can bring his tax return, and let people ask us questions about the items that are on there," Buffett added, saying Trump was afraid not of the IRS but voters.

Most people think Trump is not releasing his tax returns because it will show he made a lot of money and paid no taxes on it, and that he gives very little to charity. And of course O'Reilly never says a word about it, but when Democrats run he demands they release their tax returns.

Buffett spoke for nearly 30 minutes to a capacity crowd of roughly 3,100 in a high school in suburban Omaha with Clinton sitting at his side. He said the final straw for him was an ABC interview with Trump that aired Sunday in which Trump criticized Khizr Khan and Ghazala Khan.

The Khans took the stage at the DNC in Philadelphia last week, and Khizr Khan delivered a speech about his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed by a bomb in Iraq 12 years ago. He also attacked Trump for proposing a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Trump has said he was attacked by Khizr Khan, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a Muslim, when he publicly doubted the real estate developer had read the U.S. Constitution.

Trump also questioned whether Ghazala Khan, who stood at her husband's side during the address, was allowed to speak. Khan had also said that Trump had sacrificed nothing, prompting Trump in his ABC interview to say, "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices."

Buffett bluntly contradicted Trump.

"No member of the Buffett family has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. No member of the Trump family has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan," Buffett said. "We've both done extremely well during this period and our families haven't sacrificed anything."

Dishonest O'Reilly Blames Media For Trump Being A Terrible Candidate
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 11:50am

Here are some facts, Donald Trump is a far-right crazy idiot, he is a man that acts like a spoiled 5 year old rich kid. He is a terrible candidate for President, he does not listen to his advisers and the more he talks the lower his numbers go. He constantly runs around calling people names and saying stupid things that make him look like a fool.

Every day he says 3 or 4 things that are just stupid, or crazy, or both. So the media simply reports on the trainwreck that is Donald Trump. This leads to his poll numbers dropping, which they should, because he is a fool.

So what does Bill O'Reilly do, he blames the media, which is just laughable. It's not the media's fault that Trump is a massive idiot who acts like a spoiled 5 year old rich kid, it's Trump's fault. But O'Reilly does not blame Trump for being an idiot, he blames the media for reporting that Trump is an idiot, when he is, and that is a fact.

O'Reilly even admits that some of the negative Trump headlines are his fault, but not all of them. He said the media is on a Jihad against Trump, which is just insane, and it proves that O'Reilly is a biased Trump supporter. Because when the media is reporting is true, nobody denies it, except O'Reilly and a few Republicans.

They cry bias when the media reports negative news about the guy they support, which does no good, because it will not change how the media reports on Trump, and it just makes the guy crying about media bias look like a fool. It's not media bias, it's the media doing their job.

Unlike O'Reilly who is biased, for Trump. He thinks anyone who reports negative about Trump is biased, which is just ridiculous. The media is simply doing their job, reporting what is happening.

Here is what the insane O'Reilly said Wednesday night:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Unfortunately, it is the press that largely defines the campaigns for president, and as we all know, the American media leans sharply left.

So, we the people are often barraged with propaganda, rather than reality. As an example, a populist newspaper, USA Today, it's on a jihad against Donald Trump, posting negative page one headlines day after day.

Sometimes Mr. Trump deserves the headlines, but there's little balance in that paper.

Now it is certainly true that most voters do not rely on the media to make decisions, but some uninformed Americans are swayed by what they believe is popular opinion.

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

Now think about this, O'Reilly said: "So, we the people are often barraged with propaganda, rather than reality."

And he should know, because he works for the most biased propaganda news network in the country, who ignores the reality, so he is an expert on propaganda and a lack of reality in the media. Fox News and their employees have no right to cry about bias and propaganda, because they are more guilty of it than anyone, especially Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly and Fox have almost no balance, and yet O'Reilly is crying about balance at the USA Today newspaper. It's laughable, because everything O'Reilly complained about is 20 times worse on his show and at Fox than the USA Today newspaper or any other media source in America.

If O'Reilly wants to find bias in the media he only has to look in the mirror and watch Fox, because that is where 90% of the media bias is, but he never complains about media bias at Fox, he only claims it is everywhere else. Which is not only a lie, it's insane and just laughable. Reporting on the crazy and stupid things Trump says and does is not bias, it's journalism, something O'Reilly knows nothing about.

NYPD Commissioner Bratton Appalled By Trump Purple Heart Comments
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 11:30am

Here is a partial transcript from Morning Joe:

MIKE BARNICLE: I'm wondering, as a Vietnam veteran, what was your reaction to the Purple Heart incident yesterday, where Donald Trump got the Purple Heart?

BILL BRATTON: I was appalled by it, quite frankly. Appalled that the Purple Heart, along with the medals for bravery, highest awards you can give, serious injury received in combat. And the idea to treat it so lightly, amazed -- absolutely amazed and appalled.

WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): Donald Trump has called himself the law and order candidate. He has said that our cities are spiraling out of control, and he said he's the guy that can come in and help stop that. Do you believe either of those things to be true?

BRATTON: I do not. I do not. Talks tough, but I think I know a little bit about law and order and policing, and I would not trust that he would be able to do much about that, being quite frank with you. Cities aren't spiraling out of control. Some unfortunately have rises in crime. New York City fortunately is not one of them.

I always wonder about tough guys. Talk tough. I wonder if Mr. Trump's ever taken a punch in his life, in the sense of an actual punch. It's nice to talk tough, but in this situation, I would have serious concerns about his abilities in that area.

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

And here is what I would say, why in the hell did Trump accept the medal?

He did not earn it so he should not have it. If someone tried to give me their purple heart I would say this: With all respect I will tell you to keep your purple heart, I did not earn it so I can not accept it.

It shows what a fool Trump is to accept it, because I do not know anyone who would. Trump should have said it is your medal so you should keep it.

O'Reilly Ignores Own Network Poll With Clinton 10 Points Up On Trump
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 11:00am

O'Reilly loves to report on polls, except when that poll does not fit his narrative that his friend Donald Trump has a chance to beat Clinton. Even when that poll was done by his own network, Fox News. O'Reilly still ignored it, while reporting some ridiculous prediction by a Stony Brook Professor that says Trump has an 87% chance to beat Clinton, which even Karl Rove said is nonsense.

More bad news for Republicans came in the form of a Fox News Poll that showed Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49%-39% in the race for the White House.

Clinton's lead in the Fox News Poll increased from 44%-38% to 49%-39% in less than a week. A troubling trend for Republicans is the flatness of Trump's support. Trump has been between 38% and 39% support for the past six weeks.

In a three party race with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson included, Clinton leads 44%-35%-12%. A problem for Trump is that nearly half of Republicans (49%) would rather have a different nominee, while 56% of Democrats are satisfied with Clinton.

Hillary Clinton was more trusted than Trump to make a decision on using nuclear weapons, to look out for them during tough economic times, to nominate the next Supreme Court justice, and to protect the Constitution.

In other words, Clinton was more trusted than Trump with the duties of being president. Sixty-five percent of those polled said Clinton was qualified to be president, but only 43% expressed the belief that Trump is qualified to be president.

Trump's attacks on the Gold Star Khan family have been devastating for his campaign as 69% of those polled said that Trump's comments were out of bounds.

Voters are paying attention to the words and actions of Donald Trump, and they are coming to the decision that he is unqualified to be president. When even the Fox News poll shows Trump getting crushed on character and qualifications questions, the Republican Party has a big problem.

There is no silver lining for the GOP. The American people are paying attention and are currently deciding that they would rather support the qualified and competent person for president over a Republican nominee whose behavior has been nothing but erratic and unstable.

For all of the media talk about 2016 being an unconventional outsider election, Hillary Clinton is leading by being competent and qualified in the face of the endless barrage of questionable statements and behavior coming from Donald Trump.

Trump Veteran Adviser Says Khizr Khan Is A Muslim Brotherhood Double Agent
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 10:30am

An official adviser to the Trump campaign has escalated the attacks on Khizr Khan, the gold star father who was critical of Trump at the Democratic convention, baselessly accusing him of being a "Muslim Brotherhood agent."

The adviser, Al Baldasaro, tweeted a link to an article from Shoebat.com, a fringe anti-Islam conspiracy website. The article also suggests (without any evidence) that Humayun Khan, who was awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze, was a jihadist who joined the military to kill Americans.

"Read the truth about your hero, Mr Khan who used his son as Political Pawn" http://shoebat.com

The piece, written by Theodore and Walid Shoebat, is less of an article and more of a lunatic right-wing dream of conspiracies strung together. It is all based on a 1983 law review article on Islamic Law published in the Houston Journal Of International Law.

From there, the Shoebats are off to the races, accusing Khan of being a "a Muslim plant working with the Hillary Clinton campaign" and suggesting his son was a double agent working for the US and Al-Qaeda, who was killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished."

It's all made up, they have no evidence any of that is true at all, they have nothing to prove it, zero, nada.

The piece also revives discredited attacks linking Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Hillary Clinton, to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In recent days, Shoebat has also called on the government to execute gay people for sodomy and Hillary Clinton for witchcraft.

He also said women who have abortions should be lined up and shot by firing squad.

And he is now a trusted source of information by members of the Trump campaign.

The article was also promoted by Roger Stone, one of Trump's oldest and most influential advisers. Stone left the campaign in 2015 but is still in regular contact with Trump, providing political advice.

"Mr. Khan more than an aggrieved father of a Muslim son- he's Muslim Brotherhood agent helping Hillary" http://shoebat.com

In July, Baldasaro called on Hillary Clinton to be "put in the firing line and shot for treason." Baldasaro refused to apologize.

In a statement to the Washington Post, the Trump campaign said they "do not agree" with Baldasaro but were "incredibly grateful for his support." And they did not sever ties with him.

The Boston Globe reports Baldasaro is "not just some marginal figure in Trump's world" but "advises the candidate on veterans issues and he's appeared with Trump at numerous events."

Chuck Todd Details "The Unraveling" Of Trump's Campaign
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is a partial transcript from Meet The Press Daily:

CHUCK TODD (HOST): Welcome to MTP Daily and welcome to 36 hours of total and complete chaos inside the Republican Party. Whole hour we're going to take you inside what appears to be a crisis that's facing Trump or the party or both and what may be dire options facing many in the party.

Grin and bear it and hope he changes? Unendorse him? Or three, convince him to quit and you will be shocked by the number of Republicans that are inquiring already about the process of replacing Trump on the ballot if somehow they convinced him to step aside. But all of those may be unicorn theories in the case.

It's an unprecedented cloud of turmoil that is surrounding his campaign. Trump himself, though, addressed the turmoil, or at least the speculation around it, to supporters in Florida. He wrapped up just moments ago and right out of the gate went after these reports about his campaign.

Yes, Trump has survived countless controversies before but even he hasn't seen a 36-hour stretch this intense. In fact, let's just put it up on the board. Over the last 36 hours, the RNC and Reince Priebus are supposedly publicly apoplectic, behind the scenes, at what they’re seeing from Trump. Some are even gaming out scenarios where Trump is not the nominee.

Then we've learned some of Trump's closest allies are trying to plot some sort of intervention with him in order to attempt to right the ship. People close to Trump's campaign chief are describing the situation as, quote, suicidal -- at least that's the mood, we're told, inside the campaign.

Trump is refusing to support his party's top leader in Congress, Paul Ryan, in his primary. He he doesn't want to support John McCain in his primary either.

Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, has to break with Trump, saying I strongly endorse Ryan's re-election. Don't forget, Trump's latest attack, again, on the gold star family, the Khans. His repeated suggestions that somehow this election is already rigged. He's under fire for comments about accepting a purple heart. He's facing questions over comments over his definition of sexual harassment in the workplace.

We've seen at least three Republicans, fairly prominent, endorse Hillary Clinton in the past 36 hours. Oh, by the way, Trump's fitness for office has been questioned including a purported curiosity with the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

And last but not least, a sitting president of the United States called one of his potential successors unfit for that office. In totality, it is an unprecedented level of turmoil, and we didn't even get to every aspect of different stories that rained down on him yesterday.

And of course, you would not know anything about any of this if you get your news from Bill O'Reilly, because he is refusing to report any of it. He is covering for Trump by ignoring it as if it never even happened.

But he did have time for this nonsense:

Gender Identity Regulations

Guests: Shannon Bream & Eric Shawn

In New York City right now, if you get someone's gender identity wrong you can now be fined big money - up to $250,000! Truth Serum will break it down tonight.

Unresolved Problems

Olympic Chaos in Rio

Guests: Monica Crowley & Eboni Williams

This Friday, the Olympic opening ceremonies will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It should be an exciting time for the athletes but there are a ton of problems there: violent crime, failing facilities and pollution beyond belief. We'll talk it over tonight with Monica and Eboni.

Miller Time

Guest: Dennis Miller

The D-Man has some thoughts on the chaotic scene at the Rio Olympics and a CNN analyst cursing live on air when talking about his dislike of Donald Trump.

Former Nuclear Missile-Launch Officer Says Trump With Nukes Is Scary
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is a partial transcript from All In With Chris Hayes:

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): You wrote this. "I could sit a hundred feet underground on alert knowing that POTUS would not make me do my duty, not unless it was the absolute last resort. But imagine having to turn launch keys not knowing if we were under attack, or if it was because a foreign leader said a mean thing on Twitter."

That's the kind of tail-risk scenario that has run through a lot of people's minds. Hillary Clinton's mentioned it, but it's just something that you hear come up. Celinda Lake talked about a focus group, I mean -- even if it's infinitesimally small of a chance, it is -- does it stop you, does it keep you up at night, in a certain way?

JOHN NOONAN: Well, it does. Frankly, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency keeps me up at night, regardless of our strategic forces. I have several friends in the military still that are like family to me, and the thought of him as Commander-In-Chief is disconcerting.

They're going to be looking to him for leadership. They deserve the best leadership in the world, and I don't think they're going to get it with Donald Trump. You add nuclear forces, strategic forces to that equation and it gets ugly very fast.

HAYES: One of the things that I think folks should understand, right, about the entirety of the deterrence principle around the nuclear arsenal, which is its own kind of long discussion and debate about whether that's the best thing that we should have for long time. But the idea behind the triad, which Trump notoriously didn't know is that essentially mutually assured destruction, right?

Assured destruction of anyone that would attempt to do something, right? That we would have the capability to respond with overwhelming force, and that essentially acts as a deterrent, but it's key that no one contemplates us using it as a first strike capability.

NOONAN: Most presidents retain the option of a first use simply to keep other nations in check. It's not a bad policy. What throws a wrench in the equation, the deterrence equation that you capably described, is the fact that you no longer have a rational person talking about that policy.

Donald Trump has back-tracked on multiple statements having to do with national security. You don't really know where he stands. And look, uncertainty in this business is a dangerous thing, it's fundamentally dangerous.

So, look, yes, I'm concerned. Yes, every American who is contemplating pulling a lever for this guy in November should be concerned.

O'Reilly Ignores Biggest News Story Of The Day Wednesday
By: Steve - August 4, 2016 - 8:00am

The biggest news story of the day on Wednesday was the story about the Trump campaign falling apart and the possibility of the GOP replacing Trump because he is such a bad candidate who will not listen to his advisers. And Bill O'Reilly totally ignored it on the Wednesday Factor show, not a word.

Which is proof Bill O'Reilly is not an Independent journalist, because everyone in the media reported on the story, except for O'Reilly. He ignored it because he is covering for Trump, who is his friend, and he does not want to report negative news about Trump or his campaign.

This is a bombshell story that was on all the news shows all day long, and the biggest story on the internet. And yet, O'Reilly acted as if there was no story. Now imagine what he would say if the story was about Hillary Clinton, he would do the entire show on it.

Trump Campaign In Turmoil As Senior GOP Officials Consider Replacing Him
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 11:50am

Here is some more news you will never see reported on the O'Reilly Factor, because O'Reilly is in the tank for Trump and does not report negative news about Trump.

Donald Trump's campaign has descended into outright turmoil, with top advisers exasperated and "suicidal" - and Republican leaders are reportedly exploring ways to replace the mogul on the ticket.

Senior GOP officials have grown so bewildered with Trump's bizarre antics - most recently his aggression toward the Muslim-American parents of a fallen soldier, his peculiar flirtations with Vladimir Putin and his refusal to back House Speaker Paul Ryan's reelection bid - that they are actively exploring how they could replace the bombastic billionaire if he were to abandon his bid, ABC News reported Wednesday.

With Trump breaking rule after rule this election season, officials aren't dismissing the possibility he could give up his run and drop out of the race altogether before Election Day in November - and they want to be prepared if he does.

In that event, the 168 members of the RNC would initiate a complicated and drawn-out process that would result in the selection of a new nominee, ABC News reported.

Top aides, including campaign Chairman Paul Manafort have become paralyzingly frustrated with their inability to steer their boss away from waging unsavory fights - most recently his ongoing battle with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the Muslim-American parents of a fallen U.S. soldier whom Trump has attacked repeatedly since their appearance at last week's Democratic National Convention.

He's also drawn flak for his refusal Tuesday to endorse the re-election bids of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his perpetual and uneducated musings regarding whether he has a relationship with Putin and over Russia's involvement in Ukraine.

His latest snafus have prompted his top staffers, including Manafort, to "feel like they are wasting their time" in trying to help him, CNN reported.

Basically, they are saying he is nuts and acting like a 5 year old child that will not listen to anyone who is advising him.

"Manafort has made clear no one can help him if no one believes he will do what it takes to win," a senior Trump aide told the network.

CNBC reported Manafort had begun "mailing it in" and that his staff was "suicidal" over Trump's repeated and increasingly disastrous gaffes.

The mogul has seen mass defections among high-profile Republicans, including Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) and GOP foreign policy expert Richard Armitage, who have all said in recent days and weeks, with increasingly harsh language, they would ditch Trump and vote for Hillary Clinton in November.

And in an indication that more Republican dominoes could soon fall, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Wednesday that he would not join Trump at a campaign event in Green Bay on Friday.

Nate Silver Just Updated His Presidential Election Prediction
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 11:30am

UPDATE: Wednesday Night -- A new poll taken in Arizona only, now has Hillary Clinton 3 points ahead of Trump, 45% to 42%, so Trump is only winning 1 battleground state now, out of the 14 states needed to win the election. Hillary is ahead in 13 of them to Trumps 1, he only has Georgia left, and his small lead there is less than 2 percent.

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

And of course Bill O'Reilly totally ignored it, even though he is known as the #1 political election expert in America right now. Here are his current predictions:

Chances of winning: Hillary Clinton - 85.9% -- Donald Trump - 14.1%

Electoral votes: Hillary Clinton - 345 -- Donald Trump - 192

Popular vote: Hillary Clinton - 48.2% -- Donald Trump - 42.3%

Silver also now has Hillary Clinton winning 12 of the 14 states that you need to win to be the President. Including all the big 3 states, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hillary is ahead by 3.9%, 4.1%, and 5.8% in the big 3 states.

Trump is now only winning 2 of the 14, Georgia and Arizona, but just barely, he is ahead by 1.1% in both states, which is within the margin of error, so he could actually be losing in all 14 battleground states.

If Hillary wins all 3 of the big states, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Trump has no chance to win, zero. And she is winning all 3 of them by more than 4 points.

Notice that O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, even though it's public record and all at - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

Republicans Stunned As Trump Stabs Ryan And McCain In The Back
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 11:00am

So much for that "Republican unity" some of the press has been imagining since the RNC. This is, after all, Donald Trump we are dealing with. There is no low too low.

And so just days after Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) humiliated himself by appearing to endorse Donald Trump by speaking at the RNC, Trump is stabbing him in the back by refusing to endorse Ryan in his primary. Trump even went so far as to praise his opponent.

Washington Post's Philip Rucker reported, "Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul Ryan in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is 'not quite there yet' in endorsing his party's top-ranking elected official."

In fact, "Trump praised the House speaker's underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running 'a very good campaign.' Trump said that Ryan has sought his endorsement, but that as of now he is only 'giving it very serious consideration.'"

Aside from the issue of backstabbing, what we are witnessing here is a person who doesn't know the first thing about diplomacy and that matters because it's a major part of the job he's running for.

Sure, Paul Ryan only mentioned Donald Trump once in his RNC speech, and as Jason Easley wrote in these pages, "Paul Ryan's speech wasn't just the oratorical version of NyQuil, but it was also one big attempt to revise history in his party's favor - and it failed big time."

But still. There's this thing called building a coalition and building political power. Maybe no one has told Donald Trump that politics doesn't work like the building trades. For a builder, Trump is quite the demolition expert. But the goal of an effective president is to build enough political will that he or she can actually implement some of their agenda.

Additionally, Trump stabbed Republican Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the back - again. It wasn't enough to say the man wasn't a hero. Now Trump won't support McCain in his Arizona primary.

Rucker wrote, "Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily."

This is a stunning way for the Party's standard bearer to treat the Speaker and the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee.

Donald Trump is a Republican wrecking ball. He has no idea what he's doing and he stops at nothing to humiliate members of his own party.

There is no unity under a party leader like Donald Trump. There are only Donald Trump and his very large, relentlessly needy ego. He will let any petty grievance justify his destruction of people in his own party, including the Speaker who already humiliated himself by even speaking at the RNC ostensibly on Donald Trump's behalf.

Maybe this is the out for Speaker Ryan and others to finally get a backbone and refuse to continue endorsing this mental infant. It was obvious to all but Republicans that Trump would behave like this. He will also do this in the White House should he win access, and Republicans really need to start facing that fact instead of burying their heads in the sands of fantasy.

O'Reilly Ignored Wisconsin Voter ID Laws Being Struck Down
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 10:30am

Now remember this, O'Reilly has said a million times that he does not allow speculation on his show, he says he only deals in the facts. He even calls it the no speculation zone. Then he speculates like crazy, but only when it involves his friend Donald Trump.

Tuesday night he speculated that Khizr Khan was obviously hired by the Clinton campaign, with no proof, none, he does not have a shread of evidence to back that claim up. Making him a joke of a journalist, who does not even follow his own rules.

And btw, Khan said nobody hired him to do anything, or told him what to say, he was asked to speak at the DNC by the Clinton campaign, to speak about how muslims are in the military and they love America. O'Reilly is working with Trump to defend him, so he just makes stuff up and speculates his rear end off, even after he said he never speculates.

He is also trying to help Trump by giving him time on his show, while Hillary Clinton never gets equal time, it's all Trump all the time on the Factor. Which is bias and unethical, if Clinton does not get equal time then O'Reilly should not have Trump on.

Here is a partial transcript of what O'Reilly said:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): It will never stop. Look, here is what your supporters want to know and some people are undecided who you need to persuade over to your camp. It wasn't wise to bring the mother in. I understand Khan.

And I got that you know, he is going to come after you and he was obviously hired by the Clinton campaign to do that. It was orchestrated as we just said in the talking points. Everybody knew the script.

But the mother is just sitting there. And for you to bring her in, that gives them the opportunity. Just opens the door for them to come in and hammer you as this mean kind of guy.

DONALD TRUMP: I understand that, but, you know, part of it is I read a lot and I watch a lot. And many, many people discuss this. Many, many people they said it. So, when I said it, it became like a big deal. And that's, you know, the way it is.

But I was very viciously attacked and I said not very viciously back. And the press -- especially CNN because they are very dishonest. They must be having very bad ratings problems or something which actually I hear they are. But they just kept it going and it never stopped. And honestly, it's too bad.

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

Brian Stelter @brianstelter reported this: O'Reilly last hour: Khan was "obviously hired by the Clinton campaign."

Khan on phone with me now: "No. No formal association w/campaign."

So O'Reilly just makes it up, it's called speculation and defending his friend Donald Trump.

O'Reilly Ignored Wisconsin Voter ID Laws Being Struck Down
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 10:00am

A federal judge has struck down a string of Wisconsin voting restrictions passed by the Republican-led legislature and ordered the state to revamp its voter identification rules, finding that they disenfranchised minority voters.

And O'Reilly has totally ignored it, just as he ignored the appeals court striking down the same kind of Republican passed Voter ID laws in North Carolina. O'Reilly ignores it because he supports the laws and claims they are not stopping any minorities from voting, even though court after court has ruled they are.

Which is just more proof O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing hack who does not report the truth.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson, in his 119-page ruling, said the requirements that Wisconsin voters show either a photo identification or go through a special petition process had unfairly burdened minorities and needed to be reformed or replaced before the November presidential election.

"To put it bluntly, Wisconsin's strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease," the judge wrote.

Peterson left the voting rules intact for the Aug 9. primary elections for federal, state and local offices, saying to change them less than two weeks in advance would be disruptive.

But his ruling was expected to impact the November presidential election in Wisconsin, which could prove a crucial battleground state for Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

Peterson also struck down as unconstitutional limits on in-person absentee voting, residency requirements and a ban on using expired student identification.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said in a tweet that he was "disappointed in the decision by an activist federal judge" and expected to file an appeal.

A spokesman for One Wisconsin Institute, one of the two groups which filed the challenge, hailed Peterson's ruling as "a huge win not only for the plaintiffs but for democracy itself."

Wisconsin is one of several Republican-led states that have passed such voter ID laws in recent years amid fear of fraudulent voting by illegal immigrants and others.

Among the nine states with the strictest laws, insisting on state-issued photo identification for voters, are Georgia, Indiana, Texas and Virginia.

A U.S. appeals court judge earlier this month ruled the Texas law discriminatory. The judge sent the case back to the lower court to examine whether the law had a discriminatory purpose and also asked the court for a short-term fix for the November general election.

O'Reilly and the Republicans say voter ID laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. Democrats say the laws are really intended to make it harder for poor African-Americans and Latinos, who tend to vote Democrat, to vote.

Morning Joe Slams Trump For Lying About Knowing Micheal Bloomberg
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 9:00am

Not only did Trump get caught lying that he does not know Michael Bloomberg, or ever met him, he also praised him when he was Mayor of New York, saying he did a great job. There are photos of Trump playing golf with Bloomberg, and yet, he still lied that he did not know him and said he has never even met him.

Donald Trump is just a massive liar, virtually nothing he says is true. All politicians lie a little, about numbers, etc. but Trump is a liar on everything, nothing he says is true, which is something we have never seen. Now think about this, if you are a Trump supporter and you know he is lying about everything, how can you believe he is going to do what he says he will, and how can you support this liar.

Here is the transcript from Morning Joe:

JOE SCAROROUGH (HOST): If you meet Michael Bloomberg, you know you've met Michael Bloomberg, and especially -- do we have that picture that you guys showed going to break? Let's see there. Is that Giuliani?

SAM STEIN: That is.

SCARBOROUGH: And Donald Trump, and Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Clinton. I wonder --

STEIN: That's Joe Torre and Billy Crystal too.

SCARBOROUGH: Joe Torre and Billy Crystal. So did Donald Trump really forget that he was standing in between Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Clinton?

BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Well, that position is in contrast to what Trump thought of Bloomberg during his final term in office.

Well Trump praised Bloomberg for doing, quote, "a great job as mayor of New York City."

SCARBOROUGH: Mark Halperin, please explain this us. Because we want to understand.

MARK HALPERIN: Well, I'll remind everybody, Michael Bloomberg's my boss. But, Donald Trump just takes these positions that he doesn't know somebody unless it's in his interests to know them. And that you can't criticize him if you never met him, but he can criticize people whether he's met them or not.

SCARBOROUGH: But, how do you say, "I've never met Michael Bloomberg, I don't know him," when he has to remember he went out golfing with Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Billy Crystal, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Torre?

It's just stupid. It's just staggeringly stupid to be making these mistakes. I would would call them rookie mistakes, but rookie politicians don't even make these mistakes.

Olbermann Shows That Trump Could Not Pass A Sanity Test
By: Steve - August 3, 2016 - 8:00am

In his year of campaigning, Donald Trump has called Lindsey Graham "a nut job," Glenn Beck "a real nut job," and Bernie Sanders "a wacko."

Trump has insisted Ben Carson's got a "pathological disease," and asked of Barack Obama: "Is our president insane?" He called Ted Cruz "unstable," "unhinged," "a little bit of a maniac," and "crazy or very dishonest."

He also called the entire CNBC network "crazy." And he called Megyn Kelly "crazy' six times.

Respectful reticence about aspersions and cliches and mental-health questions in a time in which mocking was seemingly slowly maturing into concern, died a long time ago in this presidential cycle, and it died at Donald Trump's hands.

If the question is asked seriously, just the examination might explain how Trump has seemingly survived dozens of moments that might each have been campaign-enders for almost anybody else. Why have we not asked if a given presidential candidate might be disqualified from office due to psychological reasons?

Because we not only can't see this forest for the trees, but each time we try, there are even more trees blocking our view. In the 24-hour news cycle, each successive John Yerkes Iselin moment is not registered cumulatively; it merely supplants the one from last week. Or yesterday. Or this morning.

This could also explain Trump's seeming imperviousness to his own mind-bending campaign. Surely it must be exhausting to attack Mexicans (June 16, 2015), to attack John McCain (July 18), attack Muslims (December 7), attack the Pope (February 18, 2016), attack President Clinton (May 18), attack candidates who use a teleprompter (May 27) a day after you give a speech using a teleprompter (May 26).

It's got to be exhausting, unless, as the old joke goes, "No brain, no pain."

The actual sanity test I found is called, "The Hare Psychopathy Checklist."

Introduced by Canadian criminal psychologist Robert D. Hare in 1980, it is still in use today. However, as a practicing therapist who walked me through it agreed, it serves as a kind of triage device to separate the injured from the tripping from the psychopathic.

For each of the 20 items on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, you’re supposed to assign the subject a 0, 1, or 2. The highest and most dangerous score is a 40. In the U.S., the accepted minimum score for possible psychopathy is 30.

Which means any score between 30 and 40 is bad news, the article goes into detail on the 20 questions, and gives the Trump score for each one, but it is very long so I will skip that and go to the summary and the final score.

Trump got a 1 or a 2 on every one of the 20 questions, except 1, where he got a zero. And his final Score was 32, out of 40, so he was over 30.

And there you have it. With 30 points being the marker at which professionals could present a diagnosis of psychopathy, the implications are clear. We rightly see the latest Trump event, whatever it is this time, as one of the most unbelievable developments in American political history.

But the simple mechanics of following, reporting, and writing the proverbial new high and low every single day means that they could be missing one overriding truth about the health of the most remarkable presidential candidate since at least 1864.

In short, the exercise with the very professional Hare Psychopathy Checklist suggests that if you were betting on it, you'd probably want to bet that Donald Trump couldn't pass a sanity test.

And now, having slogged through this inventory of the Citizen Kane Storage Unit of bizarre presidential candidate conduct, go look at Twitter. Because in the time it took you to read this, he's probably just done something new to raise his score above 32.

After Terrible Week Trump Fires Senior Adviser
By: Steve - August 2, 2016 - 11:30am

And I guess O'Reilly just somehow frogot to report it Monday night, I am sure he will talk all about it on the Tuesday Factor show, haha, NOT! He will ignore it totally, as he does with almost all the bad news for his friend Donald Trump.

Monday Donald Trump fired senior adviser Ed Brookover, two sources close to his campaign said.

The sources did not say why Brookover was fired.

According to Politico, Brookover was not the only staffer who was dismissed. Jimmy Stracner, the campaign's Western regional political director, was among at least two aides that were fired on Monday.

A statement from the Trump campaign confirmed Brookover had left, but did not mention Stracner.

"The campaign has parted ways with Ed, but we are thankful to him for his many contributions and appreciate his continued support," the Trump campaign said in a statement.

Brookover did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brookover, who joined the Trump campaign in March, was appointed in June to serve as a liaison between the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee.

Prior to joining Trump, Brookover served as campaign manager to Ben Carson during his failed bid for the Republican nomination.

O'Reilly Ignores What The Top Expert In America Is Saying
By: Steve - August 2, 2016 - 11:00am

Monday night O'Reilly cited some unknown guy from Stony Brook named Helmut Norpoth, who said Trump has an 87% chance to beat Hillary Clinton. Nobody has ever heard of him and he uses a model that is based on historical data, not the current demographics, etc.

Most experts think his model is flawed, and there is one political expert who we all know has been very accurate, Nate Silver at 538.com. He has predicted the last 2 or 3 presidential elections exactly right, using his own data, and he is the #1 expert on the country right now.

So guess what, he has Clinton easily beating Trump, so of course O'Reilly ignores him to spin for his friend Trump. Here is what he is saying.

To begin with, Silver has Clinton with a 64.8% chance to beat Trump, with Trump having a 35.1% chance to beat her. Which is miles different from the unknown Norpoth, who predicts Trump has an 87% chance to beat Clinton, even though Trump is only winning the white vote, and just barely.

Now let's look at the electoral college vote, which is how you actually win the election. Something O'Reilly totally ignores and never mentions. Silver has Clinton with 303 electoral votes, and Trump with 234, which gives her way more than the 270 needed to win, and Trump far short of the 270.

And think about this, Silver only has Clinton 3 points ahead of Trump in the popular vote, 47% to 44%, and yet, he has her crushing Trump in the electoral college vote, which O'Reilly will not report.

Here is something else O'Reilly never mentions, Silver says his win probabilities come from simulating the election 20,000 times, which produces a distribution of possible outcomes for each state. He runs a computer program simulation 20,000 times, and then comes up with his analysis, and he has Clinton winning easily.

Everyone who knows anything about Presidential elections knows that the election is decided in 14 states, and in the Nate Silver prediction he has Clinton winning 11 of those 14 states. Trump only wins 3 of them, which is not even close to enough to get him to 270 electoral votes.

Out of those 14 states Silver has Trump winning North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, and that is it, Clinton is winning the other 11, including Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, the big three. But O'Reilly never mentions any of that. And btw, in North Carolina Trump is in danger of losing there too, because Clinton is only 0.3% behind Trump there.

Think about all that, then ask yourself why O'Reilly never mentions any of that, while cherry picking the prediction of ONE guy at Stony Brook who is using a flawed election model that nobody has ever heard of, and the answer is simple, O'Reilly is a biased fraud who wants the people to think Trump has a chance to win.

O'Reilly does that because if he reports what Nate Silver and Larry Sabato are saying, the two most well known election experts in the country, that Clinton will easily win the electoral vote and the White House, it will depress the Trump supporters and supress their vote. Because if they think Trump will lose badly they will stay home and not vote.

What O'Reilly and the Republicans are doing is the exact same thing they did when Romney ran against Obama, they are telling you their guy can win if you just get out and vote, even though he lost badly and Trump is losing badly. And the same thing that happened with Romney and Obama is going to happen with Trump and Clinton.

Trump will get a lot of the popular vote, but get crushed in the electoral college vote. My Prediction is 330 to 200. I do not think Trump will even break 200 in the electoral vote, which is worse than Romney did. But you will not hear any of this from O'Reilly, because he is a biased hack who is trying to help Trump win, just as he did with Romney, and he is going to fail, just as Romney failed big time.

Another Negative Trump Poll O'Reilly Ignored
By: Steve - August 2, 2016 - 10:30am

Shocking Poll Finds That GOP Convention Made Voters Less Likely To Vote For Trump.

For the first time in Gallup's history, the Republican Party's convention made voters less likely to support Donald Trump.

According to Gallup:

Americans ratings of the Republican Party after the GOP convention two weeks ago were significantly worse, with 35% saying they viewed the party more favorably and 52% less favorably.

Gallup has asked this question about Democratic and Republican national conventions since 1984, with the exceptions of the 1984 and 1992 Republican conventions. The 2016 Republican convention is the first after which a greater percentage of Americans have said they are "less likely" rather than "more likely" to vote for the party's presidential nominee.

It takes a lot of effort to put on a convention that is so bad that it makes viewers not want to support the nominee, but that is exactly what Donald Trump managed to do.

So if the Republican convention turned off voters, how did Trump get a convention bounce in the polls?

The answer is that the polls showing a big bounce for Trump were wrong. It appears that the Trump bounce was only 1-2 percent, not the 5-10 points that many early post-GOP convention polls were showing.

There are a few polls that showed Trump getting no bounce. The state polls never shifted after the Republican convention, which is a big sign that the Trump bounce was largely a polling illusion.

Trump's gloom and doomfest in Cleveland hurt his campaign. Sure, lots of Americans watched, but a large percentage of the audience who tune in to see Trump were Democrats who were enjoying the trainwreck.

The Republican convention backfired on Donald Trump, as his plan to scare America into voting for him ended up helping Hillary Clinton and damaging his own campaign.

Trump Preparing For Loss By Claiming Election Is Going To Be Rigged
By: Steve - August 2, 2016 - 10:00am

It looks like Donald Trump is already coming up with excuses for his probable loss to Hillary Clinton this fall.

During a speech in Columbus, Ohio, Trump expressed his fear that the November election "is going to be rigged," essentially giving his supporters permission to question the legitimacy of the results if Clinton ends up winning - something likely to happen if the current odds are any indicator.

Trump said, "I'm afraid the election's going to be rigged. I have to be honest."

The truth is that Donald Trump and the GOP are increasingly worried that they are headed for a big loss to Hillary Clinton this fall.

According to The New York Times:

Even as Mr. Trump has ticked up in national polls in recent weeks, senior Republicans say his path to the 270 Electoral College votes needed for election has remained narrow - and may have grown even more precarious.

It now looks exceedingly difficult for him to assemble even the barest Electoral College majority without beating Hillary Clinton in a trifecta of the biggest swing states: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

President Obama won all three states in 2008 and 2012, and no Republican has won Pennsylvania in nearly three decades.

Most folks understand that the odds of a Donald Trump presidency are slim, and the Republican nominee is just planning ahead.

His hateful rhetoric, lack of policy knowledge, racism, white vote only strategy, and childish temperament have nothing to do with why he would lose to Clinton - according to Trump it's all the result of a rigged election system.

Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Law
By: Steve - August 2, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, even though he supports all these Republican passed Voter ID Laws. O'Reilly said the Voter ID Laws are great, and that they stop voter fraud. Which is a lie, because the laws are terrible and are a solution to a problem we do not have.

Voter fraud is very rare and almost never happens, even when it does it is less than one tenth of 1 percent, and has never changed the results of any election, ever. The Voter ID Laws are all passed by Republicans, no Democrat ever votes for them, and all they do is keep minorities and the poor from voting, which helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats, which is why they pass them in the first place.

The North Carolina Ruling Was Called A Deliberate Disenfranchisement Of Black Voters. But O'Reilly ignored it, because he does not want to report the truth.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a North Carolina law that required voters to show photo identification when casting ballots, ruling that it intentionally discriminated against African-American residents.

The ruling, a victory for rights advocates that will enable thousands of people to vote more easily, is also likely to be seen as a boost for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton going into the election on Nov. 8.

The state is politically important as it does not lean heavily toward either Democrats or Republicans, and Clinton is heavily favored among black Americans over Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The court's decision also canceled provisions of the law that scaled back early voting, prevented residents from registering and voting on the same day, and eliminated the ability of voters to vote outside their assigned precinct.

Critics argue that such provisions are designed to drive down turnout by minorities and poor people who rely more on flexible voting methods and are less likely to possess state-issued photo IDs.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit said the state legislature targeted African-Americans "with almost surgical precision."

"We cannot ignore the recent evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history," Judge Diana Motz wrote.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the court's ruling upheld Americans ability "to have a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this nation," in remarks she delivered on Friday in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

And of course the Republican leaders of North Carolina's state legislature vowed to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a joint statement they argued the decision ignored legal precedent.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican who is up for re-election in November, also said the state would appeal the ruling and "review other potential options."

The chances of any appeal being heard before the election appeared slim. The state's board of elections said the law's voting rules would not be in effect in November, "absent alternative guidance from the courts."

Voting rights advocates heralded the court's decision as a major victory.

"This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state's attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade," Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

Also on Friday, a federal judge ruled that parts of Wisconsin's voter ID law passed by the Republican-led legislature were unconstitutional. The judge ordered the state to revamp its voter ID rules, finding that they disenfranchised minority voters.

North Carolina's legislature passed the voting law weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 in June 2013 to eliminate a requirement that states with a history of discrimination, including North Carolina, receive federal approval before changing election laws.

A campaign spokesman for Cooper said on Friday that the attorney general had "urged the Governor to veto this legislation before he signed it because he knew it would be bad for North Carolina."

A Reuters review of the law indicated that as many as 29,000 voters might not have been counted in this November's election if the bans on same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting had remained in effect.

Folks, if you can not see what the Republicans are doing you are deaf, dumb, and blind. Instead of trying to win elections with policies that favor the majority of hard working Americans, the Republican party is trying to win elections by cheating, plain and simple.

They have a plan to pass these Voter ID Laws and keep some of the minorities and the poor from voting, who mostly vote for Democrats. Notice that only Republicans pass them, and only Republicans support them, and that includes O'Reilly.

There is almost no voter fraud, it almost never happens. The Republicans just use that as an excuse to try and block minorities and the poor from voting with these ridiculous Voter ID Laws, and that is a fact.

Here Is A Great Example Of The Bias For Trump From O'Reilly
By: Steve - August 2, 2016 - 8:00am

On the Monday night Factor show O'Reilly did a biased propaganda talking points memo saying how great Trump is and how bad Hillary is, during the ridiculous TPM O'Reilly cited a nut-job at Stony Brook named Helmut Norpoth. He claims Trump has an 87% chance to beat Hillary, based on some ridiculous historical formula, that measures factors from history, that have virtually nothing to do with what is happening today in America.

So what O'Reilly did is cherry pick the prediction of ONE guy, while ignoring all the other polls and electoral map predictions, that all have Hillary beating Trump. It's about 10 to 1 against Trump, and O'Reilly cited the ONE who has Trump winning.

Now get this, O'Reilly himself admitted it was all speculation, he said that in his own words. Even though he claims to have a no speculation zone, once again, in his own words he has said many times that he does not allow speculation on the Factor, then he cherry picks ONE prediction from ONE guy that says Trump has an 87% chance to win.

Now if you go to www.realclearpolitics.com and look at their polling averages, they have Clinton winning in them all, except one. The average has her up by 3.9 points, and the highest one has her up by 9 points. They average 7 polls, Clinton is ahead in 6 of them, by 1 to 9 points, Trump is ahead in one, by 4 points.

Then you look at all the electoral college maps, which actually decide the election, and Hillary is miles ahead in all of them, Trump is not winning in any of them, none. O'Reilly ignores all that to cite some unknown right-wing loon who has some kind of bogus election model.

This is what O'Reilly does, totally one sided analysis, while ignoring the majority. In fact, you have to really dig to find any polls that have Trump winning, and O'Reilly found it, from an unknown guy nobody has ever heard of, and of course O'Reilly only cited that ONE guy.

And btw folks, he did the exact same thing when Romney was running against Obama, and Romney got crushed in the electoral college. Now think about this, a group of political experts are saying this guy Norpoth is nuts, but O'Reilly never reported that. Let me show you what 3 political experts say about the Norpoth model.

Jarod Benowitz, Mathematical Physicist/Biophysicist:

I would equate the accuracy of his 'model' to flipping a slightly biased coin for every election and getting heads every time. If I had $10 million to wager against his prediction, I would do so confidently.

The statistical model is political pixie dust, lacking any and all flavors of rigor. There is a fundamental problem in building predictive models from historical events. The further you go into the past, correlations exponentially decouple with respect to the present.

This exponential decoupling is proportional to the exponential growth of technology. The political landscape has fundamentally changed in the post-internet era, any model not accounting for this change almost surely will fail.

Richard Cownie:

I think what occurred 100 years ago or 50 years has no predictive value for what will occur this year. In fact, given the rapid demographic change, and the rapid change in the ideological positioning of the two parties since 1990, I think relying on any data from before 1988 is nonsensical.

Bill Clinton positioned the Democrats as a center-left party, and that's still where they are; Newt Gingrich, G.W. Bush, and the Tea Party have moved the Republican party 3 big steps to the right. And the Nixon/Reagan/Rove/Trump reliance on coded or explicit appeals to racism looks like a net negative with the likely composition of the electorate.

Then if you try to build a model based on recent history, there's just not enough data to go on, and you end up overfitting it.

What will happen will happen. If both candidates run their campaigns equally well, the most likely outcome is the same as 2012, a solid Democratic win. But since all the remaining Republican candidates are vastly less experienced than either of the Dems, and since nobody on the Republican side since 2004 has managed to run a campaign without huge screwups (e.g. Clint Eastwood's empty-chair speech, picking Sarah Palin for VP, "de-skewing" the polls), I'd bet Dems will also have the advantage in campaign organization.

Matt Moore:

If you look at his model you will see that:

1) He's only predicted elections with this model or some version of it since 1996. So he only has 2 examples of a switch swing between party's that he predicted 2000 and 2008.

2) The model has a habit of predicting a larger win margin than really happens. For 2000 he was off by 4.7 percent and in 2008 3.6 percent. Both times the error was in favor of the Republicans. The overall error average is 3.1.

Giving that he is predicting the Republicans will win with 52.5% I say the odds are good that the Democrats will win since there only needs to be an error of 2.51 percent.

And the Larry Sabato electoral college map has not changed, he still has Hillary winning big, 340 to 190, he does not even have Trump breaking 200. O'Reilly ignores it all, he ignores poll after poll showing Trump losing, to cite ONE man nobody has ever heard of with some cock and bull historical formula.

It's 100 percent bias from O'Reilly. It's like having a thousand experts say Hillary is going to win, and ONE guy saying Trump will win, then you ignored the thousand experts and use the ONE guy who says Trump will win. That is what O'Reilly did, and it's ridiculous bias.

George Will Slams Donald Trump's Attacks On Khizr Khan
By: Steve - August 1, 2016 - 10:30am

Here is a partial transcript from Fox News Sunday:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Trump has made these comments before, as specifically as Juan Williams said, back last summer, a year ago when he said that John McCain wasn't a war hero, it didn't hurt him particularly in the Republican primaries. Does it hurt him now we're in the general election?

GEORGE WILL: The straw that broke the camel's back did not break the camel's back, it was the cumulative weight, the critical mass of straws, and the question is, will there be a critical mass of these things?

Just when you think American politics has hit rock bottom, Mr. Trump rises, or stoops, to the challenge of saying there is no rock bottom to American politics, and certainly attacking gold star parents is one of these things. His adherence, has said from the first, from June in 2015 when he entered the race, he tells it like it is.

It's never been clearer to me what the antecedent of the pronounce it is. Today the antecedent of the pronoun is flaws intimidated about this gold star couple that we saw, and then begins a minuet that we're now all familiar with.

Journalists do their duty and they call the office of Mitch McConnell and they call the office of Paul Ryan and say "what do you think about this?" And they say, "well we disagree with this too, but he still ought to be president of the United States."

I really can hardly wait to hear what Mike Pence has to say about this when he's asked today or tomorrow, as surely he will be, what he thinks of these remarks. The good news is this. The point of campaigns is to give voters information on which to base their decision, and they're getting a lot of relevant information.

And we also have this:

Mitch McConnell distances himself from Donald Trump's criticism of the father of a Muslim veteran

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell distanced himself slightly from Donald Trump's criticism of the father of an American Muslim soldier killed defending his unit in Iraq.

In a statement on Sunday, McConnell praised Khizr Khan's family for its sacrifice despite Khan's brutal critique of Trump's rhetoric about veterans and previous proposal to bar all Muslims from entering the US.

"Captain Khan was an American hero, and like all Americans I'm grateful for the sacrifices selfless young men like Captain Khan and their families have made for the war on terror," McConnell said.

"All Americans should value the patriotic service of the patriots who volunteer to selflessly defend us in the armed services. And as I have long made clear, I agree with the Khan's and families across the country that a travel ban on members of any religion is simply contrary to American values."

Gen. John Allen: Trump Presidency Would Cause A Civil Military Crisis
By: Steve - August 1, 2016 - 10:00am

Allen: "If He'd Spent A Minute In The Deserts Of Afghanistan Or In The Deserts Of Iraq, I Might Listen To What He Has To Say"

Here is a partial transcript fromThis Week with George Stephanopoulos:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): General Allen, thank you for joining us this morning. You heard Mr. Trump there, he called you a "failed general." The war in ISIS got worse under your leadership. Your response?

RET. GEN. JOHN ALLEN: Well, George, he has no credibility to criticize me, or my record, or anything I have done. If he'd spent a minute in the deserts of Afghanistan or in the deserts of Iraq, I might listen to what he has to say. He's got no credibility.

In that regard, there has been progress with respect to the war against ISIS. We knew it was going to be a tough fight. But I don't have to justify myself to him. What we do have to do, George, is listen to what he's been saying about our military. He's called it "a disaster." He says "our military can't win anymore."

That's a direct insult to every single man and woman who's wearing the uniform today. He's talked about needing to torture. He's talked about needing to murder the families of alleged terrorists. He's talked about carpet-bombing ISIL. Who do you think is going to get carpet-bombed when all of that occurs? It'll be innocent families.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you right there. If indeed Mr. Trump did become president, how would the military respond to those kinds of orders, if indeed he followed through on some of the things he's said in this campaign?

ALLEN: That's a great question, George, and I think we would be facing a civil military crisis, the like of which we have not seen in this country before. From the moment that those of us who are commissioned, and of course all our enlisted troops as well, assume the mantle of our responsibility in uniform when we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is a document on a set of principles, and it supports the rule of law.

One of those is to ensure that we do not obey illegal orders. It's an inherent responsibility in who we are. So, what we need to do is ensure that we don't create an environment that puts us on a track that conceivably where the United States military finds itself in a civil military crisis with a commander in chief who would have us do illegal things.

And my hope would be that the conversation would occur quietly in the Oval Office or somewhere else to advise him not the continue on this track. But, George, that's major issue that we're facing here. The potential for a civil military crisis where the military could be ordered to conduct illegal activities.

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

Let me also add this. A Former FBI And CIA Official Condemned Trump's Call For Torturing Terror Suspects.

Here is a partial transcript:

ANDERSON COOPER (HOST): Let me just ask you about when Donald Trump talks about waterboarding, as a way basically to do something about terrorism. What do you -- as somebody who has worked for the FBI and CIA, what do you think?

PHILIP MUDD: I bristle. In the midst of a political season, let's have a reality check. In August of 2002, the Department of Justice authorized waterboarding and nine other procedures we called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

The White House was aware, the Senate was briefed. 15 years later, a president says that's torture, a Department of Justice says we won't do it, and the Senate issues a report that says you violated American values.

If any president, Democrat or Republican, wants to return to waterboarding, I got a couple questions. Number one, you'd better find a CIA office who will do it, cause I don't know any.

COOPER: Really?

MUDD: Number two, I do not know any. Not because they think what we did was wrong, but because there ain't no learning the second kick of the mule. We're not doing it again. Number two, you better find an Attorney General who will once again, after one president called this torture, determine that it is legal, and then go out to the American people and say "Once again, we're going to try it," while the CIA says "We ain't doing it."

Even Juan Williams Is Shocked When Fox Host Says Bush Got Bin Laden
By: Steve - August 1, 2016 - 9:00am

Eric Bolling: "That Wasn't Obama's Administration That Got Bin Laden. That Was The Bush Administration That Set Up The Kill Shot, And Obama Took The Kill Shot"

And btw, that conservative propaganda spin doctor Eric Bolling is the Factor fill-in host for O'Reilly when he takes a day off. That's the guy O'Reilly hand picked to be his fill-in, a dishonest right-wing spin doctor who tells lie after lie, which shows what kind of man and so-called journalist O'Reilly is.

Here is a partial transcript:

JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): I don't think most people, I don't think most Americans, even Trump supporters think Donald Trump really knows a lot about how to combat terrorism.

ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): I'll tell you about who doesn't know a whole lot about terrorism, is President Obama. And he's proven that over the last eight years. Remember when he said "I want to lead from behind," he said --

WILLIAMS: He never said "I want to lead from behind."

BOLLING: -- "Let's pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq."

KIMBERLY GUILFOLYE (CO-HOST): The "jay vee team."

BOLLING: -- "Jay vee team." He's failed on every level as far as counter-terror all the way through.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I see.

BOLLING: And if you point to Bin Laden, that wasn't Obama's administration that got Bin Laden.

WILLIAMS: It wasn't?

BOLLING: That was the Bush administration that set up the kill shot, and Obama took the kill shot.

WILLIAMS: Up to then, I was listening to you. But goodness gracious, you went overboard.

Why Fox News Viewers Love Trump And O'Reilly
By: Steve - August 1, 2016 - 8:00am

If you want to know why Bill O'Reilly has the #1 rated show in all of cable news, and why Donald (Crazy) Trump won the Republican party nomination to be the President, read on.

One of the worst things about doing oreilly-sucks.com is that I have to subject myself to Fox News way more than I want to. In fact, Fox News probably gets more of my time than any other news source because I believe that understanding the spin, bias, and propaganda that's pushed by the media arm of the Republican Party is important to understanding whatever nonsense the Republicans and Bill O'Reilly are trying to put out.

While there are many things I could say about Fox News, the one thing that often sticks out the most to me is just how hard they push a story that fits their conservative narrative. Even the clearly liberally MSNBC doesn't come close to what America's conservative fake news network does to pander to their base with little regard for journalistic integrity or truth.

If there is a story Fox News feels they can use to go after someone like President Obama, Hillary Clinton or Democrats in general, they will parade a so-called expert after expert on the network, usually for days, who spout off Republican talking points nearly word-for-word as if they're reading them from a teleprompter.

And the stooges who watch them believe every word, even though it is comical that some people take the network seriously. The good part is that only some Republicans take them serious, nobody else does, and most of America knows they are nothing but a partisan news network that should be paid by the RNC.

While O'Reilly and his conservative friends will point to the network's ratings as a sign that they're providing the best news coverage, that's not at all true. They average about a million viewers in any given hour, with O'Reilly averaging about 2.8 million viewers a night.

We have 320 million people in America, so Fox News is viewed by less than 1% of the American people. Which means 99% of the people do not watch them. But O'Reilly is delusional and claims he is the most powerful man in the news business, when in fact he has no power at all, because 99% of the people are not even watching his show.

Liberals and other rational, reasonable people get their news from MSNBC, CNN, ABC News, CBS News and a variety of other sources on the internet, but most Republicans only watch Fox News -- driving all of one certain type of viewer to one channel. Of course, that means their ratings are going to be higher.

So, who are the people who watch Fox News?

-- The angry white person: If there's one solid grouping of people who Fox News can depend on most, it's the angry white viewer. This is the group of people who almost always feel like their country is being taken away from them because they can not be openly racist and homophobic anymore without being called out on it.

Whether they blame blacks, Mexicans, homosexuals, other religions, or just liberal ideology and multiculturalism in general, in their minds, they are always the victim. This makes Fox News a great place to visit for their news, because the network has no problem telling these angry white people that they are the real victims.

-- The simple-minded who are easily manipulated by propaganda and talking points: This group of people is comprised of those looking for confirmation bias in their so-called news. They don't want complex, detailed and in-depth information that requires a whole lot of actual thinking. What they want is loud, colorful conservative commentators who are going to tell them that everything they think is real is 100% true.

-- Paranoid people who are easily manipulated by fear: If there's one thing I will say about Fox News, they are pretty good at selling fear, anger and the idea that you should always be afraid of something.

If you want to see exactly what I am talking about, after the next terrorist attack anywhere in the world, go watch the coverage on ABC News, CNN, CBS News and MSNBC, then go look how Fox News covers it.

And the next time there is a mass shooting in the U.S. that's not tied to terrorism, compare all the networks again. It's amazing how different the narrative is from Fox News for how afraid someone should be (and of who) based upon who commits the act of violence.

If it's a Muslim they want them burned at the stake, if it's a far-right, white, pro-life conservative, they say he had mental problems and they want him to get help. Some pro-life websites and groups even call them heroes, like the Army of God. The pro-life white conservative terrorist group O'Reilly never talks about, because he supports what they do.

If you're someone who only watches Fox News, I can guarantee you are far more paranoid, angry and afraid of the world than someone who doesn't. Because all you get is lies, bias, fear, propaganda, and paranoia from Fox and O'Reilly.

To them only white conservatives who are against all abortion, love all guns, want more tax cuts, hate the Government, and read the bible every day are good people, everyone else is the devil, especially if you do not agree with them.

-- Racists: While similar to angry white people, racists are different. If you're someone who's a legitimate racist, Fox News is definitely the place to go to make yourself feel as if your ignorance is completely justified.

Not only are there very few minorities who are actually featured on the network, but the few they do have, like the insane Stacey Dash, will say stuff like "there should not be a black history month" or call someone who gave an impassioned speech about racism a "plantation slave" for doing so.

Because nothing makes racists feel more justified in being racists than having an actual African-American saying the exact things they're thinking. To say nothing about prime time hosts like Bill O'Reilly who literally argue that reverse racism is the real problem while actual racism is really nothing more than liberally-driven propaganda.

If you are a racist looking for a major news network to tell you that your racism is rational, and actually is not racism at all, Fox News is the network for you.

-- Conspiracy theorists and the mentally unstable: While the Internet is loaded with an endless array of conspiracy sites, you really don't see conspiracies given a great deal of attention in the mainstream media. To a conspiracy theorist, the mainstream media ignoring their lunacy is all part of the conspiracy.

The same can not be said for Fox News. This is a network that featured many people who believe in the insane birther conspiracy (including Donald Trump) and once employed Glenn Beck as a featured personality.

While I wouldn't say Fox News promotes conspiracy theories a lot, they frequently approach them with the general attitude of, "While we're not going to push or support this conspiracy theory, we understand why some people might think that way."

In the mind of a mentally unstale conspiracy theorist, that's just as good as the network telling them, "You're absolutely right to believe in this ridiculous nonsense."

They are about the same as the people who say God was an alien who came to earth on a spaceship and created life, they are nuts, and there are people who believe that nonsense too.

While there are more than just those types, these categories make up the foundation of the Fox News audience. And with an audience like that, it's clear to see how someone like Donald Trump became the overwhelming winner of the Republican party's presidential nomination, and how O'Reilly is #1 with Fox viewers.

When you compare O'Reilly's viewers and the Trump supporters with this list, they are almost identical.





To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com