Even Scarborough Slamming Trump For Refusal To Disavow KKK & Duke
By: Steve - February 29, 2016 - 11:00am

Joe Scarborough Changes Tune On Trump, Says Refusal To Disavow David Duke "Is Disqualifying."And Scarborough is a friend of Trump who has taken it easy on him in the past, so you know it's bad when his good friend says it is disqualifying.

Let's see if O'Reilly will defend it tonight, he might, I will report on it tomorrow. I am predicting O'Reilly will ignore the entire story, as he does with most negative stories about Trump and other Republicans. He still has not said one word about the Flint Michigan water scandal, even though the Republican Governor might be recalled and almost everyone is calling for him to resign.

Partial Transcript:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: That's disqualifying right there. It's breathtaking. That is disqualifying right there. To say you don't know about the Ku Klux Klan? You don't know about David Duke? And the most stunning thing, Willie Geist, is this isn't buying him a single vote. I mean, is he really so stupid that he thinks southerners aren't offended by the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke?

Is he really so ignorant of southern voters that he thinks this is the way to their heart? To go neutral? To play Switzerland when you're talking about the Klan? And to say he doesn't know enough information about the Klan to condemn them? Exactly what does Donald Trump expect to learn in the next 24 hours about the Klan? I just don't get it.

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Hillary/Trump Election Polls
By: Steve - February 29, 2016 - 10:00am

On the Friday night O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly had Geraldo and Eric Bolling on to discuss the possible race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as usual it was total one sided bias for Trump.

The most bias was in the polls O'Reilly quoted, he showed 4 polls, 3 had Hillary beating Trump and 1 had Trump beating Hillary. Then O'Reilly, Geraldo, and Bolling (all Fox employees) used them to argue how Trump can beat her.

Now here is what O'Reilly, Geraldo, and Bolling did not tell you. The only poll that had Trump winning was the USA Today/Suffolk poll, it had Trump winning by 2 points 45 to 43.

The devil is in the details, and that poll was taken by likely voters, not registered voters. The other 3 polls that had Hillary winning were taken by registered voters, people who are registered to vote and actually vote. Polls that are more reliable, and more accurate.

And O'Reilly did not tell you that, he basically implied that all 4 polls he used were equal, when they were not, he did not disclose the fact that the 1 poll that had Trump winning was different, and that it sampled likely voters instead of registered voters.

He also decided to not use the real clear politics poll that has Hillary winning over Trump, the one that Nate Silver does, and the one that has been right on every election for President for a long time.

O'Reilly also cherry picked the polls he used, there are about 10 or 12 polls out on the general election, and all of them but two have Clinton winning from 3 to 10 points. Now of those 12 polls, only 2 have Trump winning. USA Today/Suffolk, and SurveyUSA, the other 10 polls all have Hillary winning.

O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, then he cherry picked 4 polls and used one that had Trump winning. And of course he ignored all the polls that have Hillary winning by 7 to 10 points. He only used 3 polls that have her winning by 5 points or less, as if all the polls have it fairly close.

But when you look at all the polls Hillary is winning easily. What O'Reilly did is make it look close to send a message to Republicans to get out and vote because it could be enough for Trump to win.

Because if he showed all the polls and pointed out that the polls that have Trump winning are by likely voters, it would show that Trump is losing big with actual registered voters and it would discourage Republican voters from voting.

That segment was total bias from O'Reilly, Geraldo, and Bolling. And they all knew it, but they still did it to try and help Trump. A real journalist would have showed all the polls, all 12 of them, and pointed out that the polls where Trump is winning were taken by likely voters, not registered voters.

A real journalist would have had one Democratic guest and one Republican guest on to discuss it, not three Fox News Republicans who hate Hillary and love Trump. The who segment was right-wing spin with three Republicans, and cherry picked polls where all the information about the polls was not disclosed.

But that is what O'Reilly does, and nobody calls him out on it but me. And btw folks, I sent an email to O'Reilly and his producers about this and asked to be a guest on the show to discuss their bias and poll spin, and what a shocker, they refused, they do not even reply to my emails.

Because they are biased and dishonest cowards that do not want you to know the truth, they want you to be misinformed and uninformed and to just believe their propaganda. And O'Reilly is the biggest dishonest coward of them all.

Fox Legal Analyst Admits GOP Obstruction Might Be Unconstitutional
By: Steve - February 29, 2016 - 9:00am

But of course you will not hear a word about this from O'Reilly, because he sides with the GOP and does not want Obama to name the next Supreme Court Justice. Even though O'Reilly flipped out when Democrats simply blocked regular lower court Republican judges from a vote under Bush, now that Republicans are doing it to Obama he could care less.

Here is a partial transcript:

STEVE DOOCY (HOST): Well, a major blow to President Obama's plan to nominate a Supreme Court justice replacing Antonin Scalia. Republicans holding firm in the Senate refusing to have any hearings or meetings with any nominee until after a new president is elected.

DOOCY: So what's the next step? Peter Johnson, Jr. joins us live. Peter.

PETER JOHNSON, JR: Good morning Steve, good morning everyone. This is unprecedented in American history. The Senate of the United States saying we're not going to say hello, we're not going to shake hands. Don't invite him and her over here to the Senate chamber. We're not going to have a hearing. We're not going to vote on it, up or down.

We're doing nothing with the nominee that you send over, Mr. President. This has never been done before in American history and they are taking the advice given by Joe Biden in 1992, hypothetically, that you shouldn't take up someone in an election year. Why is this happening?

DOOCY: Right. That's the big question. So, you know, we were talking about this shortly after Antonin Scalia died. And, you know,suddenly the Democrats were saying, well the Republicans aren't going to do anything. They're just the party of no, no, no, no, no. But really, isn't this about the survival of the Republican Party?

JOHNSON: This is about the survival of the Republican Party because the Republican establishment is so concerned that so many Republicans are angry at the party for not standing up to this president over time. And that's something that Senator Harry Reid is going to be taking up because he says this is no longer the party of Reagan.

This is no longer the party of Lincoln. This is the party of Trump. This is the party of anger. And so the Republican Party, through Mitch McConnell, is saying we're going to take in what our view is a principled stand and say to this president, no mas. Don't send him over here, don't send her over here, we're not going to do to do it because we think that you're wrong in doing it.

We think it's a blunt and base political move. Democrats say Republicans are -- have gone off the edge. That this is a constitutional issue that faces the country, and that they are thumbing their nose at the constitution. So we're going to have angry on the right, angry on the left, it's going to play itself out in this presidential campaign. And that's what's going to be happening for the next year going forward in America.

DOOCY: You know, I don't know if you were watching, about 25 minutes ago we had Tony Blair on and we asked him about how the world views our presidential campaign right now, and he said it's the same thing around the world. Everybody is angry at their government. So maybe you're right, maybe if the senators are saying no mas, we're not going to do this right now, because we hear the people, and they're steamed, and they want the next guy to pick?

JOHNSON: Mitch McConnell said we have 54 senators, they're not going to vote. We have 11 members of the Judiciary Committee, they're not going to vote, they're not going to hold hearings. Is this a constitutional crisis? In some ways it might be a constitutional crisis.

It's a grave political crisis for each party. And voters are going to make a determination in the presidential election. Did the Republican Party do the right thing here, did the Democrat Party do the right thing here with regard to this Senate nomination, because the president will be a sending a name. And the pressure will mount every day when the Republicans refuse to even shake hands or say hello to that presidential nominee.

Former CIA Head Says Military Might Disobey A President Trump
By: Steve - February 28, 2016 - 11:30am

Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA and CIA, thinks some of presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign promises are so unlawful that the U.S. Armed Forces could not follow them as orders.

The choices that those in the military and their supporters face are hard ones. Let us begin with some undisputed options. Members of the armed forces are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are also sworn to obey all LAWFUL orders and have an affirmative duty to DISOBEY all UNLAWFUL orders.

The unelected president will not tell his troops or his commanders that he is issuing unlawful orders. Few, if any, of the top commanders will tell their troops that they are issuing unlawful orders.

Those on the front lines, those who fly the planes, those who target Cruise missiles and other weapons of mass destruction need to make decisions. According to International Law, Domestic Law, the Constitution, and various Moral Codes it is not enough to say or believe that one is just "doing their job" or just "following orders."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order."

In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ.

The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

These include Trump's claim that people deserve to be waterboarded even if it doesn't work and that he would target the families of terrorists. The internationally recognized Geneva Conventions bar such action.

"If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act," Hayden said Friday during an appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher." "You are required not to follow an unlawful order that would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict."

Hayden added that he would be "incredibly concerned" if Trump followed through with his campaign promises as president.

Cruz Fires Top Campaign Staffer & O'Reilly Does Not Even Report It
By: Steve - February 28, 2016 - 11:00am

This was a major news story that virtually everyone in the media has reported on, except Bill O'Reilly. Who never even mentioned it, nothing, not a word. So much for him being a serious journalist, he is a hack who ignores real news that make Republicans look bad.

Ted Cruz on Monday asked for the resignation of top aide Rick Tyler, who he accused of a grave error of judgment for promoting a false story that questioned Marco Rubio's faith.

Tyler, Cruz's communications director, posted the story on Facebook on Sunday, but later deleted it and apologized after a Cruz staffer said Rubio didn't make any such comment. But Cruz decided greater action was needed.

"Our campaign should not have sent it. That's why I've asked for Rick Tyler's resignation," Cruz told reporters in Las Vegas, where he was campaigning ahead of Tuesday's Nevada caucuses.

Cruz's swift action comes as the Texas senator is facing increased fire from his rivals, who have accused him of running a dirty campaign with no accountability. The complaints ratcheted up earlier this month, when Ben Carson took Cruz's campaign to task for spreading false rumors during the Iowa caucuses that the retired neurosurgeon was dropping out.

But the accusations really started flying in South Carolina, with protests over robocalls, photoshopped images, and other underhanded tactics.

Rival campaigns have labeled Cruz a liar, and have gone to great lengths to try to make that reputation stick.

Tyler was scheduled to appear live on MSNBC on Monday afternoon, but left shortly after Cruz's press gaggle in which he announced he was firing Tyler, according to NBC News correspondent Katy Tur.

And if you watch the O'Reilly Factor for your news you would not know a thing about any of it, because O'Reilly has not reported the story at all.

Samantha Bee Calls Out The Media For Saying John Kasich Is A Moderate
By: Steve - February 28, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is a reality check, Kasich may seem moderate to some people, because Trump and Cruz are so far to the right, but he is no moderate and he will be just as bad as Trump or Cruz, if he ever wins, which he wont.



Partial Transcript:

SAMANTHA BEE: Is Kasich really the huggable moderate he's made out to be? She asked in a clunky and hamfisted attempt at foreshadowing? I don't know, what's his take on gay rights?

Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage and was originally called Obergefell v. Kasich, after the governor who refused to recognize the out of state marriage of two men, one of whom was terminally ill.

For a guy who is against same-sex marriage, Kasich was awfully quick to take the other dude's last name. And you know for some reason Kasich doesn't talk much about the issue closest to his heart, your uterus.

Now if you live outside Ohio, you don't hear much about Kasich's anti-choice record, because he hides his abortion restrictions in larger budget bills where they won't be noticed, kind of like a desperate pregnant teenager buying ever larger sweatshirts.

And modest John doesn't like to talk about his achievements. Literally. At all. Even when directly asked why he banned counselors from mentioning abortion to rape victims.

So GOP take a closer look at John Kasich, because while these other chumps make empty promises to do awful stuff, this so called moderate gets awful stuff done.

Obama Slams Trump & Explains How He Will Never Be President
By: Steve - February 28, 2016 - 9:00am

Think about it, he will need to get at least 51% of the vote in the general election, and he will never get it. If Trump runs against Hillary he will get crushed. Hillary will beat him by 10 points, or more.

Obama knows this, and he slammed Trump for not being qualified, and just a blowhard who is good at lying to people while talking a good game.

President Obama ripped Donald Trump to shreds during a press conference in California, where he made it clear that he views Trump as an unqualified reality television host who will eventually be rejected by the voters.

Trumps answer to Obama was name calling and lies, he said Obama is a fool that has been the worst President ever.

Right now Obama is ranked as the 18th best President, the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics group rate the U.S. presidents, and they put Obama at 18, George W. Bush is 35th, Clinton is 8th, and Reagan is 11th. Obama is also ahead of Ford, Carter, and Nixon.

So clearly Trump has no clue what he is talking about, because Obama is not even close to the worst President ever. He is either lying or he has no clue about history, or both. Obama has been a good President who is in the top 20, and could move up on the list, as Clinton has, he moved up from 10th to 8th.

Obama said this:
I'll leave it to you to speculate on how this whole race is going to go. I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be President. And the reason is because I have a lot of faith in the American people, and I think they recognize that being President is a serious job. It's not hosting a talk show or a reality show. It's not promotion. It's not marketing.

It's hard. And a lot of people count on us getting it right. And it's not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day. And sometimes it requires you making hard decisions even when people don't like it, and doing things that are unpopular, and standing up for people who are vulnerable but don't have some powerful political constituency.

And it requires being able to work with leaders around the world in a way that reflects the importance of the office; and gives people confidence that you know the facts, and you know their names, and you know where they are on a map, and you know something about their history. And you're not just going to play to the crowd back home -- because they have their own crowds back home -- and you're trying to solve problems.

And so, yes, during primaries, people vent and they express themselves. And it seems like entertainment, and oftentimes it's reported just like entertainment. But as you get closer, reality has a way of intruding.

And these are the folks who I have faith in, because they ultimately are going to say whoever is standing where I'm standing right now has the nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, and have to make sure that the banking system doesn't collapse, and is often responsible for not just the United States of America but 20 other countries that are having big problems or falling apart and are going to be looking for us to do something.

And the American people are pretty sensible and I think they'll make a sensible choice in the end.
Obama basically ripped Trump to pieces. The President made it clear that he views Donald Trump as completely unqualified to lead the country. Obama had Trump nailed. Being president isn't about marketing, slogans, or pretending to be a leader. The actual job demands an intelligent, experienced, and knowledgeable leader.

Donald Trump plays an expert on television, but Barack Obama is an expert when it comes to being president. Trump is unqualified, thin-skinned, and totally unfit to be president. Donald Trump wasn't created as a response to the presidency of Barack Obama. Trump's rise is the sole responsibility of the leaderless and directionless Republican Party.

The GOP is so weak that they have been unable to stop a reality television star from hijacking their party.

If Republicans do nominate Trump, the non-Republican voters will not be fooled by the same spin, lies, and propaganda from O'Reilly and Fox that have gotten Trump 25%-30% support in the Republican primary. For all of the reasons that President Obama mentioned, Donald Trump's White House bid is going to fail.

Fox's Chris Wallace Admitted GOP Debate Was An Embarrassment
By: Steve - February 27, 2016 - 11:00am

O'Reilly, not so much. He said it was raucous behavior and a cacophony, but would not call it an embarrassment or even admit it was. While having no problem calling liberal websites the sleazy far-left. Even though all they do is quote him word for word and show that he is usually lying. He is just mad they call out his right-wing spin and lies so he calls them names.

Can you imagine the rest of the world watching that GOP debate and thinking, my God one of those childish morons could be the next leader of the free world. It was more like a skit on SNL then it was a real debate, it was a clown show. Even Trump himself said it was a crazy debate, as he was lying Friday that everyone said he won the debate, when all the stories I read said Rubio won the debate.

Here is what O'Reilly and Wallace said about it on the Factor:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Now in the debate last night there was a lot of raucous behavior. A cacophony. Did it mean anything?

CHRIS WALLACE: Let me just say first of all, big picture, I thought it was an embarrassment for the Republican Party.

There are were a lot of shots taken, a lot of shots scored, but there was precious little vision, almost no discussion, serious discussion of issues or what are you going to do, how are you going to improve people's lives.

And if you saw someone acting presidentially, on that stage, you got better eyesight, Bill, than I do so I thought.

O'REILLY: I think Kasich was a voice of reason, am I wrong? He wasn't on very much.

More Trump Lies About American Workers Exposed
By: Steve - February 27, 2016 - 10:00am

Listen up folks, before you vote for Donald Trump because he says he will bring American jobs back from China and Mexico you better take a look at this. Trump is a liar, not only does he avoid hiring Americans, he applies for visas for foreigners so he can hire them.

Trump Has Turned Away Hundreds of American Workers to Hire Cheap Foreign Labor Instead. And on top of that he has his own line of suits and ties made in China and Mexico, so he does not even hire American workers to make his clothing line.

"No one will bring our jobs back from China and Mexico like Trump," Donald Trump recently wrote, in a Facebook post. The GOP front-runner's commitment to restoring employment opportunities that Americans have lost to developing countries is one of the cornerstones of his candidacy.

But when Trump had the chance to replace American workers with foreign ones, he has done so with gusto.

Since 2010, nearly 300 American citizens have applied for jobs at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, but only 17 were hired. Meanwhile, Trump pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at the resort, the New York Times reports.

Trump's fondness for guest workers was brought to national attention by Reuters last summer, when the news service reported that the Donald had sought visas for over 1,000 foreign laborers since 2000. The Times investigation shows that those visas weren't pursued for a lack of domestic applicants.

"The only reason they wouldn't get a callback is that they weren't qualified, for some reason," Trump insisted, in an interview with the paper. "There are very few qualified people during the high season in the area."

But Tom Veenstra, senior director of a job-placement service in the area, disagrees, telling the Times, "We have hundreds of qualified applicants for jobs like those."

In truth, there are plenty of reasons for employers to prefer guest workers over Americans. While foreign employees must receive an area's prevailing wage, as determined by the Labor Department, they have no power to leave their jobs without forfeiting their right to reside in the country.

This leaves guest workers with no leverage to request raises and discourages many from reporting mistreatment or abuses on the job.

Trump's claim that he has only turned away American workers due to insufficient qualifications is even undermined by his own statement at a Republican debate in November.

"Wages are too high," Trump said, when asked if he would support raising the minimum wage. "We're not going to be able to compete against the world."

Trump's preference for guest workers is driven by the need to compete in the hospitality industry's free-market. According to the Times, many other clubs in the Palm Beach area also rely on foreign employees. If one resort is able to lower its prices through cheaper labor, all others must follow suit or operate at a disadvantage.

This may be why Mar-a-Lago has made no significant effort to up its hiring of American workers, even after Reuters's report made its present staffing a political liability for Trump.

If Trump wants to protect American workers employment prospects, he would be better off putting out plans to reform the country's guest-worker programs than pretending he can restore a bygone era of American manufacturing. Before President Trump brings our jobs back from China and Mexico, he should probably see if he can bring them back from his Palm Beach club.

Trump Caught In More Lies About Libya
By: Steve - February 27, 2016 - 9:00am

Most people who are not members of the Donald Trump fan club are well aware of the fact that nearly everything he says is either wrong, a lie or something he literally just seemed to make up out of thin air during a speech. While most politicians and presidential candidates lie, Trump takes being dishonest to a whole new level.

During Thursday night's Republican presidential debate when the subject of Libya came up, it was mentioned that Sen. Ted Cruz has accused Trump of being in favor of the removal of Muammar Gaddafi from power. Something that Trump vehemently denied ever saying.

"He said I was in favor of Libya," Trump said. "I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now."

Trump's comments could not be more clear -- he "never discussed that subject." Except, he has. Politifact gave this comment their worst rating, Pants on Fire, after Buzzfeed found a video blog Trump had done where he discussed Libya and Gaddafi back in 2011.

Here are a few excerpts from Trump's 2011 video blog:
"I can't believe what our country is doing. Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we're sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we're not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that's what it is: It's a carnage."

"You talk about things that have happened in history; this could be one of the worst. Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts. We don't want to get involved and you're gonna end up with something like you've never seen before."

"But we have to go in to save these lives; these people are being slaughtered like animals. It's horrible what's going on; it has to be stopped. We should do on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives."
So, not only did he absolutely talk about Libya in the past -- he talked about it quite extensively. Not only that, despite his current claim that we would be "so much better off if Gaddafi" was still in charge, he was extremely adamant about the fact that we needed to remove the dictator from power.

Then again, this was clearly said prior to President Obama ordering military intervention in Libya that eventually led to the removal of Gaddafi from power.

Which means Trump simply voiced his opinion in opposition to what the president was currently doing at that time. But now that the president did exactly what Trump said in 2011 we needed to do -- now he thinks we should have kept Gaddafi in power.

This is what you call classic Republican anti-Obama tactics. No matter what the president says or does, Republicans will simply say or do the opposite, even if it's something they supported in the past.

Let's also not forget that Republicans like Marco Rubio called on President Obama to do more in Syria, then when the president asked Congress to approve legislation that would allow him to do just that, Rubio voted against giving him that power.

Trump Caught Lying Again About His Tax Returns
By: Steve - February 26, 2016 - 11:00am

Trump said he can not release his tax returns because he's being audited. But the IRS said he can release his tax returns any time he wants to, proving once again that he is a serial liar.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said during Thursday's GOP primary debate that he can't release his tax returns because he is currently being audited by the IRS, but the agency says nothing prevents individuals from sharing their tax information.

"Federal privacy rules prohibit the IRS from discussing individual tax matters. Nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information," the IRS said Friday in a statement.

Trump also suggested that the IRS has audited him repeatedly because of his faith.

"Well, maybe it's because of the fact that I'm a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it and maybe there's a bias," Trump said in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo after the debate.

The IRS denied that taxpayers are audited because of their religion.

"The IRS stresses that audits of tax returns are based on the information contained on the taxpayer’s return and the underlying tax law -- nothing else. Politics and religion do not factor into this," its statement said. "The audit process is handled by career, non-partisan civil servants, and we have processes in place to safeguard the exam process."

Trump's refusal to release his tax returns came after former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney called on him to do so and suggested there was a "bombshell" in them.

Actual Polls & Stats Show The Real Story About Trump & Hispanics
By: Steve - February 26, 2016 - 10:00am

Donald Trump and a few morons in the media are promoting the fact that Donald Trump got 44% of the Latino vote in the Nevada Republican primary. When the real truth is that those Latinos who voted for Trump are Republicans, and that does not reflect how the majority of non-Republican Latinos in America feel about Trump.

CNN's Margaret Hoover said this:

Trump's Unfavorable Numbers Among Hispanics Nationally "Are Above 60 Percent," And "There Is No Way You Can Extrapolate" From The Poll "For The Hispanic Population Of The United States."

On the February 24th edition of New Day, CNN political commentator Margaret Hoover explained that the entrance polls that showed Trump overwhelmingly winning Hispanics in the Nevada Republican caucuses are "not a bellwether of how Hispanics are going to vote nationally."

Hoover pointed out that Trump's unfavorable numbers among Hispanics nationally "are above 60 percent, sometimes closer to 70 percent" and, "There is no way you can extrapolate 1,500 votes in Nevada for the Hispanic population of the United States in a general election."

Latino USA: National Polls Show "Donald Trump Still Has A Latino Problem."

A February 24th Latino USA article criticizing media coverage of Nevada entrance polls showing Hispanic support for Trump cited several national polls to show that he "still has a Latino problem:

It is safe to say (and Pew has already confirmed this) that Latino Republicans are not a large demographic, when compared to Latino Democrats. And there has been national polling data since last summer to suggest that Trump still has a "Latino problem" in a general election. Here are a few examples:

Telemundo/Marist, December 2015

This poll, which NPR's Latino USA wrote about last year, has Trump still doing poorly against Hillary Clinton with Latinos in a national election: 27% for Trump and 69% for Clinton.

And the only Republican candidate who does well with Latinos against Clinton is the Latino Marco Rubio at 38% to Clinton's 57%.

Yes, you read that right. Even the Latino Marco Rubio is not over 40%, and that does not even get him to the 42% the election experts say is needed to be the next President. If the Republican Latino Marco Rubio can not even break 40% with Latinos, how is Trump going to do it.

Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) Survey, November 2015

The PRRI poll had Trump with 80% unfavorables with Latinos.

Washington Post/ABC News, August 2015

Trump's controversial comments have turned him into a pariah among Hispanics, 82 percent of whom view him unfavorably (68 percent strongly so). [Latino USA, 2/24/16]

Donald Trump has an 82% unfavorable rating with Latinos overall, which means just about the only Latinos who support him at all are the Republican Latinos, and a few Independent Latinos, who are really Republicans that are registered as Independents.

But the corrupt media does not point this out, including Bill O'Reilly, who never once mentioned these facts. O'Reilly has never once reported that Trump has an 82% unfavorable rating with Latinos, or that the next President must get at least 42% of the Latino vote to win.

O'Reilly ignores all this because he does not want you to know that if his good friend Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination he has no chance to beat Hillary, because 70% of the Latinos will not vote for him. And if it is Trump against Hillary, she will win and be the next President.

O'Reilly does not want to tell you this because it will depress Republicans and suppress voter turnout. The truth is this, Donald Trump can not beat Hillary Clinton, so if it's Trump vs Clinton she wins every time.

Republicans are stupid to run Trump, because Rubio has the best chance to beat Hillary, and even he is losing to her, but he is closer to her than any other Republican. The Republicans are running their far-right loon, instead of their more moderate Latino candidate, and he is going to lose in the General Election.

Cruz is a joke and he would lose to Hillary worse than Trump, Rubio is their best chance, and it looks like he is not going to get it over Trump.

CNN Just Banned Political Analyst & Trump Supporter Roger Stone
By: Steve - February 26, 2016 - 9:00am

CNN has pledged to stop booking Donald Trump supporter and regular guest Roger Stone after he wrote a series of incendiary tweets against network personalities.

In a statement released this week a CNN spokesperson said of Stone: "He will no longer appear on CNN."

Stone is a notorious "dirty trickster" who recently co-authored The Clintons War on Women. The 2015 book is dedicated to -- and cites research from -- a Holocaust denier who blames a "Jewish plot" for the 9/11 attacks. Stone's history includes forming an anti-Hillary Clinton group named "C.U.N.T." during the 2008 election.

Stone worked for Trump's presidential campaign last year and is now organizing against Clinton's campaign again. He is a frequent presence in the media because of his long ties to Trump; their friendship and professional relationship goes back decades.

The Republican consultant had become a favorite guest on the network, appearing on CNN seven times in the last month.

Stone has regularly lobbed sexist and racial attacks against politicians and members of the media, including current and former CNN personalities.

Stone has attacked CNN political commentator Ana Navarro as an "Entitled Diva Bitch," a "pompous shithead," "Borderline retarded," "a rabid Pekinese," and claimed "Black beans and rice didn't miss her."

He recently tweeted: "Did you hear that noise? That was @ananavarro killing herself #BushToady #Diva #Jerk."

Stone attacked former CNN analyst Roland Martin when he worked for the network, calling him a "stupid negro," a "fat negro," "CNN's racist moron--dumb, embarassing, token," and asked him, "Who made you God, Fat ass? Eat some more Popeye's."

Sam Biddle wrote on February 22 of CNN's treatment of Stone:

"There are very few people who can speak about their personal connections to Donald Trump who aren't hideous in some way, but that doesn't mean CNN should keep asking Roger Stone, a bad person, to be a guest."

Following CNN's decision, Bradley Beychok issued the following statement:

We applaud CNN for taking a stand against Roger Stone -- a notorious 'dirty trickster' with a history of spreading hateful smears and abhorrent rhetoric.

In a campaign season that has been marked with bigoted rhetoric from GOP candidates, it was startling to see that Stone -- a close ally of Donald Trump -- had become a favorite guest in mainstream media.

As Media Matters continues its campaign to highlight the worst of Roger Stone's history, we encourage other networks to follow suit and agree to keep this notoriously controversial figure off of their airwaves moving forward.

And of course not a word about this was ever mentioned by Bill O'Reilly, because he does not want to make his good friend Donald Trump look bad, especially while he is saying he has no bias towards any candidate, when you are done laughing remember that O'Reilly is a serial liar.

Trump Dishonestly Claimed Latinos Love Him & Will Vote For Him
By: Steve - February 25, 2016 - 11:00am

If you listen to Donald Trump you would think a lot of the Latinos love him because he got 44% of the Latino vote in the Nevada Republican primary. But when you look beyond the spin and see the real facts, you see a very different picture.

Trump did get 44% of the Latino vote in Nevada, that is a fact. But when you look at the rest of the facts he does not mention you see this, they were a small percentage of Latinos who are Republicans, and the majority of Nevada Latinos are Democrats.

According to polling, only 8 percent of Latino voters in Nevada are Republicans. So the number of Latinos who actually voted for Trump in Nevada is about eight percent of those who will vote in the General election in November.

So Trump got 44% of the 8% of Latino Republicans in Nevada. In November, it is likely that no Democratic Latinos will vote for Trump, so he will most likely get about the same 8% of Latinos in November, while the Democrat will probably get the rest.

Polls also show that Latinos continue to move away from the Republican Party in general. Mitt Romney only got 23% of the Latino vote in 2012, and it is likely that Trump will get less than that in 2016.

And recent reports on voting say the Republican nominee selected to run for president in 2016 will need to get a higher share of Latino votes than in the past - as high as almost half in some key battleground states, according to a new analysis by Latino Decisions.

That's a high mountain to climb for the Republican Party considering it's twice the percentage that Mitt Romney received when he ran as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Back then, Romney received just 23 percent of the Latino vote.

Even if the Republican Party wins 60 percent of the white vote -- which it hasn't done in a presidential election since 1988 -- the Republican presidential nominee would need to get 42 percent and in another scenario as high as 47 percent of Latino votes in order to win the popular vote.

In 2012, 71 percent of Latinos voted for Barack Obama. And that same number, if not more, will most likely go to the Democrat, not Trump. If Trump gets over 25% of Latinos it would be a miracle, and he would still lose, because he will need 42% or more of the Latino vote to win.

Trump will get the angry white guy vote, and the uninformed white person vote, but that's about it, which is not enough to be the next President.

Trump's Own Workers Probably Will Not Vote For Him
By: Steve - February 25, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is some information about Donald Trump you will never get from Trump or Bill O'Reilly, and of course you will never hear this asked about by O'Reilly when he has Trump on his show every other night. The fact that Trump is anti-union and he pays his employees less with less benefits than other people in the same business.

LAS VEGAS, NV -- On the eve of the Nevada caucus, Donald Trump addressed a rowdy crowd of thousands in Las Vegas South Point casino, speaking in an arena usually used for rodeos. When he is elected president, he told the roaring crowd, "We're going to have such great deals."

In a suite 21 floors up from the arena, workers from Trump's signature Vegas hotel, who voted to unionize in December, waited for Trump to arrive and make a deal with them.

The workers, many of them still wearing their uniforms after a long shift, sat with their attorney along one side of a wooden table. On the other side sat an empty chair with a name tag for Trump and a copy of his bestselling book The Art of the Deal. Though the workers did not expect Trump to stop by and bargain with them on his way to address the rally, they wanted to dramatize their plight.

"We're just waiting for a contract," housekeeper Maria Jaramillo added. "We deserve one. We're not second-class workers. So we're here, waiting for him."

They may be waiting for a long time. As soon as a majority of the 523 workers in Trump's hotel voted to unionize on December 5th, the hotel's management tried to have the results thrown out, claiming that workers were intimidated by the Culinary Workers Union into voting yes. After weeks of reviewing their claims, the National Labor Relations Board sided with the workers.

Jaramillo and her coworkers then formed a bargaining committee, hoping that management would soon recognize their union and begin negotiating with them. But the Trump hotel signaled this week that they have no intention of doing so.

Trump management has until next week to formally challenge the NLRB recommendation, and then the Board's regional chapter will determine whether or not to certify the union. Even if the local board backs the workers, Trump can further delay by appealing their ruling to the federal board in Washington, D.C.

For some workers, like Donato, that wait is especially painful. After three years working at the hotel, Donato was suspended and then fired shortly after the union election, which he thinks was retaliation for his open support for the union. He is desperately hoping to win his job back as part of the bargaining process, and says he is mostly worried for his elderly mother and siblings in the Philippines, who depend on the money he sends them.

These same concerns motivated Jaramillo, who has worked at the Trump International Hotel for the last seven years. She knows well how much better unionized hotel workers are treated, because she used to be one.

Before leaving work to care for her third child, she worked for six years at the buffet at the Mandalay Bay casino on the Las Vegas Strip. She had hoped she could stay home from work for several years to raise her children. Then the housing bubble burst and plunged the nation into a deep recession, and her husband lost his construction job. When she looked for another hospitality job, the only one she could find was at the Trump Hotel.

"At Mandalay Bay I had health insurance for free, a retirement account, every year I got a raise, I got holiday pay," she said. "Over here, we don't get an annual raise, we have to pay for our insurance, and we have no retirement. It's a big difference. I'm not making enough to give my kids a better future."

Jaramillo learned of yet another difference this past Saturday, when she was not able to vote in the Democratic caucus because she had to work. Hotels represented by the Culinary Workers Union gave their employees a few hours off mid-day to allow them to participate.

"I wanted to vote," she said. "My vote could have made the difference."

With the nation's eyes on the state of Nevada during the Republican caucuses on Tuesday night, the Trump workers will take to the streets outside their hotel, demanding that management recognize their union and sit down with them at the bargaining table.

Romney Suggests There's A bombshell In Trump's Tax Returns
By: Steve - February 25, 2016 - 9:00am

Former Republican nominee Mitt Romney called Wednesday on the 2016 GOP hopefuls to release their tax returns, saying he suspects there's a "bombshell" in Donald Trump's -- a comment that prompted Trump to call Romney a "fool."

"We're now, you know, in late February and we still haven't seen either Donald Trump's or Marco Rubio's or Ted Cruz's taxes," Romney said in an interview on Fox News. "Frankly, the voters have a right to see those tax returns before they decide who our nominee ought to be."

Well, I think there's something there," Romney explained. "Either he's not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn't been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing."

He also blasted Trump's "weaving and delay" when asked about the release of his tax returns. "I think the last time he was asked about his taxes he said, 'Well, it's going to be a month,'" Romney said. "Look, people have a right to know if there's a problem in those taxes before they decide."

And not once has O'Reilly called for Trump to release his tax returns, but when Gore and Obama ran for President O'Reilly did to them, he even slammed Gore for not giving more of his money to charity. So once again O'Reilly has double standards for Republicans and Democrats, especially when that Republican is his friend.

Hypocrite O'Reilly Defends Biased Joe Scarborough At MSNBC
By: Steve - February 24, 2016 - 11:00am

Well this is a first, O'reilly is defending someone at MSNBC for their clear bias, of course he did it because Trump is his friend and because Scarborough is a Republican.

If a liberal at MSNBC did the same thing with Clinton or Sanders, that Scarborough did with Trump, O'Reilly would scream bias from the rooftops. He would lose his mind and call for MSNBC to punish them, but when Scarborough does it to Trump, O'Reilly defends it.

It's just laughable, O'Reilly only defended Scarborough because he is a Republican. It's the first time in history O'Reilly ever defended anyone at MSNBC for anything. All the other journalists are slamming Scarborough, except for O'Reilly, who damn near praised him for his softball interview with Trump.

O'Reilly responded to criticism lodged against MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski for a "hot mic" conversation they had with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump during a townhall event.

During the recording Scarborough and Brzezinski praised Trump and allowed Trump to dictate the questions asked in the final segment. While most media figures criticized the hosts coverage of Trump, O'Reilly said that he did "not see anything wrong with that banter."

And of course O'Reilly did not see anything wrong with it, because it involves two Republicans, and he does the very same thing. O'Reilly is also a Trump supporter who gives Trump all kinds of air time on his show, and defends Trump. The really funny part is this, O'Reilly said this Tuesday night, which is just laughable, he claims to be fair to everyone, even though Trump gets 90% of the air time and Santorum could not get on his show at all.

Here is a quote from the Factor Transcript:
O'REILLY: While some TV hosts are rooting for certain candidates to win, The Factor treats all candidates the same and subjects them all to the same tough questions.
From the February 23 edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Some believe that conversation was inappropriate. It began with Brzezinski complimenting Mr. Trump for bringing an Iraq war veteran on the stage with him.

Talking Points does not see anything wrong with that banter. I want to be quite clear. Donald Trump has said similar things to me off camera that he brings in big ratings and doesn't get much out of it. But he does it in a joking way and of course he gets a lot out of it.

Michigan Governor Withholding Flint Water Crisis Documents From Congress
By: Steve - February 24, 2016 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly has not said one word about it, in fact, to this day Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about the entire Flint Michigan water crisis story, not a word. O'Reilly has totally ignored the story because it involves a Republican, and he does not want to report it because it makes Republicans look bad during an election year.

On January 26, 2016 Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings (MD) and Brenda Lawrence (MI) sent a letter to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) requesting a number of documents related to the current water crisis in Flint. But his office has "completely ignored" that request so far, Cummings said in a letter on Monday.

He sent the most recent letter to Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, requesting that Chaffetz send a letter to Snyder "under the full authority of the Committee" compelling him to release all of the documents.

In their original request, Cummings and Lawrence gave Snyder's office a deadline of February 11, but in Monday's letter, Cummings noted Snyder's "blatant refusal to cooperate."

The governor's office did not return a request for comment as to why the documents haven't been released or whether he plans to cooperate.

So far Snyder has released a batch of emails he sent and received himself related to the Flint water crisis from 2014 and 2015 but not going back further, as well as emails and documents that were made available to various state departments.

Snyder's communications are not subject to FOIA requests, as he is protected by executive privilege. But as Cummings notes, "Any claim of executive privilege to withhold documents from Congress would be a surprising turn of events that directly contradicts the Governor's own promises of accountability to the people of Michigan."

In his letter on Monday to Chaffetz, Cummings writes, "I believe that the Committee must obtain information from all levels of government -- local, state, and federal -- in order to conduct a responsible and complete investigation."

The initial request Cummings and Lawrence made in January included a wide array of documents related to the crisis, including all emails sent and received by Snyder, his staff, former state treasurers and their staff, and former Flint emergency managers and their staff related to the drinking in Flint beginning in January 2013;

all documents related to drinking water in Flint as well as all testing results and public complaints about water quality sent or received by the former director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and his staff as well as employees of the state Department of Health and Human Services going back to April 2014;

and all emails related to the decision to switch the city's water supply from Detroit sent and received by the former director of the Flint Department of Public Works going back to January 2011.

There may be some reason to suspect there is important information in the documents that have yet to be released. Emails obtained by the Flint Journal sent by city health officials in April 2014 showed that they were concerned that Snyder's administration purposefully delayed the results of lead testing in the schools drinking water twice.

A different email exchange between a principal Snyder adviser and an official the DEQ obtained by Progress Michigan indicated that the administration was made aware of a significant uptake in Legionnaires outbreaks in March 2015, potentially related to the water switch, even though Snyder previously said he wasn't made aware until early this year.

And yet other emails obtained by Progress Michigan showed that a state agency brought water coolers into a state building in Flint in January of 2015 out of concern over water quality, a year before bottled water was made available to residents.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been holding hearings related to the crisis in Flint, although Snyder himself was not originally asked to attend. Chaffetz has now requested that Snyder appear before a hearing in March. There are numerous other investigations into the crisis, including from the Department of Justice, FBI, and Michigan's attorney general.

Trump Quoting Hoax Email About Pigs Blood Dipped Bullets
By: Steve - February 24, 2016 - 9:00am

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is using hoax email chains to form his national security policy -- according to an old wives tale he told a South Carolina crowd on Friday.

Trump told the crowd the fairy tale of U.S. General John Pershing at the Philippine-American War at the start of the 20th century. "He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pig's blood," Trump said. "And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the fiftieth person he said 'You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.' And for 25 years there wasn't a problem, okay?"

Now think about that for a minute, let's say it was actually true, even though it is not. If you did that it would just make the terrorists more mad at us and create more terrorism, it would not make terrorism better, it would make it worse, and it would just be a very dumb thing to do.

Snopes.com, a website that tracks rumors, said this story spread around the internet shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. "The story about General Pershing's handling of terrorists in the Philippines has circulated widely on the Internet ever since 9/11 and even made the rounds at the top levels of U.S. government."

Many Muslims, some devout and some less so, abstain from eating pork, but the idea of pig's blood being to Muslims what garlic is to vampires seems to stem from a 1939 film, according to Snopes.

Trump also used his speech Friday to reiterate his support for torture/waterboarding - a tactic many Republican candidates have vowed to bring back. "Is it torture or not? It's so borderline," he said. "It's like minimal, minimal, minimal torture."

Earth to Donald Trump, waterboarding is not borderline torture, it is listed as torture in the Geneva Conventions, there is no if or maybe, it's listed under torture. And we signed on to the Geneva Conventions, so any country using it is guilty of a war crime, and that is a fact, not an opinion.

A group of non-partisan former national security, law enforcement, and interrogators wrote a letter on Wednesday condemning the use of torture on prisoners. That neither Fox News or Bill O'Reilly reported on.

Here is a quote from the letter: "Torture is not only illegal and immoral; it is counterproductive. It tends to produce unreliable information because it degrades a detainee's ability to recall and transmit information, undermines trust in the interrogator, and often prompts a detainee to relay false information that he believes the interrogator wants to hear. It also increases the risk that our troops will be tortured, hinders cooperation with allies, alienates populations whose support the United States needs in the struggle against terrorism, and provides a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm."

Notice that Trump never mentions any of this, because he does not want you to know the truth.

Morning Joe Hosts Busted In Leaked Audio Supporting Donald Trump
By: Steve - February 23, 2016 - 11:00am

Someone at MSNBC released audio of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski unprofessionally supporting and fawning all over Donald Trump during the commercial breaks of a recent Trump appearance on Morning Joe.

And O'Reilly said nothing, but if liberal MSNBC anchors were caught doing this with Clinton or Sanders O'Reilly would lose his mind and scream bloody murder. When conservatives at MSNBC do it with Trump, O'Reilly hides under his desk and ignores the whole story.

The hosts have recently been criticized for boosting Trump on their program, and for their performance moderating the town hall in question, which was labeled a "journalistic shortfall" and "disgraceful" by media observers. The non-confrontational tone of the town hall event apparently extended seamlessly into the commercial breaks, where Scarborough, Brzezinski, and Trump engaged in friendly banter.

After Scarborough told Trump that "all the polls out today look great in South Carolina," Trump asked Scarborough if he thinks super PAC ads against him are catching on, noting, "they're spending $75 million in negative ads on me over the last two weeks." Scarborough replied, "No."

Brzezinski pointed out what she described as a "wow moment" on the campaign trail when Trump brought two supporters up on stage. Scarborough told Trump, "We played it several times this morning."

Trump responded by telling the pair that he watched the show that day and observed, "You had me almost as a legendary figure." Indeed, Gawker highlighted video of the hosts airing the video of the supporters that day on Morning Joe, which concludes with Scarborough calling the moment "quite powerful."

Scarborough told Trump "we were completely wrong" in thinking he did poorly in the February 13 Republican debate. He later told the candidate that "the people who mattered" thought he did well.

After Brzezinski thanked Trump for participating in the town hall event, Trump said, "I'm doing this because you get great ratings and a raise -- me, I get nothing."

Brzezinski can be heard asking, reportedly to a producer, "You don't want me to do the ones with deportation?" which is followed by Trump saying, "That's right, nothing too hard, Mika."

Trump asked Scarborough, "So what are the chances that something bad can happen on Saturday for me?" -- an apparent reference to the South Carolina primary. Scarborough reassured Trump by pointing out that polls in the election so far have done a good job of predicting primary results.

Scarborough told Trump that National Journal columnist Ron Fournier "understands" Trump's campaign now after visiting Michigan, where he "got an earful" from Trump's supporters. (Trump said Fournier "has been brutal.") Scarborough added that The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza "has completely changed," and Trump responded, "Cillizza's been fantastic."

Here's a newsflash for Joe Scarborough. Journalists are not supposed to have an interest in making the people that they are interviewing look good. In the same audio, Trump tells Brzezinski not to ask him questions that are too hard.

Keith Olbermann got suspended for less than what Scarborough and Brzezinski are doing.

There have been numerous media allegations that the Morning Joe hosts are supporting Trump and engaging in unprofessional behavior. Media critics slammed the MSNBC hosts after they held a primetime "town hall" with Trump that long on softball questions, but short on audience participation.

There is clearly a conflict of interest when it comes to Morning Joe and Trump, but the bosses at MSNBC are willing to let their conservative host get away with something greater than what former liberal hosts were fired or disciplined for in the past.

The audio does not lie. The Morning Joe hosts are behaving unprofessionally.

Viewers must demand that Morning Joe is held to the same standard that MSNBC used to discipline and in some cases fire liberal hosts.

Crazy O'Reilly Gives The Pope Advice About Immigration And Jesus
By: Steve - February 23, 2016 - 10:00am

Wow, this is how far in the tank O'Reilly is for Donald Trump. The Pope rightly says Trump is not a christian for being a racist against Mexicans and saying he would build a wall. So what does O'Reilly do, slam the Pope using one example of an illegal being deported and coming back to shoot and kill someone.

Ignoring the actual stats about illegal immigrant crimes, that show that the percentage of foreign-born men in the United States who are in jail is 1.6%. And that is less than the percentage of U.S.-born men who are imprisoned at 3.3%.

And the reason most of them are behind bars is tied to immigration offenses. What O'Reilly did was pull one case of an illegal killing someone out of thin air to defend Trump over what the Pope said about him.

The facts show that 98% of the illegals that come here do not commit any crimes, all they do is come here to work. O'Reilly is just pathetic, he gave the Pope a lecture, the Pope! Because the Pope insulted his friend Donald Trump, which is just laughable.

Basically what O'Reilly is saying is that if one illegal comes into America and kills an American, that justifies the Mexican racism and the wall talk from Trump. It's just ridiculous, and O'Reilly is a fool. And he gave the Pope a lecture over it, which is just laughable.

Here is what O'Reilly said:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Finally, the Pope. I would very much like to speak with him. And if I can arrange that, I would like to bring the family of Kate Steinle with me. I would explain to Francis the facts about the murder of the 32-year-old Kate. I would tell him that because the U.S. Government will not, will not secure the southern border of the United States, a Mexican career criminal was able to illegally enter America six times after being deported five times.

For decades, this man sold narcotics on the streets. And was ultimately protected by the corrupt city and county of San Francisco, which allowed the illegal alien criminal freedom. Result? He shot and killed Kate. Then after all of that, I would point out to the Pope that the U.S. Congress was incapable of passing Kate's law, giving authorities more power to control illegal aliens who commit aggravated felonies in this country.

Finally, I would suggest to Pope Francis, that millions of Americans have been harmed economically by our immigration system which desperately needs reform. I think I could persuade the Pope that providing protection and enforcing settled law is certainly not un-Christian. What is against the tenets of Jesus is to allow chaos that harms innocent people, like Kate Steinle and her family.

What I believe might infuriate Jesus is politicians who are sworn to uphold laws, ignoring their oaths in pursuit of power and votes. When human beings are being harmed, Christians have a sacred duty to try to stop that harm. Yes, there must be compassion for the poor and oppressed. And no one is better in promoting that than Pope Francis. But social order and justice must be incorporated in to compassionate public policy. If not, harm will follow which, in America, it has.

Labor Board Rules Against Donald Trump In Union Dispute
By: Steve - February 23, 2016 - 9:00am

He claims to want to make America grest agian, as if it is not now, while telling his workers they can not form a union. So how does trying to block his workers from forming a union make America great?

It's does not, it makes it worse. Unions give workers good wages and rights against being fired for no reason, but Trump is opposed to unions, because he wants slave labor so he can get richer off the backs of his workers. And btw folks, Trump is slamming Obama for the low wage growth, while opposing a higher minimum wage and by opposing unions that would increase wage growth.

Las Vegas, NV -- Just days before Nevada's Republican presidential caucus, a federal labor official weighed in on the ongoing dispute between Donald Trump's signature luxury Las Vegas hotel and the hundreds of workers who voted in December to unionize.

Trump Hotel management had asked the National Labor Relations Board to throw out the results of that election, claiming that organizers from the Culinary Workers Union intimidated and coerced employees into voting yes, which interfered with their ability to exercise a free and reasoned choice.

But after weeks of reviewing the evidence, the labor board did not agree, and found no evidence what the Trump management was saying happened, none. Hearing Officer Lisa Dunn even said this: "I recommend that the Employer's objections be overruled in their entirety."

Trump's management has also now withdrawn most of their objections, but still refuses to recognize the union. They have two weeks to challenge this new recommendation.

The hotel's 500 workers say they will continue pressuring the Trump Hotel management to recognize their bargaining unit and join them at the table to hammer out a first contract with the Culinary Workers Union and Bartenders Union.

They plan to take advantage of Donald Trump himself coming to Las Vegas to campaign ahead of Tuesday's Republican caucus, and will gather in the same building where he's holding a rally Monday night to demand he negotiate with them.

They will also take to the streets outside the Trump International Hotel on Tuesday, the day of the Republican caucus.

"He says he wants to make America great again," housekeeper Marisela Olvera said in December. "Well, he should start here in his own house, his own business. He always brags about how he has millions and millions and millions of dollars, but he pays his workers less than most in Las Vegas."

Olvera said it was management and its anti-labor law firm, not the union, who intimidated workers during the organizing drive.

"They pressured us a lot (to vote no)," she said. "They told us the union only wants our money, that if we supported the union we'd lose our jobs, that the company would put our names on a blacklist and no other hotels in Las Vegas would hire us. They told us to think of what our children would do if we were out of work. Everyone was very stressed. People were afraid. But we still won, even with all that pressure."

GOP Senator Calls Party Supreme Court Strategy Obstructionist
By: Steve - February 22, 2016 - 10:00am

The Senate Republicans widespread vow to automatically block any Supreme Court nominee President Obama puts forward is wavering a little bit.

Within minutes of Justice Antonin Scalia passing away on Saturday, Republicans declared that they would automatically block any replacement Obama would appoint during the 11 months he has left in office. Soon after, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced his intention to block any replacement until a new president takes office in 2017.

But a conservative senator from North Carolina is breaking rank with his colleagues and calling for the GOP to at least give consideration to a potential replacement.

Tuesday morning, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) cautioned against vowing to automatically block any nominee.

"I think we fall into the trap if just simply say sight unseen, we fall into the trap of being obstructionists," Tillis said.

Tillis, who was elected to the Senate in 2014, did not sound like a man ready to vote a potential Obama nominee, even if he believes the person deserves a hearing.

"If he puts forth someone that we think is in the mold of President Obama's vision for America, then we'll use every device available to block that nomination," Tillis said. He advised the president to nominate someone who has "an almost identical resume and capabilities of Justice Scalia."

Even so, the fact that a senator is willing to go against his party and say that Obama's potential nominee deserves to be considered is a noteworthy break with the current Republican majority.

Mitt Romney To Endorse Marco Rubio
By: Steve - February 22, 2016 - 9:00am

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- In a major development in the Republican presidential race, 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney will endorse Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for president.

Details of Romney's endorsement were still being worked out as of Sunday morning. Sources said that the former Massachusetts governor had been eager to provide his backing to Rubio for days but had hesitated, due to his respect for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush(R), who suspended his campaign on Saturday night following his fourth-place showing in the South Carolina primary.

Romney spent the day in Utah on Saturday and could potentially be in position to bestow his blessing upon Rubio before Tuesday's Nevada Republican caucuses, a contest that Romney won easily in both 2008 and 2012.

Romney's backing will provide Rubio with the highest-profile endorsement of the 2016 race and is the clearest signal yet that the party's establishment is ready to coalesce around the Florida senator as its last best chance to defeat GOP front-runner Donald Trump.

Romney has long held Rubio in high regard. The first-term senator made the vice-presidential short list for Romney's 2012 run and -- along with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- spent the night at Romney's New Hampshire vacation home over Fourth of July weekend last year.

On the heels of Trump's resounding victory in Saturday's South Carolina primary, and with the pivotal March 1 Super Tuesday contests looming, the clock is ticking ever faster for anyone to stop the front-runner on what now looks to be a clear path to the Republican nomination.

With Bush's candidacy over and Ohio Gov. John Kasich having uncertain longterm prospects, Romney's endorsement of Rubio comes at an opportune time for the Florida senator.

And btw folks, all the people on Fox and in the Republican party who are now trying to explain how Trump can beat Hillary Clinton are the very same people who said Romney would easily beat Obama. So think about that, because if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President, Trump will never beat her.

Bush Drops Out & Finally Ends His Terrible Campaign
By: Steve - February 21, 2016 - 11:00am

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you Jeb Bush would never win because his brother George ruined the Bush name forever. No Bush will ever be the President again, and that is a fact, because of George W. Bush.

Jeb Bush has announced that he is suspending his campaign, which puts an end to one of the most disastrous presidential campaigns in modern history. Jeb Bush was someone who was the handpicked candidate the RNC wanted this time last year. And by some accounts, Bush was going to announce his candidacy and walk to an easy nomination.

Though I'm not sure anyone could have predicted that he was going to be as lousy of a candidate as he was. While I'm not a fan of the Bush family, I never expected him to be this terrible as a candidate. When I say his campaign was a disaster - I mean it was a train wreck.

In fact, I'm not even sure how he became the governor of Florida. I joked with people that it seemed like at any moment he was going to burst into tears. Even when he tried to act tough with Trump, it still came off incredibly weak and far too pre-rehearsed.

Jeb Bush did not have what it took to be a good presidential candidate. While he might have appealed to Florida voters at one time, on a national stage, he failed big time. The fact that he began dragging his 90-year-old mother around with him to campaign was just sad.

While she has been an important and respected figure among Republicans for decades, optics matter. And when you're trying to overcome the image of being weak and desperate, bringing your mommy around with you to campaign doesn't help that image.

Then you get so far down in the polls you drag out your brother, who was one of the worst President in history, you have hit rock bottom. He should have quit a long time ago and saved himself from looking like a fool.

Even Neil Cavuto Is Slamming The GOP Over Obama SC Nominee
By: Steve - February 20, 2016 - 11:00am

You know you screwed up when even Neil Cavuto is slamming a Republican for something.

Cavuto: "I Have A Hard Time Understanding Not Even Allowing A Vote On A Supreme Court Nominee."

Partial transcript:
NEIL CAVUTO (HOST): I do wonder, professor, about why Republicans would just punt on even holding hearings. They hold a significant majority in the Senate, so they can argue that if they don't like the president's choice, they could reject it, the president's choice. You need 60 votes. So why add the drama of not even holding hearings?

LARRY SABATO: Well, I think the message that Senator McConnell, the majority leader, was trying to send immediately was that there is very little chance that anyone nominated by President Obama would be approved by a majority of the U.S. Senate.

They don't -- it doesn't have to be a filibuster, it could potentially be a straight up or down vote. But there are 54 Republicans, even if you had a couple of defections, you might not in this case, there's virtually no chance that that would actually happen.

This is going to be a campaign issue on both sides. It probably will increase voter turnout on both sides. And it's elevated to the court to one of the two or three major issues along with terrorism and the economy.

CAVUTO: You know it's interesting. I guess the process normally takes on average about 67 days I read, from a nominee being submitted to the final vote in the Senate, yea or nay. And it's happened before, Ronald Reagan. The third time was the charm for him.

But I guess I have a hard time -- I know the frustration on the part of Republicans, but I have a hard time understanding not even allowing a vote or waiting until, you know, a new president. Because that's still almost a year off.
And Cavuto is not the only person at Fox who is slamming the GOP over this.

Peter Johnson Jr. said this: "Republicans Have To Recalibrate Immediately. We Need A Supreme Court With Nine Folks On It. It's That Simple"

Partial transcript:
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): I think there're very few Republicans who want to see President Obama in his eighth year in office fill the ninth seat of the Supreme Court. The question is, as a tactical matter was it wise for the Senate majority leader to say we're not even going to consider a nominee?

PETER JOHNSON JR.: No, I think the Republicans have to recalibrate immediately.

When you make a mistake, say you make a mistake. Part of the reason the outsiders are doing so well is that they're disgusted with the Congress of the United States. Democrats and Republicans. And if you were a Republican leader to say we're not going to count any nomination, any person that the president puts up, that's a problem. They're going to have a countdown and a clock as to the intransigence of the United States Senate going forward.

CARLSON: So you're saying it would be wiser just to take a look at the nominees and then evaluate them and then turn them down if you don't like them?

JOHNSON JR.: It is what I'm saying. In order to be true to conservative principles, in order to be true to the Constitution, in order to be true to the memory of Justice Scalia, then you say yes, Mr. President, send who you want to send over. We're going to take a look at that man or woman, whoever you send, and we're going to make a determination.

Because you obviously have decided in spite of precedent, most precedent, you say in an election year that you want to force the issue. Fine. If you want to force the issue, then you will force the issue, and we in due time, just as you in due time making a nomination, will decide whether to consent to that nomination of a United States Supreme Court justice.

CARLSON: So they wouldn't have to confirm the nominees.

JOHNSON JR.: The Republicans need to step it back at this point and say, listen, we're going to grieve for Justice Scalia at this point, then we're going to make a determination about where we are. There's no line in the sand. My concern is, A. conservative principles, B. the Constitution and also the future of a two-party system.

Where will the Republican party be two or three years from now when it is remembered that the Republican party said we would not -- we would not even look at a nominee for the United States Supreme Court? It's not smart. It's not good for our future. It's not good for our governance, and it's not good for the notion that this government is responsive to the needs of the people. We need a Supreme Court with nine folks on it. It's that simple. They need to step it back today.
As usual the Republican party got it wrong, as the majority oppose what they are doing, and they have proven once again they do not care about what's best for America, all they care about is partisan political tricks that make their far-right base happy.

Fox News Poll Shows That 62% Want Obama To Replace Scalia
By: Steve - February 20, 2016 - 10:00am

Now this is bad news for the stooges at Fox and all the Republicans.

In a new Fox News poll released Friday, 62% of Americans say the President and Senate should take action to fill the Supreme Court vacancy now, while just 34% say wait. Independents broke along similar lines 61% to 35%.

And they got these results even though the biased Fox poll asked "registered voters" a loaded question that suggested the fact that it's an election year is a relevant factor (when it is not). But even with the biased and leading question, the poll response shows what Republicans are up against.

The question and the response:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death has sparked a debate over how to fill the vacancy on the nation's highest court. Taking into consideration that it's an election year, which of the following is closer to your view?

The president should not get to nominate someone for a life-time appointment to the high court this late in his term. 34%

It's still the responsibility of current leaders, President Obama and the Senate, to take action to fill the vacancy now. 62%

(Don't know) 4%
When this is broken down to reveal the party affiliation of the voters, Independents are not leaning toward the Republican efforts to spin reality in an effort to obstruct President Obama from his right and duty, with 61% of Independents agreeing that the President and Senate should take immediate action to fill the vacancy, as Ronald Reagan urged when he was in the same situation.

Even with the biased and loaded question, Republicans can not pull this heist of power off in the eyes of the public. If they proceed, they will be taking quite a gamble on older white and misinformed voters out performing the rest of the country when it comes to turnout.

Trump Says He'll Win Independents & New York The Numbers Say No
By: Steve - February 19, 2016 - 11:00am

As usual, Trump just blows out some hot air and hopes someone will believe it, even though the actual numbers disagree with him. During Wednesday night's town hall on MSNBC, Trump said this:
"I will have more crossover votes -- if I get the nomination, I will have more crossover votes than anybody that's ever run for office. I will have Democrat votes. I will have independent votes. I will do tremendously with crossover. One other thing: I will have states that nobody ever thought of getting in terms of a Republican."
To begin with, I do not know one Democrat who would ever vote for Trump, or any other Republican who is currently running, except maybe Kasich, and 99% of them would not even vote for him.

So Trump is not going to get many votes from Democrats, I would bet less than 10 percent, and most of them are not real Democrats, they are more like moderate Republicans or Independents who have not switched to Republican or Independent yet.

Trump also said this:
"I think I will win New York, and I have a great chance of Michigan. States that are not in your six states that we always talk about. I'll definitely get Pennsylvania. I'll get Ohio. I think I'm going to win Florida. You see how I'm doing in Florida. I'll get states like a Michigan and New York."
First of all, it seems pretty unlikely that Trump will have more crossover votes than anybody that's ever run for office. Because more than one president has won a massive number of votes from political opponents, including Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. In 1984, Reagan got 25% of Democrats to vote for him.

That's a mark Trump would be hard-pressed to beat.

Second, it's not clear he would actually do much better than the other Republicans running this year. It would mean reversing a recent pattern of strong partisanship in presidential elections. And recent polling doesn't support the idea.

Shortly after the Iowa caucuses, Quinnipiac University ran head-to-head polls pitting top Republicans against the two Democratic candidates.

In that poll, Trump does much worse than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz against both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders -- and does worse with independents than he does with voters overall.

Which is not very good evidence that independents will swarm to his cause.

Against Clinton and Sanders, Trump pulls 7 to 8 percent of Democrats, which is about the same as the 8 to 9 percent Rubio gets. And let's remember this, that 8 to 9 percent are not real Democrats, they are moderates who could easily be a Republican or an Independent. A lot of them are just Republicans pretending to be Democrats, and they vote Republican most of them time.

Real Democrats would never vote for any Republicans for anything, not even dog catcher. Because they know they are mostly liars who say anything to get elected and use all their power to help the wealthy and the corporations.

Trump does worse overall than Rubio, and his margin of support with independents against Sanders is only slightly higher than what the Rubio has. The fairest way to read these results is that they're about the same across the board. There's no advantage seen by Trump at all.

There was another poll this month that gives the lie to Trump's reply to Scarborough. Siena College surveyed New York state, seeing how home-field favorites Trump, Clinton and Sanders would do. In New York, unsurprisingly, the Republicans all did much worse than the Democrats, including Trump.

Against each Democrat, Trump did worse than Cruz and Rubio. His margins with independents were about the same as Ted Cruz, the man Trump says is the biggest liar in America.

It is possible that Trump would solidify support from a few Democrats and independents if he got the nomination, but there is no evidence at all that he will -- or that he'd do so more effectively than would one of the other Republicans.

And btw folks, here is something Donald Trump will never tell you. Trump is viewed unfavorably by 65 percent of all New York voters, which is the highest of any candidate, and New York has went to the Democrat in every Presidential election since 1984.

Not to mention this, Ted Cruz is now ahead of Trump in national polls. So Trump is only winning the Republican primary in some States, overall Trump is behind Cruz.

Rubio's Morning Again In America Ad Is Actually Canada
By: Steve - February 19, 2016 - 10:00am

What an idiot, and this guy wants to be the President. The Rubio campaign ad claims to be morning in America, when it's actually morning in Canada.

"It's morning again in America," a calm narrator says as an idyllic scene of a boat crossing a harbor plays in Marco Rubio's latest ad -- which is a riff on the classic Ronald Reagan ad.

Based on a quick internet search, the boat scene in the Morning Again ad is Vancouver, Canada.

If you look closely, Vancouver's Harbour Centre Lookout Tower is visible in the footage. The footage was filmed from Vancouver Harbour. And the flag on the boat in the ad is also Canadian.

So it turns out that the Rubio people were not even smart enough to use footage of America in a campaign ad called morning in America. They used footage of morning in Canada.

Trump Is A Joke & If You Vote For Him You Are A Fool
By: Steve - February 18, 2016 - 11:30am

All he does is call people names, insult people, say he will sue them, and not answer any questions with specific answers. And in the rare case when he does get a little specific, it's nonsense that will never happen, or is impossible to do.

In the Town hall he did he was a joke, he had no answers, and he did not even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. His answer to protecting America and getting rid of ISIS and terrorism was trust me I will stop them. That is no answer, it's all hot air.

It's all talk, and 99% of it is that, just talk. Even if he is the President he can not just do whatever he wants, Congress has to approve most of it, and they also have to give the President the money to do anything.

Trump says he will build a wall, deport 11 million illegals, and get Mexico to pay for it, which is just ridiculous. To begin with it's impossible to find those 11 million illegals, and even if you could find them all it would cost billions and billions to deport them. Congress would never give him the money to do it.

The wall would also cost billions, if not a trillion, and Mexico has said they will not pay for it, for one, because they do not have the money, they are a poor country. And a wall is worthless, if you build a wall they will just go over it, under it, or around it, come in by car, bus, truck, plane, etc.

I would bet that 99% of what Trump says he is going to do as President is impossible. And that is only a couple things, because he never gets specific about anything. He has no policies, and he has no plans. He is just a giant windbag that is full of hot air.

He says he will get rid of Obamacare because it is not working, when that is a lie, it is working fine, it just needs a few slight adjustments to fine tune it. Trump even slams Cruz for lying, when he is as big of a liar as Cruz. He talks about doing this or that, but when asked for specifics and plans, he says he has a lot of plans and they are great.

But we never get details of those plans, because he does not have any, he is just winging it and saying he will be great. Trump is a con-man, and you are being scammed. He has no plans, no policies, no nothing, all he has is hot air, and almost everything he says he will do is nonsense and not possible.

Almost Everyone In America Supports Democratic Socialism
By: Steve - February 18, 2016 - 11:00am

So when you see O'Reilly and the GOP slam Bernie Sanders for being some kind of evil socialist, you should know that Democratic socialism is a good thing, and that most Americans are living under a lot of socialist policies right now, including Medicare. Most Americans support Democratic socialism, including a lot of Republicans, they just will not admit it.

If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, the only word that's going to be constantly repeated over and over next fall by Republicans is "socialist" as if that is a bad thing, and they will use it in every single attack ad against him.

As Trump does now, he calls Sanders a communist, when he is not a communist, he is a Democratic socialist and the majority of Americans support his policies, most of you just will not admit it because you do not want to support socialist policies, even though you already do, and when you hear what he wants to do, most Americans agree with it.

I find it laughable that O'Reilly and the Republicans hate the idea of socialism. The truth is, this country has been partially driven by socialism for decades. In fact, most Americans absolutely love socialism.

To all you conservatives reading this -- you're all fans of socialism whether you like it or not.

In fact, let me take a moment to address Republicans who will undoubtedly freak out at the sheer mention of the word socialism if Sanders were to become the Democratic nominee.

You don't agree with me that you're fans of socialism, right? You're not a socialist -- you're a "freedom-loving capitalist that wouldn't dare support evil socialism."

So answer this, have you ever:

Driven on public roads?
Attended public schools?
Eaten food that didn't make you sick thanks to safety standards?
Deposited money into a bank because you knew even in the event of a robbery your funds are insured?
Visited a public library?
Collected Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid?
Called 9/11 in the unfortunate need for police, fire or medical assistance?
Received mail from the United States Postal Service?
Bragged about and saluted our military?
Taken out a student loan or grant?
Had your garbage collected by city services?
Used any form of public transportation?

Because if you've done anything I just listed (as well as numerous other things in this country), and you're glad they existed when you needed them -- you're supporting socialism. Everything I just listed above is, in one way or another, paid for and/or subsidized by the government via taxes, and that is part of Democratic socialism.

Do you know how our military became the most powerful killing machine in Earth's 4 billion year history? Because we socialized the hell out of it.

Any conservative whose livelihood and medical care is largely based on Social Security and Medicare is quite literally living on socialism. In fact, without that socialism many of you might be homeless or dead.

The truth is, this nation is a based upon a form of Democratic socialist capitalism. In fact, our nation was stronger economically 50 years ago when we were more socialist than what we are today. Back when taxes were higher, unions were stronger, education was better and income inequality wasn't really an issue.

It wasn't until the ridiculous notion of trickle-down economics (which is just an elaborate con predicated on the redistribution of wealth from 98 percent of Americans to the top 2 percent) was put upon us that everything started spiraling out of control.

For those Republicans still doubting that you're all socialists, I have a simple way to prove it: Go find any conservative you know who's currently receiving Social Security and/or Medicare then mention you're in favor of eliminating or cutting their benefits -- see how that goes for you.

I'll guess that their reaction won't be good. Though that's a bit of a trick question, because any true hater of socialism wouldn't accept either government benefit. Notice that Republicans say they oppose socialism, but none of them ever turn down Social Security or Medicare, even the wealthy ones, so they are lying hypocrites who support socialism, they just refuse to admit it.

If Bernie Sanders happens to win the Democratic nomination, and leading up to the general election your party predictably starts the incessant fear-mongering about the evil socialist, just remember one thing: If you have accepted anything I listed above in this article, you are a big fan of socialism.

You just will not admit it, and that includes Bill O'Reilly.

Legal Experts Say Obama Must Nominate A New Justice
By: Steve - February 18, 2016 - 10:00am

So much for the constitution, Republicans could care less what it says, they just do not want Obama to Nominate a new Justice to the Supreme Court, even though he is the President and the constitution says he MUST do it.

Legal scholars and reporters who have covered the Supreme Court for years are criticizing conservatives planned obstruction of President Obama's future nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Within minutes of Scalia's death Saturday, right-wing media figures started pushing the idea that Republican senators should block any potential replacement nominated by Obama and leave the vacancy unfilled until the next president takes office in 2017.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement shortly after Scalia's death arguing that Scalia's seat "should not be filled until we have a new president." A number of Republican politicians -- including GOP candidates at Saturday night's debate -- have since suggested that Obama should not even put forward a nominee.

Several legal scholars and Supreme Court beat reporters contend the president has a duty to appoint a replacement for Scalia, adding that the U.S. Senate is abdicating its constitutional responsibility if it does not hold hearings to approve or reject such nominees.

"It would be highly unusual for any president NOT to appoint someone," Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times Supreme Court reporter from 1978 to 2008 and a 1998 Pulitzer Prize winner, said via email. "It's up to the Republicans to explain why they would refuse even to consider a qualified nominee."

Stephen Wermiel, a professor of constitutional law at American University Washington College of Law is an expert in Supreme Court jurisprudence, agreed:

"Obama has a duty to make an appointment. It is not desirable by any measure to have the Supreme Court go an entire year with only eight justices instead of nine and have to resolve things by 4-4 ties and by other methods. The Constitution says the president shall appoint, it doesn't say only when it's politically convenient."

Tony Mauro, a National Law Journal reporter who has covered The Supreme Court for 36 years, called it "one of a president's most important duties."

"It's in the Constitution to nominate, it doesn't mean the Senate has to confirm," he said. "I've been surprised that people are suggesting that he shouldn't even nominate anyone, that seems a little over the top. Nominating is one of the most important things that a president does. There is a vacancy on the court, so it is his duty."

Garrett Epps, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and Supreme Court correspondent for The Atlantic, agreed.

"It would be a little bit of a dereliction of duty, and politically it would be silly," he said about a move not to nominate a replacement. "It's pure politics. One of the consequences for the court of a prolonged vacancy is that the court can't make a decision unless there is a majority vote. It's kind of a dangerous situation, there are things that need to be decided."

Nadine Strossen, a professor of law at New York Law School and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union said "this is not ambiguous" in the Constitution.

"The law is very straightforward," she said. "You may know that the relevant provisions in Article 2 say, 'shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' What's interesting is that it is the verb 'shall nominate,' not 'may nominate.' it is actually a duty of the president."

Lucas A. Powe, a University of Texas Law School professor and a one-time clerk for former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, called such an idea "absurd."

"Functionally, what that will mean is, assuming we do wait until January or February next year without a justice, we are going to go an entire year without a full court," he said. "That means a lot of important cases are going to be put off until 2018."

He is among several experts who said the Senate has a right to reject a nominee, but not ignore it and refuse to vote: "It's another example of how rotten our politics are."

This is where the Republicans screwed up, they said Obama should not even nominate anyone, and then they said if he did, they will not confirm them. And they did it for pure political reasons, because Obama is a Democrat and because they do not like him.

What they should have said was this, he can nominate someone but if we do not like them we can vote no. To say he can not nominate anyone, and lie about last year Presidents not doing it, is just wrong. And it shows that Republicans do not give a damn about the constitution they claim to support.

They are willing to throw the constitution out the window, simply because they do not want Obama to get a Justice on the Supreme Court. But if we had a Republican President and the Democrats were saying the same thing, my God, the Republicans and O'Reilly would be screaming bloody murder.

Media Critic Slams Scarborough For Relationship With Donald Trump
By: Steve - February 17, 2016 - 11:00am

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

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): "Morning Trump," because that's Joe Scarborough speaking there at 92Y, actually many months ago. But our colleague Dylan Byers wrote about it for CNN Money earlier this week. He's been all over this really important story, which is the Donald Trump-Joe Scarborough relationship.

What we see sometimes on-air is a very cozy relationship between the two men, and in fact I've seen the name "Morning Trump" being used to describe Morning Joe recently. I want to get your take on whether this is appropriate or inappropriate, because certainly Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, others at Fox News have close relationships with Trump. What do you think of this Scarborough-Trump relationship?

DAVID ZURAWIK: Inappropriate, Brian.

STELTER: Why?

ZURAWIK: And if I had any hair, it would be on fire as I said it. Listen, even somebody like a morning show host plays a role, at least a quasi-journalistic role -- I'd argue it's journalistic -- plays a role in setting the parameters of the national conversation around these candidates.

You shouldn't be so involved with them that you're going down and giving them tips. I love the video you just showed. I'm so happy it got played, because it shows how unashamed Scarborough is, how proud he is of the fact that he's in the tank for him.

Back in August I wrote about this relationship and it was unbelievable, because it was just before the Alabama open-air rally that Trump was going to hold. And Scarborough was talking about Trump letting his brother, who I guess lives in Florida, on his plane when it landed in Mobile.

And then the next day, he was on Facebook saying how great it was that Trump let him on the plane, and then he started talking rapturously about what a great candidate this is and it's the future of American politics.

He doesn't even know how damning that is to the credibility of MSNBC that almost every morning this guy gets out and behaves that way. And hey, what about the executives at MSNBC that don't call him in and say stop it? What's going on with that? This is outrageous. Now certainly --

STELTER: I did ask for a new comment from MSNBC this morning, and I didn't hear back. Dylan Byers has a great story online, I do recommend reading it. What's interesting to me is that when Dylan's story came online, Scarborough attacked CNN, and he pointed out Morning Joe's ratings, which is a very Trump thing to do, kind of like pointing to poll numbers.

You know I do think there's others in media that are giving advice to Trump like Bill O'Reilly. But this Morning Joe relationship is intriguing. I think it's going to keep getting attention.

Sanders Slams GOP For Saying They Will Block Supreme Court Nominee
By: Steve - February 17, 2016 - 10:00am

And remember this is the party that screamed bloody murder when Democrats blocked judges under Bush, they even made a website called upordownvote.com. They said it was un-American and unfair to not let judges get an up or down vote, now they are doing the very same thing, and to hell with the up or down vote.

O'Reilly was on the Republicans side at the time, and he did segment after segment promoting the upordownvote.com website and slamming Democrats, but now that Republicans are bloking votes for judges under Obama, and saying they will block any Supreme Court nominee, O'Reilly has been silent. Proving once again that he is nothing but a hypocritical right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

DENVER -- Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont criticized Republican officials for recommending that President Obama hold off on nominating a successor for Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, who died Saturday.

Speaking on Saturday at an annual fund-raising dinner hosted by the Colorado Democratic Party, Mr. Sanders said Republicans are overlooking the powers given to the president in the Constitution. He slammed Republicans for trying to block President Obama's ability to nominate a justice for partisan reasons.

"It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of our Constitution of the United States," Sanders said.

"Apparently, they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that." Several Republican candidates said President Obama should let the next president choose the justice or urged the Senate to block the nomination.

"I very much hope that President Obama will bring forth a strong nominee and that we can get that nominee confirmed as soon as possible," Sanders said. "The Supreme Court of the United States has nine members, not eight. We need that ninth member."

Trump Says Bush Lied About Iraq & About Keeping Us Safe
By: Steve - February 16, 2016 - 11:00am

Donald Trump finally told the truth about something, Iraq, which is one of the few things he has been fact-checked on and found to be true. Trump said George W. Bush lies us into Iraq, and when Jeb said he kept us safe when Trump was running a reality show, Trump shot back that was a lie too, and said the Twin Towers in New York came down under his watch, which was not keeping us safe.

For years the Republicans and Jeb have been spewing out this lie that George W. Bush kept us safe, when the truth is this, he did not keep us safe, the 9-11 attacks happened on his watch, a full 8 months after he took office. I just wish Trump would have mentioned the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) that Bush got saying Bin Laden was going to strike in the USA with airplanes, and that Bush ignored it and did nothing.

Bush should have put the airlines on alert and added extra security, but he did nothing, and that is how the terrorists got on the planes and used them as giant flying bombs.

At the latest Republican presidential debate Saturday, Donald Trump, in a heated exchange with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, bluntly accused George W. Bush of lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to fool Americans into supporting the war in Iraq.

"Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?" Trump said when asked about his call for then-President George W. Bush to be impeached. "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none."

Trump added, "George Bush made the mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty."

And for the record, at the time Scott Ritter (the senior weapons inspector in Iraq) was back in America telling everyone that Iraq did not have WMD's. So when O'Reilly and his right-wing friends were saying everyone thought they had WMD's they are lying about that too, because not everyone was saying that.

It is documented that Ritter was saying he had destroyed any WMD's they had, and that he has access to everywhere in the country. Then he was proven right when Bush invaded Iraq and found nothing, Ritter was exactly right, O'Reilly and the Republicans never mention any of this, while lying about it to protect the reputation of George W. Bush.

Trump's attack, at the Peace Center in Greenville, S.C., came two days before George W. Bush was to emerge from years of self-imposed exile from the campaign trail to try to help his brother's failed campaign for the White House.

In the days before the New Hampshire primary, Trump also made fun of former first lady Barbara Bush hitting the road for her son. "Wow, Jeb Bush, whose campaign is a total disaster, had to bring in mommy to take a slap at me. Not nice!" the real estate mogul tweeted.

Given a chance to respond, Jeb declared that he was "sick and tired of Barack Obama blaming my brother for all of the problems that he's had."

As for Trumps attacks, "I could care less about the insults that Donald Trump gives to me. It's bloodsport for him. He enjoys it, and I'm glad he's happy about it," the former governor said.

"But I am sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive, in my mind. While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe, and I'm proud of what he did," Jeb continued.

The former governor denounced Trump for having "the gall to go after my mother" and declared, "My mom is the strongest woman I know." ("She should be running," Trump interjected.)

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida rose to the former president's defense. "I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he kept us safe," Rubio said.

Trump came roaring back. "The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe."

CBS debate moderator John Dickerson enlisted Ohio Gov. John Kasich in the exchange.

"This is just nuts," Kasich said of the back-and-forth. He noted that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had publicly accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction programs -- but then the governor pivoted to say: "We should never have gone into Iraq."

As for Trump's opposition to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq: He came out against it in the summer of 2004.

CIA Tells Trump They Will Resign Before Using Torture Again
By: Steve - February 16, 2016 - 10:00am

So much for Trump bringing waterboarding back, the CIA said they would all resign before using torture again, especially when they say it did not work.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said he would order the CIA to return to waterboarding and "worse", but a top CIA lawyer said officials would rather resign than go back to using torture.

Newsweek reported this:
John Rizzo, who was a top CIA lawyer during the time the agency used "enhanced interrogation techniques," or EITs, on prisoners, said CIA officials would rather resign than obey orders to revert to hard measures like waterboarding and beatings.

"I think certainly many of those who were connected to the EIT program over its six year span (and hundreds are still there) would‎ resign or retire rather than have to go down that perilous road again," Rizzo tells Newsweek.

"I pity the poor SOB who is President Trump's CIA director and gets the order to do interrogation techniques worse than waterboarding, not to mention the CIA general counsel or Justice Department attorney general who has the legal issue dropped in his or her lap."
Newsweek also quoted other officials who agreed with Rizzo that no one at the CIA wants to go down this road again. The Bush Administration's enhanced interrogation program included "waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation and humiliation."

So when Donald Trump vows to return to "waterboarding or worse," it raises questions about just what kind of torture he is referring to.

Trump has said he would "approve more than that," as he criticized President Obama for ending the discredited tactics.

Trump said this: "Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would -- in a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

Trump does not even care if it works or not, it's about punishing prisoners for him. This makes his reasoning even worse than the Bush administration. At least, they claimed, incorrectly, that it was useful.

"Believe me, it works," Trump said. "And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing. It works."

Trump does not care that the use of torture was found by a Senate Intelligence Committee report to jeopardize national security. The report also found that the use of torture doesn't work in terms of getting reliable information. So it's good for nothing but as a way to recruit more members for ISIS.

Trump is campaigning on putting the people of the United States at higher risk of terrorism. His torture policies (if we can call them that) would actually cause more terrorism.

We all know facts don't matter with the Trump, or his supporters. They don't care that he can not deliver on his ridiculous promises, he doesn't understand how government works and makes promises he will not be able to keep.

It should matter to the rest of the country that the front-running Republican candidate for president is so ignorant of facts that he is vowing to return to a dangerous, destabilizing program of torture just to get his revenge jollies.

It's all Bush/Cheney like tought talk and revenge, except it's being said by someone who makes George W. Bush look like a genius compared to him. Most of what Trump says he will do is not possible, because it will take approval from Congress, and they are against almost all of his policies.

Warren Slams Republicans For Pledging To Block Supreme Court Process
By: Steve - February 15, 2016 - 11:30am

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death on Saturday, Senate Republicans have promised to block any of president Obama's nominations to the Supreme Court.

And that did not sit well with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As Republican leaders and some presidential candidates want President Obama to leave the nomination for Supreme Court justice for a future president, Warren dismissed those calls Sunday, arguing that Obama has the constitutional right to fill the Supreme Court with the help of the Senate.

Warren said this:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that -- empty talk.
Republican leaders like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rebuffed the president's plan, saying the Senate should wait until a new president is in office. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," he said in a statement.

But eyeing the opportunity to replace conservative Scalia with a more progressive candidate, Democrats are calling for the exact opposite as major cases dealing with immigration, voting, and climate policies are slated to go before a now hung Supreme Court.

"The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) via Twitter. "The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible."

For her part, Warren on Sunday stressed that President Obama has every right to nominate someone. She mocked Republicans for saying they want to uphold the constitution, while refusing to let Obama carry out his Constitutional duties.

O'Reilly Slams Democrats For Uninformed Voters & Soros Money
By: Steve - February 15, 2016 - 11:00am

While ignoring the fact that the Koch brothers spend hundreds of millions giving to Republicans, and the fact that the Trump voters are the least educated voters in the country. About half of the Trump supporters have a high school education or less, which is the least educated people of any candidates supporters.

But O'Reilly never said a word about that, while saying the people who support Sanders are uninformed, when he has no clue how informed they are, and the surveys show that it is the Trump supporters who are the least informed.

O'Reilly has slammed George Soros a million times for simply giving money to liberals he supports. Which is 100% legal and done every day in America by Democrats and Republicans. O'Reilly never slams the Koch brothers, who give millions to conservatives he supports. And the Koch brothers spend way more than Soros, but O'Reilly does not say a word about them because he gives money to Republicans.

O'Reilly said this Friday night:

O'REILLY: "Hillary won that round, but she lost when asked about her Super PAC that is lavishly funded by financiers George Soros. Secretary Clinton completely dodged the issue. If she is going to condemn big PAC money going to Republicans, she can't take cash from Soros and rich Democrat PACs. But her supporters don't care. Devoted followers of a politician pretty much will accept anything from him or her.

It is obvious in this campaign that followers of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, to give two vivid examples, are not expecting precise political analysis. It is the tone those candidates strike that is driving their support. As I told Mr. Trump, the federal courts would block his attempt at mass deportations. On the Sanders front, there is no way his draconian taxation vision could even come close to covering his endless list of entitlements.

But to Bernie's followers, it doesn't really matter. Like a bad gift, it's the thought that counts. Sanders' democratic socialism' is basically what some countries in Western Europe have, a system that limits income through taxation in return for cradle-to-grave payouts from the governments. Even if you're a derelict, you will be supported by the government and in return you will do what the government tells you to do.

When it comes to housing, you can get it supplemented, but you are assigned to units. And you can get daycare, but your kids are assigned to centers. So you can see that democratic socialism where citizens still vote but are mostly told what to do by guys like Bernie Sanders is a system of subservience to a big central government. The majority of those supporting Senator Sanders have no clue what he actually wants, they are hypnotized by the prospect of free stuff because of course they deserve that.

Why? Because the system is rigged by billionaires, so why shouldn't Bernie provide for me and take from the greedy rich folks who made their money by exploiting the peasants? That is right out of the Fidel/Che handbook. Again, Talking Points submits that many of those voting for the Bern-meister have no idea who Che was or who Karl Marx was or even who Fidel is.

Getting ill-informed folks to follow you isn't all that hard. A dose of flamboyance mixed with some passion and more than a smidgen of resentment can rally some people who don't know very much. Sadly, many would forfeit their right to prosper in a major way for the false security of a government controlled economy. But those folks - the Bernie people - remain a distinct minority, as we will see going forward."

Trump Got Majority Of The Less Educated Vote In New Hampshire
By: Steve - February 15, 2016 - 10:00am

Trump Wins 45% of the High School or Less Vote In New Hampshire. According to exit polling data complied by NBC News, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump fared particularly well with the high school graduates or less crowd whereas Governor Kasich (R-OH) did well with the post grads.

In overall terms it broke down: High school graduate or less Trump 45% Cruz 14% Bush 12% Kasich 9%, more than high school graduate: Trump 29% Kasich 17% Rubio 13% Cruz 12% Bush 11%.

A statistic that will be troubling for the national Republican Party is that Trump won 30% of the self-described "moderate" vote, with Kasich, who actually passes for a moderate in today's Republican party (grading on a curve) so close at 27%.

The only people who didn't go for Trump were the self-described white evangelical or white born again Christians -- they love Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), which is setting up a mano e mano situation in the South Carolina primary as the Palmetto state is dominated by evangelicals.

In contrast, Democrat Bernie Sanders got the more than high school graduate vote: Sanders 58% Clinton 41% and the high school graduate or less Sanders 60% Clinton 39%.

Overall, Democrats had 88% with more than high school grad vote and Republicans had 85% with more than a high school grad vote. The takeaway is that Trump has locked up the less educated vote and Kasich does well when the higher educated turn out.

Scalia Dead 2 Seconds & Republicans Already Lying About Him
By: Steve - February 14, 2016 - 11:30am

Scalia was only dead for about 2 seconds before Republicans started lying about what Obama could and should do to nominate a new justice, my God they are jerks. Could you at least let the man rest in peace for a few days and have a funeral before you make it political and lie about his replacement.

Republicans are all saying no President in HISTORY has ever nominated a new Supreme Court justice in an election year. And it is a total lie, Ronald Reagan nominated and had confirmed justice Kennedy in 1988, in a vote of 97 to 0, in an election year.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said it has not been done in 80 years, and not only is he lying, he was in the Senate in 1988 and he voted for Kennedy, he was one of the 97 to 0 votes. Making him the liar of the year so far.

And President Obama has the right to nominate a replacement for Scalia, so the Republicans are lying, they just do not want Obama to appoint a new Justice.

Trump Threatens To Sue Ted Cruz For Not Being A Natural Born Citizen
By: Steve - February 14, 2016 - 11:00am

Washington -- Donald Trump on Friday threatened to sue Ted Cruz for "not being a natural born citizen" if the Texas senator "doesn't clean up his act" and stop running negative ads against him.

Trump said this: "If @TedCruz doesn't clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen."

Trump has previously argued that if Cruz won the Republican nomination, Democrats would argue that the Canada-born Texas senator was ineligible for the presidency.

Last month, Trump even asked his supporters at a rally if he should sue Cruz "just for fun" over the issue.

Friday, Trump questioned the sincerity of Cruz's faith, accusing his opponent of being "so dishonest."

Kirsten Powers Points Out That O'Reilly Is Lying About Bernie Sanders
By: Steve - February 14, 2016 - 10:00am

FNC contributor Kirsten Powers joined The Factor to evaluate the Talking Points O'Reilly had calling Bernie Sanders a communist and comparing him to Fidel Castro. Even though the Democratic socialism Sanders supports is far different from the communist socialism Castro had in Cuba.

Communist socialism and Democratic socialism are almost nothing alike, Sanders just wants to make things more fair for everyone, and not run your entire life. Communist socialism controls your whole life, and O'Reilly knows it, and yet he still made the unfair comparison of Sanders to Castro, proving once again that he is a biased right-wing hack who will lie to you at the drop of a hat.

Powers called O'Reilly out for his dishonesty:

"One thing that bothers me," she began, "is that the critics of Bernie Sanders will say things like you said. You bring up Castro, but Cuba is a communist country, it's not a democratic socialist country. To suggest that's what Bernie Sanders is selling is disingenuous. He's not suggesting that the means of production will be owned by the government, he's suggesting that what I consider basic human rights will be provided to all Americans."

And btw folks, what O'Reilly is complaining about is Sanders calling for single payer healthcare for everyone, just like the people on Medicare. He also wants to have the Government pay for everyone to go to college, to level the playing field, so not just the wealthy can get a college education.

Sanders also wants to tax the wealthy and the wall street billionaires at a fair rate, instead of the current rates that are unfair, mostly the capital gains tax that is far too low, and the tax rate on the top 1 percent. He also wants to raise the income tax cap to a million dollars, and up, so people pay their fair share of taxes.

Right now a guy making $250,000 a year pays the same tax rate as a guy making a million dollars (or more) a year. That is not fair, and O'Reilly knows it, but he is one of those guys so he calls Sanders a communist socialist to make him look bad. When in fact, most of Sanders ideas are very good and supported by the majority of Americans.

O'Reilly does not tell you any of this, while lying to you that Sanders is a communist socialist, when he is not, he is a Democratic socialist who simply wants to do what is best for the majority of Americans, not just the wealthy, as O'Reilly does.

Scarborough Watched Election Results With Trump - O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - February 14, 2016 - 9:00am

Last week O'Reilly complained about Rachel Maddow hugging Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton after the Democratic debate. And now we find out that Republican Joe Scarborough went to Trumps Hotel and watched the New Hampshire primary results with him. Trump even said that Scarborough is a supporter, and not a word about any of it from O'Reilly.

MSNBC is in backpedal mode after CNN reported that Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski watched the New Hampshire primary election results with Donald Trump.

CNN's Dylan Byers reported, "Trump also told the hosts it was great seeing them the previous evening. Scarborough and Brzezinski visited Trump's hotel room on Tuesday night while the New Hampshire primary results were rolling in, according to two sources with knowledge of their visit.

Scarborough and Brzezinski did not respond to a request for comment.

Now can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if a reporter from MSNBC went to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clintons hotel room and watched the election results with them. He would lose his mind and call for them to be fired, or at least not allowed to report on them anymore. Maddow just did a hug, and O'Reilly flipped out, but when Scarborough hangs out with Trump in his hotel O'Reilly says nothing.

MSNBC even put out a press release that defended Scarborough, but also confirmed the CNN report.

Trump said, "You guys have been supporters. And I really appreciate it. And not necessarily supporters, but at least believers. You said there's some potential there."

The problem is that people in the media should not be believers or supporters, and Scarborough has a history of advocacy at MSNBC. Trump is known for only wanting to appear on friendly media, and nobody has been more friendly to Trump than Morning Joe.

Scarborough has not gone on the record to deny the friendly relationship with Trump.

Koch Brothers Facts Bill O'Reilly Is Hiding From You
By: Steve - February 13, 2016 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly rails on and on about George Soros giving money to liberal groups and Democratic candidates running for office in America, as if he is doing something wrong, when it is 100% legal and a good thing to O'Reilly when Republicans with wealth give their money to conservative groups and Republican candidates running for office.

Soros simply gives money to people that agree with him politically, and there is nothing wrong with that, this is America and you are free to give money to anyone you want, especially since the right-leaning Supreme Court ruled that Citizens United says unlimited money in politics is ok. And btw folks, O'Reilly supported the Citizens United ruling, and yet he is now crying about Soros giving money to Democrats.

While not complaining at all about the Koch brothers, who do the very same thing, except they give to Republicans. Here is what the Koch brothers do, something O'Reilly will not tell you about, because he ignores it for partisan political reasons.

1. The Kochs want to do away with Social Security.

"In 1980, David Koch funded a presidential campaign that called Social Security 'The Ultimate Pyramid Scheme' and promised to abolish and replace it."

2. The Kochs want to eliminate minimum wage laws.

"According to Charles Koch, the U.S. needs to get rid of the minimum wage, which he counts as a major obstacle to economic growth."

Koch strategist on the dangers of raising the minimum wage: "This is the recruitment ground for fascism, and it's not just historical. It's what goes on today in the suicide bomber recruitment."

3. The Kochs want to put insurance companies back in charge of your health care.

"It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans -- including their cautious leaders -- into cutting off financing for the entire federal government. The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been deeply involved with financing the overall effort. A group linked to the Kochs, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, disbursed more than $200 million last year to nonprofit organizations involved in the fight."

4. The Kochs want to do away with Medicare as we know it.

"The Ryan plan to eliminate traditional Medicare was described in the media as a 'Koch proposal,' an ideological scheme to realize long-standing ultra-right hopes to privatize and radically shrink a major national social program."

5. The Kochs are spending money to subvert the voices and interests of local communities.

"When this city's newly elected conservative mayor urged voters to approve an increase in the sales tax to pay to improve the roads, he drew fire from an un-expected source: a branch of Americans for Prosperity, a powerful conservative advocacy group backed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch."

"The Tennessee office of Americans for Prosperity, a lobbying organization founded and funded by Charles and David Koch, played a big role in passage of state Senate legislation that would stop the $174 million bus rapid transit project known as the Amp."

"In this election, lawn signs are being stolen and minivans vandalized. One candidate says she received an email telling her to get cancer and die. Money from the billionaire Koch brothers is funding one side's commercials and fliers, and upset parents, teachers and labor unions are pouring in cash for the other."

6. The Kochs are fighting against renewable energy initiatives all across the country.

"The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation's largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states."

7. The Kochs rank as one of the biggest air polluters.

Koch Industries ranks as #13 on the Toxic 100 Air Polluters index.

"Under the nearly five-decade reign of CEO Charles Koch, the company has paid out record civil and criminal environmental penalties."

8. The Kochs have backed candidates that support voter suppression laws and groups that have been investigated for misleading voters.

"A new investigation from Brave New Foundation, in conjunction with the Advancement Project and amplified by a host of progressive groups, outlines ALEC's influence in the war on voting and spotlights the $245,550 in campaign contributions the Koch brothers have given to politicians supporting new voter ID laws, such as Scott Walker and Rick Perry."

"According to the State Election Board, thousands of North Carolina residents have been calling to complain about an erroneous 'official application form' sent to them by AFP. The mistake-riddled form gives voters the wrong deadline for voter registration, and directs them to send their registration documents to the wrong address."

9. The Kochs are trying to dismantle our public education system.

"National advocacy groups powered by the Koch brothers and other conservative megadonors have found a new cause ripe with political promise. Push to expand school choice by offering parents tax credits or vouchers to help pay tuition at private and religious schools. Next, rally the troops to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Then it's on to eliminating teacher tenure."

10. The Kochs invest in higher education only to advance their economic ideology.

"The Center for Public Integrity reviewed hundreds of private documents, emails and audio recordings that, along with interviews with more than 75 college officials, professors, students and others, indicate the Koch brothers spending on higher education is now a critical part of their broader campaign to infuse politics and government with free-market principles."

11. The Kochs spent $400 million on misleading attack ads in the last Presidential election cycle.

"A labyrinth of tax-exempt groups and limited-liability companies helps mask the sources of the money, much of which went to voter mobilization and television ads attacking President Obama and congressional Democrats, according to tax filings and campaign finance reports."

12. The Kochs are against measures that would reduce the gap between the wages women and men earn for the same work.

Managing Director of the Koch-funded Independent Women's Forum: "Feminists may protest, but American women aren't the victims of a sexist economy. It's time to declare an end to the Equal Pay Day myth."

The Koch brothers gave millions to the Concerned Women for America, a group that publicly opposed Paycheck Fairness. CWA's President said "the Paycheck Fairness Act will make a bad situation worse."

13. The Kochs want even more tax breaks for themselves and the super wealthy.

"Yeah, we want to decrease regulations. Why? It's because we can make more profit, OK?"

"The normally press-shy Mr. Koch is helping raise hundreds of millions of dollars this year for conservative political and philanthropic causes, some of which will come out of his own pocket. In return, Mr. Koch said, he hoped to see government officials adopt policies that would limit interference in the free market. 'I expect something in return,' Mr. Koch said."

The Kochs have supported the Ryan budget, which provides tax cuts for the wealthy and protects taxpayer subsidies for big businesses and oil companies.

14. The Kochs made improper payments to win contracts in Africa, India and the Middle East. And they sold millions of dollars of equipment to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism.

"Internal company records show that Koch Industries used its foreign subsidiary to sidestep a U.S. trade ban barring American companies from selling materials to Iran. Koch-Glitsch offices in Germany and Italy continued selling to Iran until as recently as 2007, the records show."

15. The Kochs lobbied against recognition of formaldehyde as a cancer-causing carcinogen because it might be bad for their business.

"A prominent philanthropist, cancer survivor, and American businessman, David Koch, has given millions to the cause of cancer research, while his company-Koch Industries-has lobbied against formal recognition of formaldehyde as a carcinogen, The New Yorker reported in a piece published recently."

16. The Kochs have received over $88 million in government subsidies.

17. The Kochs have even admitted they have "a radical philosophy."

"Charles Koch seems to have approached both business and politics with the deliberation of an engineer. 'To bring about social change,' he told Doherty, requires 'a strategy' that is 'vertically and horizontally integrated,' spanning 'from idea creation to policy development to education to grassroots organizations to lobbying to litigation to political action.'

The project, he admitted, was extremely ambitious.

Alex Jones Conspiracy Website Helped Trump Get Out The Vote
By: Steve - February 13, 2016 - 10:00am

The Trump campaign is continuing its courtship of Alex Jones, with one senior adviser hailing the leading conspiracy theorist for being "on top" of immigration.

Jones and his website Infowars.com believe immigrants are "an invading army under the control of the New World Order and are being used to collapse and destroy the world's economy" through crime, disease, and poverty.

In a February 8 interview with Infowars.com, Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller praised Jones and Infowars for having "been on top of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on the immigration issue."

Miller then repeatedly pitched Trump to Jones' audience, telling them that "if you want to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if you want to close the border, if you want to protect American jobs and wages, then you have to support Donald J. Trump."

After Infowars reporter Richard Reeves warned that the GOP might try "stacking that delegation" at July's nominating convention in Cleveland with "GOP hardline establishment folks," Miller responded with a get out the vote pitch for Trump.

"The easiest thing to do if we want to have Donald J. Trump be our nominee is to show up and vote tomorrow in New Hampshire and then to vote in South Carolina and all across this country," Miller said. "And that will guarantee, I assure you, that Donald J. Trump will be the Republican nominee."

Reeves responded by urging Jones' audience to "get to your precinct conventions and precinct caucuses 'cause that's the road to Cleveland."

Miller is a former top aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) who joined the Trump campaign in January. He worked with Sessions to oppose immigration reform and, according to the Washington Post, "When Sessions and Trump began to build a relationship last year, he asked Miller to work with Trump's campaign as it thought through its immigration position. That experience laid the groundwork for Miller's hire."

Jones is a well-known conspiracy theorist and one of the more extreme media personalities in the country. He believes the government was behind the 9/11 attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and the mass shootings in Aurora, Sandy Hook and Tucson (among others).

He and his website have repeatedly suggested that the San Bernardino shooting was a "false flag." Jones ultimately believes that a cabal of secretive global elites is working behind the scenes to, in the words of one of his films, "exterminate 80% of the world's population, while enabling the elites to live forever with the aid of advanced technology."

Infowars is a cesspool of crazy and racist anti-immigrant conspiracy theories. Donald Trump and his supporters have repeatedly attempted to win over Jones and his audience. The New Hampshire primary winner appeared on his program in December and praised Jones as having an "amazing" reputation and promised to "not let you down."

Roger Stone, a paid policy adviser to the Trump campaign who recently launched a pro-Trump super PAC, has regularly appeared on Jones' program to promote Trump's candidacy.

Trump is the only presidential contender who engages with Jones and his fringe ideology. The radio host has been a booster of Trump, saying that "we have to defend him because the ideas he's putting out in general are very good."

From Miller's interview with Alex Jones' Infowars.com:

RICHARD REEVES: Richard Reeves with Infowars.com at the Red Arrow Diner with Steve Miller. What's your position with the Trump campaign, again?

MILLER: I'm the senior policy adviser.

REEVES: So as senior policy adviser, what are you really looking -- what are the top issues that you're working on?

MILLER: Well two of the biggest ones are trade and immigration and that's a lot of what this election comes down to. And of course, Alex Jones and Infowars have been on top of this for a long time, both on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on the immigration issue and all of the different facets of it.

So it's really great to be talking with you today. But my short message for your audience would be that if you want to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if you want to close the border, if you want to protect American jobs and wages, then you have to support Donald J. Trump. He's the only person who's been clear and consistent and firm on these issues and who isn't relying on large special interests and donors.

REEVES: Well he clearly does appear to be the most serious candidate on that issue and I'm convinced that he will actually get Mexico to even pay for the wall as well, right?

MILLER: There's no doubt that he will. The easiest thing to do if we want to have Donald J. Trump be our nominee is to show up and vote tomorrow in New Hampshire and then to vote in South Carolina and all across this country and that will guarantee, I assure you, that Donald J. Trump will be the Republican nominee and millions and millions of people are joining this movement and it's going to make truly make America great again.

REEVES: And beyond that folks, get to your precinct conventions and precinct caucuses 'cause that's the road to Cleveland. Steve Miller, thank you so much.

MILLER: Thank you, great to be here.

If You Are Not Wealthy & You Vote Republican You Are A Fool
By: Steve - February 13, 2016 - 9:00am

First, let me say this. I am a registered Independent who is a liberal and proud of it. I do not think the Democratic party is perfect, but they are 100 times better than the Republican party, who does nothing for anyone but the wealthy, the NRA, the special interests, and the corporations.

I do not understand why poor and middle class Americans vote for any Republican, it just does not make sense.

Is it gay marriage? Is that really why so many poor and middle class Americans vote Republican? Is it really that big of an issue? Because if it is, can one Republican voter tell me how gay marriage has impacted their life? And I'm not saying that sarcastically, I would really like a legitimate answer to that question.

How can something that is none of your business, that has nothing to do with you or your life, lead you to vote for a Republican who is never going to pass any bills to help you, and will most likely pass bills that will hurt you.

Maybe it's abortion. Okay, I get that abortion is a tricky subject. Even most progressives would not consider themselves pro-abortion, including me. But at the end of the day, shouldn't women be able to control their own bodies? And even if you don't think that they should, our Constitution and Supreme Court say otherwise.

Once again, abortion for a woman you are not related to and do not know is none of your business and has nothing to do with you, so why do you care? And once that child is born the Republicans refuse to support them, they say you are all on your own, even if it's a child from a rape or a crack baby, etc.

I know, it's guns! That one is hard to argue. The GOP is definitely the pro-gun party where Democrats aren't exactly charter members of the NRA. I'm not saying that Democrats are anti-gun, we just believe in sensible gun regulations. We tend to notice that whole well regulated militia part of our Second Amendment. And I have never seen a Republican explain to me how a disorganized group of armed citizens constitutes a well regulated militia. But I'll give it to Republicans, they are much more pro-gun than Democrats.

They are also out of the mainstream and go against what the majority of Americans support on gun background checks. I support the 2nd amendment 100%, but nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say we must give semi-auto guns with 30 shot clips to mentally ill people, and not do background checks to make sure disturbed people do not get guns.

Is it the Republican opposition to government programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare? Well, that would not make any sense. Tens of millions of conservatives themselves rely on these programs. What kind of a fool would support a party that wants to cut their own benefits? Not only that, but millions of children are dependent upon these programs to survive. And if the GOP is the so-called party of Christian values, how would cutting programs that children rely on just to eat represent those values?

Perhaps its the whole "We Support Our Troops" slogan Republicans frequently use. Though I'm not sure how sending over 4,400 Americans to die in Iraq based on a lie constitutes "supporting the troops." I also do not see how blocking a veterans bill because you're trying to play partisan politics with the legislation supports the troops, either. Oh, and did you know, when Republicans push for cuts to government programs, those cuts adversely affect both active and former members of our military who rely on these programs?

There's always their love for our Constitution. Well, considering many of these conservative states (especially in the south) are almost always on the wrong side of history when it comes to unconstitutional issues we've faced as a nation (slavery, denying women the right to vote, segregation, civil rights, gay marriage), I'm not exactly sure how they can claim they're "advocates for Constitutional values" -- since they always seem to oppose the rights it grants many Americans.

Is it because Republicans say they're the party for small government? This is a party that wants to tell women what they can do with their own bodies; pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage; build a giant wall between the U.S. and Mexico; force millions of Americans to abide by laws based on a religion they don't follow; and make it legal to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. How exactly is any of that "small government"?

Then there's always the "fiscally conservative" claim. If a president from your party hasn't balanced the budget since the 1950's, how can you claim to be the party for "fiscal responsibility"? Keep in mind the last 2 two-term Republican presidents (Reagan/George W. Bush) left office with our national debt much higher than what it was when they took office.

Which is extremely ironic considering Republicans consider Reagan their "fiscally conservative icon." I'm not sure how nearly tripling our national debt in eight years constitutes being an icon for fiscal responsibility.

It goes back to what I said, when it comes to poor and middle class Republican voters, I just don't get it. The party supports almost nothing that benefits these individuals and, in fact, supports policies that go against their own interests.

Think about it, last November when Republican pushed for cuts to SNAP benefits just before Thanksgiving, how many millions of Republicans saw their benefits reduced?

But I guess if you own a gun, hold a Bible and wave a flag, that's all it takes to fool millions of Americans into thinking you're on their side -- even if almost nothing you support as a political party actually benefits you in any way.

O'Reilly Tells Trump What Name To Call Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - February 12, 2016 - 11:00am

O'Reilly Advised Donald Trump To Call Hillary Clinton "Inept"

Trump called her evil, and O'Reilly said do not call her evil, call her inept. And btw, Trump is just a joke, because 8 years ago Trump said she was a great person and would make a great President. But now that he is running for the Republican party Presidential nomination, suddenly she is evil, what a phony.

Trump said this on his blog in March 2008:

"Hillary Clinton said she'd consider naming Barack Obama as her vice-president when she gets the nomination, but she's nowhere near a shoo-in. For his part, Obama said he's just focused on winning the nomination, although at least one member of his team said Clinton would make a good vice-president. I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great president or vice-president."

Trump also said this on his blog in December of 2008:

"Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she's a great trooper. Her history is far from being over."

You know he is just saying that she is evil to please the far-right, because he not only said she would make a great President, he said she is smart and tough and a nice person, and he is friends with her and Bill, he even invited them to his wedding. Think about it, he invited Hillary and Bill to his wedding, but not O'Reilly.

Trump is a massive phony who will say anything to get elected, and most of what he says is not possible or a lie, or both.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): You said this morning that Hillary Clinton is evil. What does that mean?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, they asked me, you know, one word. I never liked the one word comparisons or analogies, but they asked me one word for various people. And she has got -- you know there is a tendency, if you look at the job she did as secretary of state and the destruction that she has caused, I just -- I don't know what it is, the word evil came to mind. The decisions that they made on so many different fronts as secretary of state were absolutely insane, and I thought, I immediately thought of the word evil.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but isn't that inept? Alright you invited Hillary Clinton to your wedding.

O'REILLY: You could have invited anybody to your wedding, you don't invite evil people to your wedding.

TRUMP: I could have invited you to my wedding also.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but I am evil. I mean, evil applies to me.

TRUMP: Well, that's right. I get along with everybody. Bill, when I was in business.

O'REILLY: Wait, but I'm curious about this. Inept I could see, you're saying that her tenure as secretary of state really wasn't good for the country, but that's more of an ineptitude, than -- evil is evil is somebody --

TRUMP: Okay, okay. I could have used inept. I could have used inept, but I could have used evil too, frankly.

O'REILLY: But that's in your mind, that she might be evil.

TRUMP: At a certain point, you say to yourself what's going on over here, how do you make so many bad decisions? You look at what's going on in the Middle East right now, you look at the decisions made by her and President Obama. Whether you call it evil or inept, I really don't care, but a lot of bad things have happened and a lot of death has taken place.

O'REILLY: Alright, so I'm going to say that you don't really think she is evil though? You don't think Mrs. Clinton is evil.

TRUMP: Well, let's just keep it in abeyance, let's see what happens.

O'REILLY: Alright.

Cruz & Sununu Slam Trump For Profane Insult
By: Steve - February 12, 2016 - 10:00am

Ted Cruz on Tuesday said he wouldn't respond in kind to Donald Trump's calling the Texas senator a profane name.

Instead, Cruz went after the outspoken billionaire on healthcare, arguing Trump couldn't defend "his support of government controlled healthcare, of socialized medicine."

"If you vote for me, we're going to repeal every word of ObamaCare. Donald can't defend that substance," Cruz told media in New Hampshire, which is voting Tuesday in its primary.

"So instead, his approach is to engage in a profane insult. I'm not gonna respond in kind."

Trump on Monday night echoed a woman during a rally in Manchester, N.H., who labeled Cruz a profane name (that means wussy) for not coming out in support of waterboarding, which Trump was discussing.

The real estate tycoon defended voicing the term earlier in the day Tuesday, saying on MSNBC that "we were all just having fun."

Trump is leading polls in New Hampshire, but has caught flak for using the term at his rally. Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu called it "demeaning of the office he's seeking."

Cruz's campaign has argued that Trump resorts to insults after losses, pointing to his loss to Cruz in the Iowa caucuses last week. And they are right, Trump is a far-right fool that should not even be running for President, let alone leading the Republican primary in New Hampshire.

O'Reilly Says The Media Is Not In The Journalism Business Anymore
By: Steve - February 11, 2016 - 11:50am

While he ignores the Flint Michigan water crisis story. All the rest of the media is covering it and reporting on it, except for Bill O'Reilly, who has still not said one word about the story, not one segment, nothing.

This story is why we have journalists, it is a crisis, that has children drinking water with poison in it, government failure and corruption, and on and on. This is a story the founding fathers would want the media to report on, and O'Reilly will not even mention it. Simply because the Governor is a Republican, and it makes Republicans look bad.

The water crisis in Flint Michigan, in which thousands of residents have been exposed to everything from cancer-causing chemicals to lead in their drinking water, dates back nearly two years. But the unfolding story had received almost no coverage from Fox News, until Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder(R) declared a state of emergency for Flint.

Even after that Fox barely covers it, and as I wrote above Bill O'Reilly (who claims to be a fair and balanced non-partisan with a no spin zone) has not said one word about the story, ever.

The water story first broke in April 2014, but the backstory actually dates back to 2011 when Republican Gov. Rick Snyder appointed the first of several emergency managers to help with Flint's financial crisis.

In March 2013, the Flint city council voted to switch the city's water supply from the Detroit water system to a new pipeline to Lake Huron that would take three years to complete, a decision that was given final approval by the state treasurer. In June of that year, Flint's state-appointed emergency manager made the decision -- with state approval -- to use water from the Flint River while the new pipeline was being built, and that switch took effect in April 2014.

Less than a month later, residents began to complain about the smell and taste of the water. The Flint Journal, which had been following the fiscal situation and water switching debate, ran its first stories on the complaints then.

In September 2014, the water tested positive for E. coli and residents were ordered to boil it. General Motors announced that October that it would stop using Flint River water because it could corrode engine parts.

Then, in January 2015, Flint residents were notified that their water system violated the Safe Drinking Water Act because the water contained unacceptable levels of total trihalomethanes (TTHM), dangerous chemicals that are formed as a byproduct of disinfecting water.

"The first time I think you could say that someone else should have started paying attention was that first week of January 2015, that's when I thought we were getting into a big story," Fonger said. "The city, without explanation to anybody, sent out a citywide mailing saying you have excess levels of trihalomethanes. It was astonishing that the city without warning was going to spring this into people's mailboxes."

The next month, the first signs of lead were observed in the city's drinking water -- in University of Michigan-Flint drinking fountains and Flint resident LeeAnne Walters' home. Walters later found her children exposed to lead, with one child having "bona fide lead poisoning."

A county public health emergency was declared in October 2015. In December 2015, Flint Mayor Karen Weaver, who was elected just a month earlier, declared a state of emergency for the city of Flint, seeking state and federal aid. On January 5, Gov. Snyder followed suit.

Many local and national news outlets contend that Snyder's state of emergency declaration and an investigation launched by the Michigan attorney general 10 days later prompted the national media coverage that still continues today.

Except on Fox News, who barely report it, less than 4 minutes, and O'Reilly who has 0 minutes on the story.

Federal Court Says North Carolina Gerrymandered Maps Unconstitutional
By: Steve - February 11, 2016 - 11:30am

This is real news, about voting and the constitution, and of course the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, ever, not once. Because it was done by Republicans and he does not want to report on it because it would make the Republican party look bad.

Here is the story Bill O'Reilly is hiding from you:

During the last presidential election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney received slightly more than 50 percent of the popular vote in North Carolina. Nevertheless, Republicans won 9 of the state's 13 seats in the U.S. House under North Carolina's gerrymandered maps.

If a decision handed down by a panel of three federal judges on Friday stands, however, the state will need to change its congressional maps -- and fast. Judge Roger Gregory's opinion for a majority of the panel not only holds that two of the state's congressional districts are the product of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, it "requires that new districts be drawn within two weeks of the entry of this opinion to remedy the unconstitutional districts."

Thus, the state legislature is now looking at a February 19 deadline to fix its gerrymandered maps.

The Court's opinion in Harris v. McCrory turns on North Carolina congressional districts 1 and 12. According to Judge Gregory's opinion, the state's mapmaker -- a redistricting expert "who served as redistricting coordinator for the Republican National Committee for the 1990, 2000, and 2010 redistricting cycles" -- intentionally packed black voters into these two districts, a decision that would have diminished the impact of the African-American vote in other parts of the state.

The court concludes that North Carolina set a racial quota in each of these districts, and insisted that other considerations must subordinate themselves to this quota.

Indeed, the Court describes the 12th District as a "serpentine district that has been dubbed the least geographically compact district in the Nation" -- though, admittedly, the district owes its odd shape at least as much to the legacy of partisan gerrymandering as it does to the more recent racial gerrymander. As Judge Max Cogburn describes this district in a concurring opinion:
It is a district so contorted and contrived that the United States Courthouse in Charlotte, where this concurrence was written, is five blocks within its boundary, and the United States Courthouse in Greensboro, where the trial was held, is five blocks outside the same district, despite being more than 90 miles apart and located in separate federal judicial districts.

How a voter can know who their representative is or how a representative can meet with those pocketed voters is beyond comprehension.
At the very least, the court's opinion would require the state to redraw the two offending districts, a process that will necessarily have ripple effects into other nearby districts. Moreover, because race often correlates with partisan affiliation, the new maps could give Democrats a better shot at winning some of the affected districts.

But there are several reasons why opponents of gerrymandering should pause before they break out the champagne.

First, the North Carolina case resembles the Supreme Court's recent decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama which expressed skepticism of a similar racial gerrymander. The Alabama case, however, involved a much more aggressive gerrymander -- Alabama packed some districts so that over 70 percent of the population would be black, while the two North Carolina districts were only a little over 50 percent black.

And the Supreme Court's decision was only 5-4 in Alabama. It's possible that conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, in particular, will see the North Carolina case differently than he saw Alabama's.

Additionally, while the Supreme Court has drawn boundaries around states ability to engage in racial gerrymanders, a majority of the Court has left states free to draw politically gerrymandered maps. The result, as Judge Cogburn laments in his concurring opinion, is that "the fundamental principle of the voters choosing their representative has nearly vanished. Instead, representatives choose their voters."

Finally, it's worth noting just how long it took for a court to strike down North Carolina's maps, which were drawn in 2011. Since those maps were drawn, the state ran two entire congressional elections and sent four years worth of congressional delegations to Washington based on the gerrymandered maps.

Even if the state complies with Judge Gregory's February 19 deadline, the message to lawmakers is clear: go ahead and draw the most self-serving maps you can manage, because even if they are struck down it will take the courts years to do so.

Trump Says He Would Ask Sean Hannity Who To Be His Vice President
By: Steve - February 11, 2016 - 11:00am

Which is scary, because Hannity has no political experience, none. He is simply a lying, spinning, propaganda spewing, right-wing fool, that has a biased show on the Fox News Network.



SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Do you give any thought to a VP choice?

DONALD TRUMP: I don't give much thought to it, and look, there are so many out there. So many really good, talented people, and I would have maybe two or three. But I don't want to think about it, I want to think about closing the deal. I want to close the deal. I want do get it done. Get it closed, get it -- and we have plenty of time. I would speak to lots of people about it, and --

HANNITY: Who?

TRUMP: Including you, by the way.

HANNITY: Right.

The Biased Bill O'Reilly Complains About Bias In The Media
By: Steve - February 11, 2016 - 10:00am

Now this is funny, Bill O'Reilly is one of the most biased people in the media, and he works for the most biased news network in America, and yet, he did a segment with the also biased Bernie Goldberg complaining about bias in the media, with no Democratic guest for balance.

And this all happened in the so-called fair and balanced no spin zone, which is just laughable. Because it was two biased right-wing stooges crying about bias from someone else in the media, and they did it with a straight face, without getting hit by lightning.

Now what was the big media bias they were crying about, Rachel Maddow gave a hug to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton after the debate, yes you heard me right, the so-called bias they complained about was a hug. Which is not even bias, and Rachel Maddow is a known liberal who has an opinion show on MSNBC, just like O'Reilly has on FOX.

In fact, when people slam O'Reilly for bias he defends it and says he does an opinion show so he can give an opinion and have a bias, so you are wrong to slam him for his bias. But when other people (who also have opinion shows) do it then O'Reilly says it is wrong and he does an entire segment on it. When it was not even bias, it was a simple hug instead of a handshake.

That is not bias folks, it's just a hug, some people shake hands and some hug, and Rachel is a hugger. And btw, who made O'Reilly the media police? When did he get the job to be a watchdog on everyone else in the media, never as far as I know. And if someone did get a media watchdog it sure as hell would not be Bill O'Reilly, he would be last on the list.

Here is a partial transcript of the insane segment:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): But I'm just telling you that when the journalistic entity, whatever it may be, doesn't care anymore, about journalism, then it's a hopeless cause, and that's where we are in the United States.

GOLDBERG: I agree. I totally agree.

O'REILLY: We're in the United States and how many times do I have to present beyond a reasonable doubt -- Look, you saw on NBC News the moderator of a debate hug Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Can you imagine when we were working there a moderator of a debate hugging after the debate was over -- I think she wanted to hug them during the debate but the camera couldn't get into position -- so she had to wait until after the debate.

GOLDBERG: You know, I was trying to be super generous and thinking well, maybe that's the way a woman just shakes hands and says thank you. But there is no way in the world that Rachel Maddow would have hugged Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and Chris Christie and Marco Rubio if she were moderating a Republican debate. So you're right.

O'REILLY: And to Fox News' credit there isn't anybody on this network that would have hugged a presidential contender after a debate. No one. No one. So what I'm trying to get across is that we're living in an age where you say journalism, many of the press entities aren't that anymore. They're not. They're in another business. It's another business model.

Rush Limbaugh Endorsed Republican Liar Ted Cruz
By: Steve - February 11, 2016 - 9:00am

If you are a Republican I am sure it is good news for Cruz, but if you are not a Republican, which is most of America, then this is bad news for Cruz, because a Limbaugh endorsing him will hurt him in the general election, if he ever gets there.

Here is what Limbaugh said:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Now about Cruz and his being self sufficient, there is no question about that. Here, let me just say something right off the bat, and I've said this before, I opened the program with it yesterday. When I saw what Jeb and Kasich were doing in New Hampshire, at the last minute in order to get votes, they were going left as fast as Dion Sanders can backpedal.

They were moving left faster than anybody I've ever seen anyone go left. And I opened the program yesterday saying you will never, ever have to worry about that with Ted Cruz. And then I expanded on it, and let me say one -- if conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz.

Because you are exactly -- this is the closest in our lifetime we have ever been to Ronald Reagan, in terms of doctrinaire, understandable, articulated, implementable conservatism. There is nobody closer.

Stephen Colbert Calls Out Bill O'Reilly For Spending Hypocrisy
By: Steve - February 10, 2016 - 10:00am

Colbert called out O'Reilly for Supporting Spending on War But Not Anti-Poverty Programs

Colbert said this: The Humanities, Education And The Social Safety Net Are "Vital Aspects Of Our Culture"

He basically called out O'Reilly for supporting unlimited spending on wars, while opposing the social programs that help the poor. And of course O'Reilly had no answer for him, he just defended his hypocritical position.

O'Reilly claims we are broke, so we can not afford to spend so much money on social programs, but then he supports spending whatever the Republicans want on wars and the military. So if a war comes up then O'Reilly says spend whatever you want, but when poor people need help, suddenly we are broke and we can not afford it, which is total hypocrisy from O'Reilly.

Not to mention this, we are not broke, and if we need to we can pay for what we need. The problem is not the social programs, it's all the tax loopholes for the wealthy and the corporations, and the Republicans who over the last 30 years have shifted the tax burden away from the rich to the middle class and the poor.

And btw, Reagan was a terrible President, the only people who think he did a good job are Republicans. Reagan's Administration Had More Documented Corruption Than Any President in U.S. History.

At least 138 Reagan administration officials, including several cabinet members, were investigated for, indicted for, or convicted of crimes. This is the largest number of any U.S. President. Many of them were pardoned by Reagan or President Bush before they could even stand trial.

Reagan Set Records for Budget Deficits. After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan's own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only eight years.

Reagan's Economic Policies Put Millions of Americans out of Work. When he took office in 1981, unemployment was at 7.5% and dropping. Millions of people continued to lose their jobs for the next two years until unemployment exceeded 10%. It stayed above 10% for nearly a year, peaking at 10.8%.

The financial deregulation and changes to the tax code that President Reagan enacted ultimately caused nearly 750 different financial institutions to fail. All of this cost taxpayers about $150 billion.

After Reagan cut taxes for the rich, the tax revenue to fund the government was so small that the budget deficit grew to four times what it had been under Jimmy Carter. So Reagan borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay the country's bills. And that money has never been paid back.

When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

He also busted the unions so nobody could go on strike without being fired. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of big business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.

This led to corporations following his lead and saying they would fire anyone who went on strike, even though it was illegal. I was working at International Paper Company at the time, local 68, and we went on strike, the company sent out letters to every employee saying if you do not return to work by a specific date you will be permanently laid off, which is the same as being fired, but they claimed that was not being fired, to get around the laws, but if you are permanently laid off, you have been fired.



Partial Transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: Ronald Reagan was a very very good politician. He was an excellent politician. He did what he had to do. But ultimately, he did two things that benefited the country. Turned the economy around. In the Carter years, it was desperate. You remember the gas lines? You had to wait on line to get gasoline in America, it was horrible.

STEPHEN COLBERT (HOST): Reagan ran up huge deficits though.

O'REILLY: He did but it was in the pursuit of bringing down the Soviet Union which was accomplished. So you bring down your major enemy and you have to do it by spending money --

COLBERT: Huge deficits that can be justified by military expenditure but you're saying huge deficits cannot be justified by the humanities, by educating people, by the social safety net? What's the difference to those things? They're both vital aspects of our culture. What is the difference between those two? Why is one justified and not the other?

O'REILLY: All right, this is a classic liberal position.

COLBERT: It's just a question. It's not a position. It's a question, Bill.

O'REILLY: You have to spend money to defend yourself from an enemy who is bent on either conquering you or killing you. That's why we're in this war on terror now. On the arts and educational, we have to get away from this fantasy that the government can solve all the problems by kicking money in, and we can't be promising everybody everything as these pinhead politicians do constantly. Reagan didn't do that by the way.

Facts That Prove O'Reilly & The GOP Wrong On The Economy
By: Steve - February 10, 2016 - 9:00am

Some of the biggest news last Friday was the monthly jobs report that showed we gained 151,000 jobs January and saw unemployment dip to 4.9 percent. While the economy is still far from perfect, and income inequality is still a pressing issue, we have come a very long way from the disaster that eight years of George W. Bush left us with in 2008.

To begin with, we now pay $1.49 a gallon for gas, wow! Here in central Illinois gas is $1.49 a gallon, which is just great, compared to the $3.50 a gallon we were paying a few years ago. That alone saves me a lot of money every month, and it's like getting a raise from your job because you are paying less for gas.

But to hear Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans talk about the economy, you would think things were worse off now than when we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every single month under Bush in 2008. It is comical to see O'Reilly and his Republican friends say, with a straight face, that we are worse off now than when Barack Obama was elected.

You have to be delusional to the point of insanity to actually believe that. But the truth is, when Republicans say that, most of them don't really believe it. They just know those who support them are ignorant enough to believe it, and they hope enough people believe the lie to hurt Obama and the Democrats politically.

In his final year in office, President Obama seems to be a bit more outspoken than he has during his first 7 years. Though that's not exactly surprising. After all, at this point, what does he care if he makes some far right conservatives mad a few more times? He has less than a year until he can really say what he wants. While I will miss him being our president, I am looking forward to the day when he's out of office and is allowed to say and do more of what he wants without the constraints of being president.

Comments that may sound similar to what he said Friday when he basically mocked the continued Republican fear-mongering about the economy.

Obama said this: "Those who are running down the economy and adding to the anxiety don't seem to have any plausible, coherent recipe other than cut taxes for those who have been doing the very best in this economy and somehow magically, that's gonna make other folks feel good, or, alternatively they argue the reason you're feeling insecure is because immigrants, or poor people are taking more and more of your paycheck and that is just not true. The facts don't bear that out."

And he is absolutely right. Instead of blaming greed, the real root of our income inequality, Republicans want Americans to blame the poor, immigrants, or Democratic policies. Then their solution to combat income inequality is more of the same exact policies that caused it in the first place.

It would be laughable if it was not hurting millions and millions of Americans.

Imagine for a moment if a Republican president took office in the midst of the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, then proceeded to set an all-time record for consecutive months of private sector job growth (as Obama has) currently at 71 straight months.

O'Reilly, Fox News, and the GOP would be hoisting them up along side Saint Ronald Reagan as one of the best presidents of all-time. Hell, Obama has exceeded many of the promises Mitt Romney said he would accomplish if he were elected in 2012 -- yet O'Reilly and the Republicans still push their ridiculous economic fear-mongering nonsense.

But because it's a half-black Democrat who has presided over this recovery, they call him one of the "worst presidents in history."

Funny how that works, isn't it?

When history looks back on President Obama's eight years in office, we will look at him as one of our nation's best presidents. I predict he will be ranked as one of our top 20 best Presidents, if not higher.

And one of the worst things about it is Bill O'Reilly, he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, he also says he has no ideology and he is not a Republican who ever uses Republican talking points.

Then he shows that he is partisan, he is not an Independent, he has a right-wing ideology, and he does use Republican talking points. He has 97% right-wing guests, even though he claims his guest list is balanced, and he agrees with all the lies, spin, propaganda, and talking points the GOP puts out.

O'Reilly could be getting paid by the GOP, that is how biased he is, he supports all the Republicans running for President, especially his good friend of 30 years Donald Trump, and he is as right-wing as Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, or any of them.

In fact, when I see something in the news, that broke during the day, or late at night, I can predict with 100% accuracy what side of the issue O'Reilly will be on when he reports it that night on his show. He will always be on the far-right side of the issue, he never takes the far-left side on anything, ever, not once.

And what is worse, is he will usually have 6 to 7 Republicans on to discuss it, and sometimes 1 Democrat, but not always, sometimes he has 6 to 7 Republicans and 0 Democrats, so that it looks like he is right on the issue and all the guest agree with him, which also makes it look like he is right.

This is as biased as it gets, there is no Independence, no fairness, and clearly not a no spin zone. It's almost always 99% right-wing bias and all right-wing spin.

Glenn Beck's Media Empire Is Going Broke
By: Steve - February 9, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course you never hear any of this reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. Even though Beck is a regular guest on the Factor, O'Reilly never once reports that the Beck empire is going broke and falling apart. While saying he is just great and all the Republicans love and support him.

For 7 years, Joseph Kerry has worked at Mercury Radio Arts, which is the official title for Glenn Beck's production company. Kerry served as Beck's right-hand-man, working as his Chief-of-Staff.

Kerry was responsible for maintaining and strengthening relationships with shareholders, talent, political, corporate and religious leaders and helped launch and then raise millions of dollars in capital for The Blaze.

Kerry was also responsible for leading vendor negotiations, regarding media related services. He even interfaced with CNN Headline News & Fox News teams in collaboration of The Glenn Beck TV show.

Now, Joseph Kerry is no longer associated with TheBlaze, and is instead a partner with Littlecloud Ventures, which is a marketing consulting firm.

Earlier, Chris Balfe, who was Beck’s CEO, and Joel Cheatwood, who was president and chief content officer, also left TheBlaze. Both were responsible for assisting Beck with launching TheBlaze TV.

According to CNN, the two men are now building a digital media company, in which they will serve are partners.

Colleagues and underlings interviewed by The Daily Beast--on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution--describe Beck’s irresistible personal magnetism and undeniable brilliance that one called “mad genius,” mixed with a colossal streak of narcissism, neediness and, above all, capriciousness that have left them feeling whipsawed and, in many cases, betrayed.

Beck, who turns 52 next week, was not available for an interview.

Attracted by the idealism of The Blaze, Beck's six-year-old multimedia venture--whose heartwarming motto is "We tell the stories of love and courage where the good guys win"--they instead tell stories of a sad and baffling descent from a friendly, positive workplace culture into an abyss of backbiting and paranoia as a company of nearly 300 people dropped to around half that size.

A current Blaze employee said recently: "It's so toxic and fractured that everybody has eyes in the back of their head. You don't know who's about to stab you in the back. So the best thing to do is show up, get your work done, and get out."

The demise of The Blaze--a once-promising and allegedly profitable venture--has increasingly been predicted by media observers.

It was even foretold by Beck himself, at a moment last year when the privately held company claimed to be making money.

"We've got to course-change, and if we don't, we’re either going to go out of business or we're going to be a crappy, soul-sucking business," a frantic Beck, looking pudgy and exhausted in distressed jeans and a pumpkin-colored cardigan, warned Blaze employees during an in-house session last February at the company's New York studios--a video of which was obtained by The Daily Beast.

"You've seen this company start to slide into that crappy zone. No! I'll shut the damn thing down before we become everything we despise."

The majority owner harangued his minions: "We are three million dollars in the hole! That means we are three million dollars from profit. That means I have to take three million dollars out of my wallet, and I have done this now for several years. I don't have money left. I'm out... I need three million dollars in savings by the end of the year. If we wait, it's gonna be massive, bloody cuts."

Massive, bloody cuts soon followed, as the debt ballooned to at least $5 million and as much as $10 million, according to current and former Blaze employees.

On May 11, 2015--a day Beck staffers have dubbed "Black Monday"--dozens were laid off in New York and the Dallas suburb of Irving, Texas. There, Beck had purchased a 72,000-square-foot studio complex and corporate headquarters in the Las Colinas neighborhood, and built his fake Oval Office.

Beck, meanwhile, showed up in Las Colinas driving his brand new Maybach, proudly showing off the nearly-$200,000 sleek black sedan that he'd just purchased to add to his fleet of luxury vehicles, including an armored, bulletproof Mercedes limo and a similarly outfitted Chevy Suburban.

So his company is going broke, laying people off, and losing millions every year, and he is still buying $200,000 cars, yeah that's smart. And his friend Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, while acting as if Beck is making a fortune and his company is doing great, when he is going broke and running the company into the ground. I would bet that the people finally woke up and saw that he is nothing but a con-man who is scamming them.

Last summer, say former Beck staffers, American Express suddenly declined charges on corporate credit cards for the booking of airline tickets and hotel rooms for guests on Blaze programs.

Several employees--like Beck confidant Kraig Kitchin, the co-founder of Premiere Radio Networks who was The Blaze's interim CEO until he resigned last week--were forced to charge business expenses on their personal credit cards.

One former employee told The Daily Beast that he's still waiting for a $200 reimbursement for an expense that he claimed six months ago.

"I know much of what has happened since December of 2014, but also much of it has been structural and behind the curtain," Beck wrote in an email last week on the occasion of Kitchin's resignation as chief executive of The Blaze.

"We were a company that was swimming in debt. With the hard work of Kraig, Jonathan Schreiber, and now Misty Kawecki, the chief financial officer we will be debt free by summer. This is miraculous and takes all of the downward pressure off of us."

Yet some of the signs for the business are hardly reassuring. In November 2014, for instance, TheBlaze.com was attracting 29 million unique visitors per month, according to figures from the Web traffic measure service Quantcast. But by November 2015, monthly traffic for the TheBlaze.com had dropped to 16.4 million unique visitors, and traffic for the associated website GlennBeck.com had plunged from 4.4 million to 1.4 million uniques.

Many of the pinked-slipped staffers, drawn by Beck's charisma and ambitious plans for original television, feature films, and even a theme park--following the business model of Beck's other hero, Walt Disney--had left secure jobs at CNN, Fox News, and elsewhere, and some had uprooted families in far-off cities, to join what seemed an exciting, inspiring adventure.

Limbaugh Is Mad That Fox Reports Bad News About Republicans
By: Steve - February 9, 2016 - 9:00am

In the world of Rush Limbaugh, if you report any bad news about Republicans you are the bad guy, even if you are a news network that has a little slogan that claims they are fair and balanced. Even when they report and spin good news for Republicans 90% of the time, in Limbaughland if you report any bad news at all about Republicans you are slime.

Notice that in the insane world of Rush Limbaugh it is a crime for a conservative to say anything bad about another conservative, he said this: "conservative on conservative crime, so to speak."

Here is a partial transcript of some nonsense from Rush Limbaugh, enjoy:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: We had a caller yesterday, 'you know Rush? Fox News just doesn't seem as conservative anymore, no no no, they're always attacking conservatives, they're attacking, and suddenly they got all these liberals on there now, these analysts, and their experts and whatever. Strategists.

They're always going after conservatives now, at that debate, and I just don't understand, what does it mean?' And so I sought to explain to yesterday's caller, what I thought the explanation for this was. Bill O'Reilly aired that and then began a discussion of it with Katie Pavlich, who is the editor of Townhall.com. So here is O'Reilly setting it up.

OK so that's O'Reilly playing the soundbite clip of me and then reacting to it. The point is - by the way, yesterday is not first time I've said this. I'm blue in the face saying it. I think it's true, not just of Fox. Hell, it explains half the behavior pattern of the GOP establishment.

They're tired of what people think of them, they want to just correct them or disabuse them of the notion and you get inside these capitals, the Washingtons, the New Yorks, inside these places, and the culture where the left runs them, the Democrats run both the corporate and social culture in these towns. And I don't have any doubt that being accused of being conservative is not cool. To a lot of people.

No, no, and so to demonstrate that they're fair - I don't think it's really trying to demonstrate they're not conservative. I think a better way of saying it is, that there are some people at Fox, and I don't know that it's a corporate thing, I just think some people think that if they go after conservatives, that they'll be seen as fair and not in the tank for anybody.

No more complicated than that. And I think its true of not just of people in the media, or at Fox, but if you ever encounter conservative on conservative crime, so to speak, I think one of the explanations is, that whoever is doing the criticizing is attempting to curry favor with whoever the power structure where they live is, so that they will not be lumped in with all these crazy, wacko pro-life conservatives and so forth.

Wait, didn't they just make my point there? Didn't they sort of in a sequitous way, make my point they want to be known as tough on both sides. They want to be known as being able to be tough on both sides, but nobody at NBC, or CBS, or ABC, or CNN worries about that. Does anybody ever get mad at CNN for the way they might go after, say Bill de Blasio, have you ever heard it happen?

Have you ever heard anybody complain at CNN about the way they go after Michael Moore? Take your pick of whoever. It doesn't happen, does it? I just don't think it's a complicated thing here at all.

What O'Reilly's point is 'we're in broadcast news, we do not have chosen sides, chosen candidates. We do not have favorites but talk radio does. Talk radio is - the hosts always favor somebody, and they are never skeptical, they're not skeptical of that person.'

I think talk radio holds more people accountable and in a tougher way than you'll find in a whole host of places. But anyway, that's what it was.

Senate Democrats Block Energy Bill After Republicans Refuse Aid For Flint
By: Steve - February 8, 2016 - 10:00am

Senate Democrats stood with Flint today by blocking the advancement of an energy bill after Republicans continued to drag their feet on an aid package for the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

The final vote was 46-50. Republicans finished 16 votes short of the total needed to advance the energy bill.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called out Republicans two days ago on the Senate floor for their hypocrisy towards Flint.

Reid said this:
Last year Texas was devastated with historic flooding, it was the federal government that stepped in to provide disaster relief for the people of Texas. Who stepped in? The federal government stepped in to help the people of Texas. That's why I was disappointed to see the senior Senator from Texas say: "While we all have sympathy for what's happened in Flint this is primarily a local and state responsibility."

He didn't say that when the flooding was taking place last year.

Last year as Florida was hit with extreme flooding, the Senator who finished third last night in the Iowa caucuses (Marco Rubio) called for federal disaster assistance. But when it comes to the children and families of Flint, that Senator instead cautions against our action. He said he had not followed the situation closely but that:

"I believe the federal government's role in some of these things (is) largely limited unless it involves a federal jurisdictional issue."

Senator Rubio is not alone. Republican Senators routinely rush to the floor to demand federal aid when trouble hits their backyard. That's the right thing to do - Americans help each other in times of crisis.

This week, the Senate has a chance to help the families suffering through a public health crisis, I hope Republicans who have requested federal aid in the past won't turn their backs on the people of Flint. If a federal government response is necessary for natural disasters, shouldn't the federal government help respond to this man-made disaster?
Michigan Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters vowed to block the bipartisan energy bill until an amendment containing aid to Flint was agreed to. Negotiators are making progress, but some Republicans like Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK) insulted Democrats by proposing that aid to Flint be paid for out of vehicle manufacturing loan program.

In other words, Republicans are looking to take funding away from one key program that is key to Michigan to pay for aid to Flint.

Democrats should remember the Republican reluctance to help Flint the next time a Republican demands aid for his state after a disaster.

Senate Democrats are standing with Flint and are vowing to continue their blockade of the energy bill until an aid package is passed for Flint.

Voters In Iowa Caucus Say Sanders Got Cheated Out Of Delegates
By: Steve - February 7, 2016 - 11:50am

Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: Because he was the only caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.

But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county No. 43 delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.

"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register.

"It was really suspicious. I'm actually pretty irate about it." Complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn't yet shared candidates updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with "HRC2016" license plates.

Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3. A total of 110 people were present for the final vote, and the count was 58 people for Sanders and 52 people for Clinton -- which amounted to five county delegates for Sanders and four for Clinton, said Lonnie McCombs, a 59-year-old Knoxville Democrat who is retired from careers in the military and in manufacturing.

But when the Knoxville Journal Express newspaper posted the Democratic Party's official results, it showed Knoxville No. 3 results as Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.

Steve Eck, who was Clinton's precinct captain for Knoxville No. 3, confirmed: "Somebody transposed those numbers."

In Cedar Rapids No. 9, the precinct's four delegates split evenly between Sanders and Clinton, who won by just one person's vote. 131 people signed in at the beginning of the caucus but two separate head counts showed that 136 people voted.

I hate to say it, but this looks bad for the Iowa Democratic party and the DNC. It's starting to look like the DNC and the Iowa state party rigged the vote for Clinton, which is sad, because if they did, they are no better than the Republicans who cheat in elections.

Republican Says The Right-Wing Media Controls The Republican Party
By: Steve - February 7, 2016 - 11:30am

Michael Smerconish: Right Wing Media Has "Supplanted The Leadership Of The GOP"

"Look To The Leadership Of The Republican Party. I'm Talking About Beck And Limbaugh And Hannity"



Partial Transcript:

BROOKE BALDWIN (HOST): So here you wrote this column this week essentially talking about these incredibly popular conservative radio show hosts and talk show hosts who essentially you're saying have a grip on Republicans.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH: A greater -- I argue they have a greater sway on the GOP base than does the party leadership. And that that has taken place over last the 30 years. Brooke, when I'm out and about, not answering the phone on my own radio program, but leading my real life, people engage me about politics and what I hear most often is the question, people will say, explain to me, how did Donald Trump get to be the front-runner? How did Ted Cruz, two relatively bombastic personalities, get to be in this position?

BALDWIN: What do you say?

SMERCONISH: And I say look to the leadership of the Republican Party. I'm not talking about Reince Priebus. I'm not talking about Sean Spicer. I'm talking about Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity, because they've supplanted the leadership of the GOP. And so those candidates are a reflection, I think, of the talk radio world. And -

BALDWIN: Rhetoric, everything that's been stirred up --

SMERCONISH: Absolutely stirring the pot. But the problem I think is the party exists, the Republican Party, Democratic Party, for one purpose, to win elections. Those personalities exist for a different purpose which is to attract ears and eyeballs and clicks and frankly to make money. And I think those purposes are at odds.

O'Reilly & Fox Spin The Good Job Numbers Report
By: Steve - February 7, 2016 - 11:00am

In O'Reillyworld and on Fox News, good jobs numbers, higher wages, and lower unemployment are bad news. While the rest of the country sees it all as good news, especially the higher wages and increase in manufacturing jobs.

O'Reilly even had Trump and Christie on to talk doom and gloom about the good reports, while not having any Democrats on to counter their right-wing spin. O'Reilly, Trump, and Christie all slammed the report saying there are no good new jobs, which ignores the fact that 29,000 of them were in manufacturing, and that wage growth is up 2.5% over the last year.

It's all bad news for them, even though it is good news, and O'Reilly who has been complaining about wages going down, did not mention that wages are up over the last 12 months. Which are facts they all ignored to slam the Obama economy.

And that is why no Democrats were on to counter their spin, because they do not want you to hear or know the truth, and if these numbers had come out under a Republican President, they would praise them and say what a good job the Republian is doing, as they did under Bush when good numbers were reported on his watch.

It was not just O'Reilly, Trump, and Christie lying to you either, it was pretty much everyone at Fox.

Manufacturing Employment Hit a 7-Year High, And Fox Complains About The Lack Of Manufacturing Job.

Fox News attempted to negatively spin a January jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by complaining about a lack of manufacturing jobs being created. Unfortunately for Fox, the report actually revealed robust job creation in manufacturing, which put total employment in that industry at a seven-year high.

On February 5, the BLS released its monthly "Employment Situation" summary for January 2016. The data showed that the economy created 151,000 jobs last month, and the unemployment rate fell marginally to 4.9 percent -- its lowest point since February 2008.

Economists and experts agreed that the report was "very encouraging."

On the February 5th edition of Fox News Your World, host Neil Cavuto and Fox Business host Gerri Willis complained that the report did not show enough evidence of job creation in well-paid industries like manufacturing.
GERRI WILLIS: A jobless rate of 4.9 percent, that is an eight-year low, looks so good. Lucious, right? Maybe not... The number of jobs created in the month, you're showing it right now: 151,000. A disappointment compared to what we expected: 200,000.

Now, good news on the wages front, up over the last 12 months 2.5 percent. You can see that there, $25.39 an hour. So that seems to be good news. Dig further though, Neil, what do we see? Here's what we see, the jobs created are disappointing.

58,000 retail jobs, we're talking about clerks, cashiers, people who walk through the Walmart, those are the kinds of jobs created. And also, restaurant and bars, so waitresses, waiters, bartenders, 47,000 jobs created.

We know from experience that these aren't the kind of jobs that can really fuel family growth, fuel family wealth. This isn't what the middle class needs right now, and that's what's so disappointing about this jobs report, today.

We're not seeing the kinds of big-time manufacturing jobs being created in this economy, and that's what Americans really need.
Now if you can do math, there is a problem, because 58 and 47 does not add up to 151, that means Fox is not telling you about the rest of the jobs created in January, and that includes the 29,000 manufacturing jobs that pay good money and are a big part of the 2.5% increase in wages.

The jobs report Cavuto and Willis discussed actually showed robust job creation in manufacturing (+29,000). MarketWatch columnist Rex Nutting noted that those 29,000 new workers pushed total manufacturing employment to 12.4 million, a seven-year high.

Apparently, no one told American manufacturers that their business is collapsing, because they kept on hiring more workers in January.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that manufacturing companies added 29,000 workers in January to reach a seven-year high of 12.4 million. After a soft patch in the middle of last year, it was the fourth month in a row that manufacturing payrolls had increased.

These are facts, the facts that O'Reilly, Trump, Christie, Cavuto, and Willis did not tell you about. Basically, they cherry picked and lied about the actual numbers, to spin a good jobs report into bad news to make Obama and the Democrats look bad.

Not only were factories hiring, they were working their employees longer shifts. Average weekly hours rose a tick to 40.7 hours in January, which is significant because the manufacturing workweek is considered to be one of the best leading indicators for the health of the economy as a whole.

This is what O'Reilly and Fox do, lie to you and ignore the facts, for political reasons.

How The Media Covered The Flint Michigan Water Crisis
By: Steve - February 7, 2016 - 10:00am

A couple networks covered it a little, one network and anchors covered it a lot, and one never covered it at all, including Bill O'Reilly who has not spent 1 minute on the story, and to this day has still not covered it at all.

This story hit the media in June of 2014, it was reported on a Flint radio news show. Since then, before January 5, 2016, MSNBC had 68 minutes of coverage, CBS has 2 minutes and 35 seconds, NBC had 2 minutes and 32 seconds, ABC 0 minutes, Fox Business and Fox News, 0 minutes, CNN, 0 minutes.

The O'Reilly Factor, 0 minutes, including now, O'Reilly has never reported the story one time.

Zero Minutes of coverage of the Flint water crisis on Fox News primetime programming prior to January 5, 2016, when the state of emergency was declared.

Think about that, a state of emergency is declared in America, where the national guard are called in, and O'Reilly ignored the entire story, and as of 2-2-16 he has still not said one word about it, and does not plan to report on it on the Tuesday 2-2-16 show either. And he has the #1 rated show in all of cable news, yet he ignored the story for 1.5 years.

The Detroit Free Press reported it in January of 2015, that is over a year ago, so it was in the media. This is a story of political crimes, corruption, a cover up, and who knows what else, it was made for cable news to cover, and yet Fox and O'Reilly ignore it all.

O'Reilly Admits The People At Fox Are Rooting For Republicans
By: Steve - February 6, 2016 - 11:50am

Chris Christie Calls Out A Fox & Friends Co-Host For "Rooting For Trump" On The Network

Bill O'Reilly: "I Don't Think That There's Any Surge For Any One Candidate On This Network"

And during the segment O'Reilly basically admitted the people at Fox are rooting for all the Republicans, not just Christie. O'Reilly also ignored the fact that he is rooting for his friend Trump, and helping him by putting him on his show at least once a week.

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): You are are running in single digits in all the polls in New Hampshire. You've spent a lot of time there. You got a lot of media attention. I think we've been fair to you at Fox, although you gave the Fox & Friends guys a little jazz the other day, you said they were rooting for Trump. Do you really believe the Fox & Friends guys are rooting for Trump?

CHRIS CHRISTIE: Now, listen, I think that Doocy gets me on the air and asks me, you know, four questions on Donald Trump. You know, should Donald Trump have a do-over in Iowa? You know, once you ask it the third time, you should get off it. So, you know me Bill, I've always been the kind of guy where I'll take a couple of questions that I think are kind of off the beaten trail--

O'REILLY: Yeah you're pretty straightforward, but you're dodging my question now. Do you think they're rooting for Trump in the mornings here?

CHRISTIE: I think Doocy might be rooting for Trump, yeah.

O'REILLY: I think Doocy got promised he's going to be the ambassador to a very warm country. I don't know, I mean. I watch the show -- but I don't think that there's any surge for any one candidate on this network. I think it's all over the place. I mean, we got people rooting for you, got people rooting for Trump, people rooting for Cruz, Rubio, whatever it may be.
Colin Powell Kills Bogus Fox/GOP Email Scandal About Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - February 6, 2016 - 11:30am

Here is the deal folks, this is something Bill O'Reilly will never tell you. A group of partisan Republicans in Congress retroactively classified some of Hillary Clinton's emails, they were not classified when she sent them, they were ruled to be classified after she sent them.

This was done to hurt her politically and to create a made up scandal to stop her from becoming the next President. The whole thing is a made up scandal by Republicans in the House who have the majority, and it is being promoted by all of Fox News, the Republican party, all of the right-wing media in print, radio, and tv, including Bill O'Reilly.

There is no scandal, it was created to hurt Hillary Politically, then Fox News took over reporting it non-stop as if it was a real scandal. And now we have even more proof, because they also retroactively classified some of the Republican Colin Powells emails, and the Republican Condi Rice's emails.

Now here is the difference, neither O'Reilly, the GOP, Fox News, or anyone on the right is calling for Powell and Rice to be prosecuted and put in jail for sending classified emails. They are silent, which proves they are totally biased right-wing hacks who have no credibility and can not be trusted to report the news in an impartial way.

Former Republican Sec. of State Colin Powell recently reacted to an NBC News report that the State Department is retroactively classifying his emails by calling for all of his emails to be released.

Powell said this, "I wish they would release them, so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?' They were unclassified at the time, and they are, in my judgment, still unclassified."

Clinton campaign manager John Podesta said in a statement, "This announcement about Secretary Powell's emails shows just how routine it is for government bureaucrats to go overboard when it comes to judging whether information is too sensitive for the public to see. Hillary Clinton agrees with her predecessor that his emails, like hers, are being inappropriately subjected to over-classification. She joins his call for these emails to be released so that the public can view the contents for itself."

The State Department’s bureaucratic retroactive classification of emails has gone beyond the bounds of common sense. Republicans love to use the reclassification of the emails as circumstantial proof that Clinton must have done something wrong.

Now that the State Department is classifying emails from the Bush administration, Republicans are in a bind. The idea that Clinton did something wrong has been dealt a death blow.

O'Reilly and the Republicans will use their favorite tactic of ignoring the Powell and Rice emails while talking about Clinton, but the idea that Hillary Clinton was illegally leaking classified information has been wounded now that the former Republican administration is also under scrutiny.

The Republican presidential candidates have been using the idea of Hillary Clinton ending up in jail as an applause line, but if Clinton should go to jail for her emails, Colin Powell and Condi Rice should be sharing a cell with her.

Republicans believe that the emails are their best chance of beating Clinton, but the scandal that they are hanging their hat on just went up in smoke.

And as of today, Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, or had Powell on his show to discuss it, and he never will, because he is a biased right-wing hack with no credibility. A real journalist would report this story, and have Powell on to discuss it.

O'Reilly Attacks CNN For Simply Doing Their Job
By: Steve - February 6, 2016 - 11:00am

To begin with, CNN did nothing wrong here and O'Reilly is lying to you when he says they did. They simply reported what the Carson campaign staff told them, and they even admit they told CNN what they reported. O'Reilly also admitted the Cruz campaign was wrong to do what they did, and said the staffers who told CNN what they did should be punished.

O'Reilly Attacks CNN, Says "Honest Reporting Is Becoming Almost Scarce"

O'Reilly also said this:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): As we reported yesterday, while the caucus voting was underway in Iowa, a CNN reporter, Chris Moody tweeted misleading information about the Carson campaign. Almost immediately, the Cruz campaign used that information to tell Iowa voters that Carson may be withdrawing from the race. Dr. Carson believes that hurt his vote tally. Ted Cruz has apologized. CNN says it did nothing wrong.

Now, there is no question that CNN is responsible for the false report. But the Cruz campaign is also wrong, and Senator Cruz should take disciplinary action against some of his staff. However, that may not happen.

As far as CNN is concerned, it says it is standing behind its initial report, which is ludicrous. That news agency screwed up big time and apparently doesn't care.

Talking Points has said it many times, the state of American journalism is on the verge of collapse. Ideology has permeated hard news coverage and honest reporting is becoming almost scarce, especially in political circles. CNN should apologize. Ted Cruz should take some action. And this should never happen again.

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

And after saying "Ideology has permeated hard news coverage and honest reporting" it is not true that O'Reilly was hit by lightning for hypocrisy, because he is a dishonest journalist who has a right-wing ideology. In fact, O'Reilly is one of the most dishonest journalists in the country, so he has no right to complain about dishonest journalists.

Here are the facts: A CNN spokesperson defended the network's coverage to The Hill, saying its correspondent reported the information provided by the Carson campaign.

"Dr. Carson's staff informed CNN that he would return home to take a 'deep breath' before resuming his activities on the campaign trail. That information was reported accurately by CNN across TV and digital," the spokesperson said in an email.

One person at CNN who is an opinion analyst (just like O'Reilly is) speculated that what the Carson campaign told them means he is dropping out of the race. This does not give O'Reilly the right to blame it on all of CNN, especially when he said it's ok for opinion analysts like him to give opinions.

Carson himself even suggested that Cruz reprimand his campaign staff for fanning speculation during the Iowa caucus Monday that Carson was ending his campaign, which Cruz dismissed.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, if someone on a campaign staff tells you something you report it, they call it journalism, something you know nothing about. Even if it hurts the Carson campaign, it is there job to report it. Unlike you, they did not hide the info like you would have to protect Carson, the people to blame are the Carson campaign staffers, and the Cruz campaign, not CNN.

The feuding escalated on Wednesday, with Carson holding a press conference in Washington, D.C., to bring attention to Cruz's tactics in Iowa. Cruz has said his staff circulated an initial CNN report to supporters saying Carson was taking a break from the campaign trail and wasn't going on to the next primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.

And his staff did not distribute a follow-up report clarifying that Carson was simply taking a brief break from the campaign trail and returning home to Florida, which his opponents have seized on to knock Cruz.

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin on Wednesday defended her network on air after Cruz continued to reference the initial CNN report, where the network reported that Carson was taking a "break" from campaigning.

O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack and he just used the report to slam CNN because he does not like them. Diverting the attention from what the Cruz campaign did, O'Reilly is helping Cruz and making a partisan attack on CNN. O'Reilly also never once reported about Cruz sending out the illegal mailers that looked like the state sent them out, he ignored that story too because he does not want to make Cruz look bad.

The only dishonest journalist in this story is Bill O'Reilly, and he knows it. He is trying to cover for the Cruz campaign by blaming it on CNN, notice that nobody else in America is doing that, except Bill O'Reilly. The real journalists are reporting the story as it happened, not making stuff up to do cheap attacks on people at CNN.

Note to Bill O'Reilly, you are not the journalism watchdog for America, just do your job and stop worrying about what the other real journalists are doing. You make a fool of yourself and prove you are a partisan hack by doing this, and it does no good, it's just a waste of time because nobody cares what you think about other journalists.

O'Reilly Says Trump Lost Iowa By Skipping The Fox Debate
By: Steve - February 6, 2016 - 10:00am

Then again, maybe the people of Iowa were just smart enough to not vote for Trump, maybe the people of Iowa just did not want Trump to win, did you ever think of that O'Reilly, you Trump loving moron.

O'Reilly: "It Was An Incredible Blunder" For Donald Trump To Not Attend Fox News Debate



O'Reilly Let Donald Trump Lie About The Unemployment Numbers
By: Steve - February 6, 2016 - 9:00am

Friday night Bill O'Reilly let the GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump push a phony conspiracy theory that unemployment rate is really 25 percent.

On February 5th, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly "Employment Situation" summary for January 2016. The BLS reported that the economy created 151,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent -- its lowest point since February 2008.

So the biased Republican Bill O'Reilly invited Trump on the February edition of his show to respond to the report asking whether we should "give the president credit" for the low unemployment rate? While also not having any other guests to provide a counterpoint to what Trump was saying.

Trump claimed that "the real unemployment number is 25 percent, and probably higher than that." O'Reilly failed to push back on Trump's allegation simply stating, "Okay, so you're not going to give President Obama any credit for the 4.9."



And now the facts, the non-partisan website politifact.com rated the Trump claim false. He has said this before, and he is saying it again, he was lying then and he is lying now. But neither time did O'Reilly correct the Trump lies, because he does not want to, he is also a Republican so he wants people to believe those lies because it will hurt Obama.

Here is what Politifact.com reported:

We have previously debunked the notion that the government somehow cooks the books when it calculates the unemployment rate. But is there a legitimate statistic that reaches as high as 25 percent?

As it happens, there are measures of unemployment beyond the familiar unemployment rate. However, none of the more expansive measures comes close to the level Trump suggests.

The most expansive statistic calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, called the U-6 rate, is sometimes offered as a more "complete" picture of joblessness. Currently, the U-6 rate of "labor underutilization" is 9.9 percent.

That's higher than the more familiar 4.9 percent unemployment rate, but it’s also well below the 25 percent Trump claimed.

So is there another credible way to calculate it? Maybe. For instance, U-6 doesn't count people who chose to take care of their kids full-time, went back to school or retired early to avoid having to compete for a job.

In January 2009, there were 80.5 million Americans 16 and over who were not in the labor force. Today, that number is slightly below 93 million. So the number not in the labor force has increased by about 12.5 million.

If you factor this number into the U-6 calculation (and subtract the "marginally attached" category to avoid double counting) you get a back-of-the-envelope rate of 13 percent.

But even this is almost certainly too high, since that would assume that every one of those 12.5 million Americans staying out of the workforce in the Obama years has done so because of the poor job market. In reality, we're in the midst of the first big wave of Baby Boom retirements, so a share of those 12.5 million likely reflect this historically large pool of retirees.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that half the additional increase in people out of the labor force comes from the Baby Boom retirement surge. That would mean the "new" unemployment rate -- perhaps we can call this new statistic "U-7" -- is about 13 percent.

Other guesstimates would produce slightly higher or lower percentages, but the important thing is that the numbers in this range are well short of the 25 percent Trump mentioned.

Getting the number up to 25 percent would require roping into the count people who are high-school and college students and people who are happily retired -- that is, people who technically aren't working, but who have no reason to be. And that's a bridge too far.

Our ruling

Trump said, "Our real unemployment is 25 percent. Don't believe the 4.9. Don't believe it."

Setting aside his paranoia about the federal government cooking the books, Trump is off-base even if you give him the maximum benefit of the doubt.

The highest official government statistic for under-employment is 9.9 percent -- which is less than half as high as Trump claims.

And if you make a quick and dirty attempt to expand the scope of this measurement to include other Americans left uncounted in the standard statistics, there's no plausible way to get it past 13 percent -- and even that's stretching it. That's well below the range Trump cited, so we rate the claim False.

Obama: Jobs Report Inconvenient for O'Reilly/GOP Doom and Despair Tour
By: Steve - February 5, 2016 - 11:55am

This is for the lying O'Reilly and the Republicans who keep lying that the economy is terrible, they are liars, because the economy is doing great. And anyone who says it is not can not be trusted, including Bill O'Reilly, who keeps saying the economy is in Chaos, when in reality it is doing great and getting better every quarter.

President Obama said the "durable" U.S. economy has continued to grow this year despite what Republican presidential candidates have been claiming on the campaign trail.

"I know that's still inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and despair tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody," Obama said.

Employers added 151,000 new jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent -- the first time the jobless rate has dipped below 5 percent since February 2008.

Obama Proposing More Spending on Job Training Programs.

Obama Expresses His Desire to 'Make College Affordable for Every American.

Speaking briefly to reporters today, Obama said the U.S. economy is the "strongest in the world."

"We should feel good about the progress we've made," he said, before noting that more can be done to boost the economy. Obama also compared the nation's economy to his gym workouts.

"If it's working, then we should be staying on that same path," he said, adding that he doesn't reach for a "big double-bacon cheeseburger" after a good workout at the gym.

Only Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans think 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs every month and a 4.9% unemployment rate is bad news and chaos, they are idiots and liars, and if this were happening under a Republican President they would be reporting how great it is every night.

Governor Urged To Quit After Emails Release On legionnaires Outbreak
By: Steve - February 5, 2016 - 11:50am

And btw folks, Bill O'Reilly has still not said one word about the Flint water crisis story, not a word. Now if you are a Republican or a Democrat, you hate O'Reilly or love him, dont you think the guy who has the #1 rated show in all of cable news should be reporting this big story. The Governor lied, he was to blame for kids and other people having poison in their water, he should not only be impeached, he should be put on trial.

And O'Reilly will not even mention the story, even though he claims to be an Independent with a no spin zone who is fair to everyone, give me a break, everyone in the media except for partisan right-wing hacks are reporting this story. Because it involves a Republican Governor and his viewers would send him hate mail if he reported on it.

This is the real story with O'Reilly, he is not reporting the story for 2 reasons. Because a Republican is involved, and because if he reported it his 90% right-wing viewers would flood him with hate mail for talking about it. O'Reilly could care less about the people, or the kids of Flint, all he cares about is covering for Republicans and reporting on news his far-right viewers like.

O'Reilly even claims to care about the kids, which is now just laughable. If he really cared about the kids he would be reporting this story, calling for the Governor to resign, and calling for the feds to step in and give Michigan the money to replace those lead filled water pipes right now. Instead, he ignores the entire story, proving he isnothing but a right-wing hack.

Here is the new story O'Reilly is ignoring:

High-ranking officials in Governor Rick Snyder's administration were aware of a surge in legionnaires disease potentially linked to Flint's water long before the Michigan governor reported the increase to the public last month, internal emails show.

After the release of the emails, the Michigan Democratic party called for Snyder to step down on Thursday. Republicans, on the other hand, were silent, so much for caring about the kids and justice.

When Snyder disclosed the spike in legionnaires cases on January 13th, he said he had learned about it just a couple of days earlier. But emails obtained by Progress Michigan through public-records requests show Snyder's own office was aware of the outbreak since last March. At the time, others in the administration were scrambling to respond to suggestions that bacteria in the city's new water source, the Flint river, could be the culprit.

Following the release of the emails on Thursday, the state Democratic party called for Snyder to resign, following weeks of increased criticism of the governor for the state's delayed response in addressing the crisis.

"There is a limit to how many times you can play dumb when it comes to events and actions that take place on your watch," said the Michigan Democratic party chairman, Brandon Dillon, in a statement. "Governor Snyder is attempting to employ this tactic again, claiming he wasn't told of the connection, made almost a year before he informed the public, between Flint's water and the legionella bacteria."

Hack O'Reilly Slams Daily Beast For Reporting The Truth About Beck
By: Steve - February 5, 2016 - 11:30am

Thursday night Bill O'Reilly slammed the Daily Beast for simply reporting the truth about Glenn Beck and his failing media empire. Notice he does not dispute any of their reporting, which is very telling, all he does is say because they used some anonymous sources you can not believe it. Ignoring the fact that what they reported has been proven to be true, with numerous sources, including the CEO who resigned, and others who were fired.

O'Reilly is pathetic, he just does not like someone reporting the truth about his good friend Glenn Beck, who is going through a rough time, so he attacks the guy who simply wrote the article. Everything he wrote has proven to be true, and Beck himself does not deny any of it, and yet, the biased idiot O'Reilly slams the Daily Beast writer for simply reporting the truth, just because he used a couple anonymous sources who still work there.

And btw, O'Reilly used his tip of the day segment to slam the Daily Beast and the writer Lloyd Grove (who O'Reilly hates), which was not a tip of the day. He did this so he would not have any guests on to discuss it, or to counter what he said. And that is not journalism, it's being a partisan hack trying to cover for a friend.

O'Reilly complains about anonymous sources, while he has been hyping the Clinton e-mail scandal, which is nothing but anonymous sources, so he does the very same thing. He also ignores the fact that Grove did use on the record sources in the article, so it was not all anonymous sources, as he admitted he did not even read the article after he saw the words anonymous sources. Which he has also complained about, saying if you do not read something or watch it, you can not slam it, then he does that very thing.

O'Reilly calls Grove a guttersnipe and garbage, and never once proves anything he wrote is wrong, no facts, just a biased and partisan attack on someone who reported the truth about his friend Glenn Beck. The guttersnipe and the garbage is Bill O'Reilly, who claims to only report the facts and never call anyone names, as he ignores all the facts and calls people guttersnipes.

One last thing, how do you fire an internet news service? Salon is also not a hate site, and if he does not like the news he gets from Google news, he will fire them too, haha, that is too funny, and O'Reilly is a total idiot.

Here is what the total hack O'Reilly said:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Finally tonight, The Factor tip of the day is a real danger if you're consuming news on the net. For example, I recently changed my news service from Yahoo to Google because Yahoo uses the hate website Salon in its news pages. That's unacceptable to me. Now, Google may do the same thing. If it does, I'll fire them.

I mean, this has reached critical mass. Let me give you an example. This week a vicious article about Glenn Beck came out on a website called The Daily Beast. It's written by guttersnipe Lloyd Grove, a despicable person. Let me just quote you from the article. Colleagues and underlings of Beck interviewed by The Daily Beast, on condition of anonymity. I stopped right there. Just garbage. Can't identify anyone on the record and you use cowards to trash another human being.

And here's the kicker, the editor of The Daily Beast, John Avlon, has written a book that trashes Beck. And nowhere is that mentioned in the article. Not acceptable. Blatantly dishonest. Factor tip of the day: walk away.

O'Reilly Claims 3rd Place Is The Winner In Iowa
By: Steve - February 5, 2016 - 11:00am

O'Reilly Joins The Media Declaring Third Place Iowa Finisher Marco Rubio The Winner Of Iowa Caucus

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, 3rd place is not winning, all it did was keep Rubio in the race, if he had come in less than 3rd he would be done, if he is not already. It's down to Trump and Cruz, and you know it. Rubio is too moderate to win the Republican primary, and you know it.

Partial Transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Trump is still very strong in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the three upcoming votes. The media of course despises Donald Trump, and will paint him as a loser if they can, but here on The Factor we are fair. And the truth is, Trump remains very formidable.

Senator Marco Rubio, the big winner in Iowa last night, his campaign is now very competitive and should remain so unless there's something about the Senator that the folks don't know. Remember, in New Hampshire the voters can vote for any party, so Rubio has a much wider audience than he had in Iowa. Summing up, Cruz, Trump, Rubio all viable.

Fox News Was Silent When George W. Bush Spoke At A Mosque
By: Steve - February 5, 2016 - 10:00am

President Obama recently visited a mosque to talk about religion and discrimination, and of course O'Reilly and his right-wing friends flipped out, even though they said nothing when the Republican George W. Bush did the very same thing.

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), cast Obama's suggestion that the United States discriminates against Muslims as Obama pitting Americans "against each other."

Others criticized Obama for the mosque he chose. And late Wednesday night, Donald Trump said perhaps Obama "feels comfortable there" -- a comment thick with innuendo from a man who championed conspiracy theories about Obama's birthplace.

"We have a lot of problems in this country, Greta," Trump said on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show. "There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque."

Jeb Bush, on the other hand, argued it was a positive step. And as we've discussed before, his brother George W. Bush would likely agree. The elder Bush, after all, visited a mosque shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a message pretty similar to Obama's.

So why is something a Republican president did in 2001 suddenly divisive when a Democratic president does it 15 years later?

Because Republicans are idiots that want to use anything they can to slam Obama.

Rubio is free to enunciate why that is -- and it could definitely have something to do with Obama singling out Republicans in the speech and his refusal to say the words "radical Islam" (though Rubio didn't mention those things in his comments) -- but more broadly, Islam is simply something that gives an increasing number of Republicans heartburn.

A Pew poll in 2002 showed 47 percent of Republicans and independents who leaned Republican said either "most" or "half/some" Muslims are "anti-American." Today, that number is now 63 percent.

Just 3 in 10 Republicans say the number of anti-American Muslims is only "just a few" or "none." Think about that for a moment, and it's not hard to see why many Republicans rallied to Donald Trump's proposed ban on all Muslim immigrants.

Pew has a lot of other data showing GOP voters are significantly more suspicious of how violent a religion Islam is and are much more likely to say that politicians shouldn't be afraid of saying things that might be seen as critical of Islam.

But the chart above shows, better than just about anything else, how much more polarized we are on this issue. Call it the Trump Effect. Call it a symptom of how Americans now get their news and information. Call it a reaction to the rise of the Islamic State.

Whatever it is, it is much more pitched than it was even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush's move at the time was seen as somewhat bold; in today's Republican Party -- and without the huge popularity Bush enjoyed in the days after 9/11 -- it's not a stretch to argue that it never would have happened.

It's a non-story to everyone but Republicans, and Bill O'Reilly, who did an entire segment on it on the Wednesday night Factor show.

Jeb Bush: Turn The Lights Back On And Please Clap For Me
By: Steve - February 4, 2016 - 11:30am

Wow, this is just sad. Not once but twice the lights went out on Mr. 3% Jeb Bush during a speech he was giving in New Hampshire. Then after a big long statement about how great a President he will be, there was silence while he waited for people to clap, so he had to beg them to clap by saying "please clap."

How bad are you when you spend $50 million dollars and your own supporters at your own rally will not even clap for you, about as bad as it gets, Bush is toast and he should get out of the race and stop making a fool of himself and the Bush name.

Struggling Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was forced to politely ask a group of supporters to applaud for him on Wednesday after a rant about his ability to lead the country was met with complete silence.

Speaking at an event in Manchester, New Hampshire on Wednesday, Bush lashed out at GOP hopeful Donald Trump, and promised not to be a divisive president.

"My pledge to you, I will be a commander-in-chief that will have the back of the military," he said. "I won't trash talk, I won't be a divider-in-chief or an agitator-in-chief. I won't be out there blowharding, talking a big game without backing it up."

"I think the next president needs to be a lot quieter, but send a signal that we're prepared to act in the national security interest of this country," Bush added. "To get back in the business of creating a more peaceful world."

Bush paused, waiting for approval from the crowd. But instead, he was met with an awkward silence.

"Please clap," Bush said, looking demoralized. Then the crowd obliged.

The lights also went out two times, and I would say this, turn out the lights the party is over. Someone is sending Bush a message, that he is done and it's time to turn out the lights on your campaign.

In fact, I can not believe anyone is donating money to someone who is at 3%, I sure would not do it, and if I had donated, I would ask for a refund, because I am sure they were told Bush can win if he has the money. But it's clear he is toast, the Bush name was ruined by his brother George, and it looks to be a bad decision for Jeb to even run for President.

GOP Even Uses Dirty Tricks On Other Republicans
By: Steve - February 4, 2016 - 11:00am

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson slammed an unnamed 2016 rival Monday night, saying a campaign had played dirty tricks on him by suggesting to voters shortly before the caucusing began that he had dropped out of the race.

"I was reasonably happy today until I discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for somebody else," said Carson, opening his concession speech at the Marriott hotel in West Des Moines.

"I mean do you think that's something that is acceptable?" he asked.

And btw, Bill O'Reilly does not report any of this stuff, but if a Democrat did something similar to this, he would lose his mind and report it every night for a week.

This is what Republicans do folks, in the last election the Republican party sent out official looking mailers (in key states) that told Democrats to vote on the wrong day. They also sent out mailers telling people to vote in the wrong place so their vote would not count, or give out the wrong address for the voting place so they could not find it. And nobody ever does anything to them, they do it over and over and never get punished for it.

Carson also said this: "We are in the process of collapsing from within... if we continue to accept deceit and dirty tricks and lies," Carson said. "And people who do that are still viable candidates for president of the United States and we accept it and that's the problem."

Bush Is So Bad 49 Million Only Got Him 3 Percent Of The Vote
By: Steve - February 4, 2016 - 10:00am

It's official, the Bush name is ruined. Jeb Bush has raised $100 million dollars and spent $50 million of it, and what did that get him, 3% of the vote. So he is done and should get out of the race now, his brother George ruined the BUsh name and no Bush will ever be a President again, thank God.

Jeb Bush's campaign and the super PAC supporting his presidential candidacy have far outspent all other 2016 competitors on advertising, exceeding the amount spent by all campaigns at this point in 2012 by $10 million.

Together, Bush and his Right to Rise super PAC have spent a combined $49 million on advertisements across the country.

Right to Rise reported raising $103 million last summer and has spent $47.5 million on ads. Bush’s official campaign, meanwhile, has spent $1.5 million. But combined, the former Florida governor's campaign and super PAC have doled out $23 million in New Hampshire and more than $10 million in Iowa.

Bush's ad spending nearly doubles that of the next biggest spender in the race: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, whose allies have spent a combined $25.6 million in advertising -- $7.8 million in Iowa and $7.3 million in New Hampshire.

Bush is polling in fifth place in Iowa at 3% and sixth place in New Hampshire, according to the RealClearPolitics averages of state polls.

In contrast, Donald Trump -- who maintains a double-digit lead over his Republican rivals in the first national survey released this year -- has spent just $1.5 million on ads. Trump announced last week he would begin spending nearly $2 million a week in early states, such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Trump Says Cruz Cheated To Win In Iowa
By: Steve - February 3, 2016 - 11:50am

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday accused rival Ted Cruz of stealing a victory in the Iowa caucuses and called for another vote or nullification of Cruz's win.

Trump, who finished second behind Cruz, lit up Twitter on Wednesday with a series of posts saying the outcome was tainted because the Cruz campaign had deliberately spread misinformation about Trump's stand on Obamacare and an erroneous report that Ben Carson was dropping out of the race.

"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it," Trump (@realDonaldTrump) tweeted. "That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!"

Twitter was buzzing Wednesday morning over Trump's accusations. Several social media users tweeted screengrabs of an alleged deleted tweet from Trump's official account, in which he said Cruz "illegally" stole the vote.

"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump wrote.

Ted Cruz Thanks Far-Right Loons For Iowa Victory Over Trump
By: Steve - February 3, 2016 - 11:30am

Cruz Praised Beck, Deace, Perkins, Dobson, And Robertson. Five of the most extreme far-right conservatives in America, who are so far out of the mainstream only a few people on the right agree with them.

Here is what Cruz said:

TED CRUZ (R-TX): And let me say our leadership team, our Iowa state chairman, Matt Shultz, what an extraordinary job. You have done organizing a grass roots army, and let me say to our Iowa state director, Brian English, what an amazing job Brian has done.

And to our national co-chairman, Bob Vander Plaats and Steve King, these men have become dear and trusted friends. They are warriors. They are men of principle. They stand and speak the truth. They stand to defend their values and let me tell you, these leaders, day after day, week after week, have been crawling under broken glass with knives between their teeth.

I'm grateful for the support, the early support of my friend Steve Deace. We're grateful for the over 150 pastors across the state of Iowa, who joined our team to energize people of faith. We're grateful to the state senators, to the state representatives, to the volunteer leaders in each of the 99 counties who stood up and said we will be heard and this will be decided by the grassroots.

And then, I am so grateful to national leaders, people like Dr. James Dobson, and Tony Perkins, and Phil Robertson, and Governor Rick Perry, and Glenn Beck. Leaders who have stood and led, bringing together and coalescing conservatives here in Iowa and all across the country.

Trump Mocked For Statement About Coming In Second
By: Steve - February 3, 2016 - 11:00am

A few years ago Trump said nobody remembers who came in second, saying you are a loser if you do not win. But now that he came in second in Iowa he claims to be honored to come in second.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was mocked for a quote he tweeted in 2013 about the futility of finishing second after he lost the Iowa caucuses to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

"No one remembers who came in second." - Walter Hagen

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2013

Multiple Twitter users retweeted Trump's quote following his second-place finish on Monday.

Cruz took about 28 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, compared to Trump's 24 percent. In the billionaire's Iowa concession speech, he said he was "honored."

"When we started this journey there were 17 candidates and I was told by everybody, do not go to Iowa, you could never finish even in the top 10," Trump said.

"I said I have to do it. We finished second and I want to tell you something -- I'm honored. I'm really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted and all of the incredible candidates."

It just shows that Trump is a phony and a hypocrite, and a loser. He can not be trusted, and every day he is caught in a lie.

Iowa Sec. Of State Slams Cruz for Misleading Election Mailings
By: Steve - February 3, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course you never heard a word about this from Bill O'Reilly, because he is too busy lying for Cruz about Obamacare and jobs.

Iowa's Republican secretary of state called out Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for misleading mailers the Cruz campaign sent to some Iowans last week.

Mailers labeled with the phrase "voting violation" were sent to some Iowa voters, according to a report from the Independent Journal. The mailers list a voting score for the recipients and some neighbors -- they call the scores "public record" -- and urge Iowans to caucus Monday to improve their scores.

The mailers also looked like official letters sent out by the State, when it was the Cruz campaign that sent them out. A spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign even confirmed that the mailers were sent by the campaign.

In a statement, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said he was shown one of the mailers and said the wording "misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law."

"Accusing citizens of Iowa of a 'voting violation' based on Iowa caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act," Pate said. "There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong, and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa caucuses."

Cruz, who has often joked that mailers "make good kindling," later told reporters that he would not apologize for his campaign's efforts to bring out caucusgoers.

"I will apologize to nobody for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote. Iowa, as first in the nation, has an incredibly important role in deciding who the next commander-in-chief of this country will be. We are going to continue to use every tool we can to encourage the men and woman of Iowa to come out, to caucus on Monday night and to stand together as one," Cruz said in Sioux City.

Pate's criticism came as Cruz made five campaign stops in Iowa on Saturday.

Sanders Campaign: Iowa Lost 5% Of The Votes
By: Steve - February 2, 2016 - 11:55am

The intrigue around her so-called win continues to grow. On top of winning an incredible 6 out of 6 coin flips that handed Clinton 6 of Iowa's 99 precincts (more than 5% when Clinton won by less than 0.5%), the Sanders campaign now claims that Iowa Democrats lost 5% of Iowa votes.

The Iowa Democratic Party informed the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders late Monday night that it has no results for 90 precincts across the state, which could account for as much as 5 percent of the total vote. And the party has asked the campaigns for help in getting a tally for those missing results.

"We are, right now, calling all our precinct captains on precincts where we have knowledge of what's missing, to report what we think happened there," a visibly irate Robert Becker, Sanders state director told Roll Call after Sanders speech at the Holiday Inn.

"They've asked the other campaigns to do the same thing. At the end of the day, there's probably going to be squabbles on it," he added.

But an Iowa Democratic Party official disputed Becker's characterization.

"We are currently getting results from our small number of outstanding precincts, and results continue to be reported on our public website," an Iowa Democratic Party official told Roll Call. "The reports of precincts without chairs are inaccurate. These outstanding precincts have chairs who we are in the process of contacting to get their results. It is inaccurate to report that these precincts did not have chairs."

Yeah, they had chairs, but a lot of them never showed up, and did not have the app to send in their votes. So when people showed up and there was no chairman, they went home, so a lot of votes were most likely not cast either.

There are some rumors that with such a slim margin of 0.2% between Clinton and Sanders that Sanders might ask for a recount.

NY Daily News Has Great Cover For Trump
By: Steve - February 2, 2016 - 11:50am



Cruz Stuns Trump And Wins In Iowa
By: Steve - February 2, 2016 - 11:30am

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz won the first state of the 2016 race -- putting the candidate in real contention for the nomination despite businessman Donald Trump's consistent support in national polls.

Cruz was at 27.7 percent with 91 percent of the Iowa precincts reporting, and Trump was at 24.4 percent.

"Let me first of all say, to God be the glory," Cruz said at his watch party at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. "Tonight is a victory for the grassroots. Tonight the state of Iowa has spoken. Iowa has sent notice."

Flanked by his wife Heidi Cruz and Iowa Rep. Steve King, who has been stumping with Cruz since November, Cruz said that though Americans have suffered through seven years of President Barack Obama, but "joy cometh in the morning."

Cruz's victory will likely be attributed to his superior ground game in the state, where caucus wins are dependent on making sure your supporters show up at the hours-long events.

Trump had been consistently leading in the Iowa polls, but the big question mark was whether his fame and name ID would actually translate to caucus-goers.

Monday's results set the stage for next Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries, where Trump has been blowing the rest of the field away. He's up by 21 percent according to the Real Clear Politics average, with 33 percent of the vote, compared to Cruz's 11 percent, Gov. John Kasich's 11 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's 10 percent and Rubio's 9.5 percent.

The question is how much Iowa's results will play into the New Hampshire vote.

Robert Gates: Republicans Grasp Of National Security At Child's Level
By: Steve - February 2, 2016 - 11:00am

Former defense secretary condemns media for failing to challenge presidential candidates on promises he believes are unaffordable, illegal or unconstitutional

Robert Gates, a Republican stalwart and former US defense secretary who served under eight presidents, has derided the party's election candidates for a grasp of national security issues that "would embarrass a middle schooler."

An ex-CIA director who first joined the White House under Richard Nixon, Gates joked that if frontrunner Donald Trump wins the presidency, he would emigrate to Canada. He condemned the media for failing to challenge candidates from both parties on promises he believes are unaffordable, illegal or unconstitutional.

"The level of dialogue on national security issues would embarrass a middle schooler," Gates said of the Republican contenders at a Politico Playbook event in Washington on Monday.

"People are out there making threats and promises that are totally unrealistic, totally unattainable. Either they really believe what they're saying or they're cynical and opportunistic and, in a way, you hope it's the latter, because God forbid they actually believe some of the things that they're saying."

And of course O'Reilly has not had him on his show to discuss it, or even reported what Gates said, proving once again that O'Reilly is a total right-wing stooge, no matter how many times he denies it, the facts show otherwise.

Gates is among Republican elders dismayed by the way this year's campaign is unfolding, with establishment figures such as Jeb Bush, whose father he served under as director of central intelligence, failing to gain traction against mavericks with unusual prescriptions for keeping America safe.

Ted Cruz National Security Plan Is A War Crime
By: Steve - February 2, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course neither Bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News is calling Cruz out for it, because they are as nuts as he is, and they support his war crimes plan. O'Reilly has even called for carpet bombing them himself, he said we should bomb everything, bridges, water plants, etc. which are all war crimes.

In Thursday night's GOP debate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) repeated his promise to conduct carpet bombing in the Middle East to combat ISIS forces. Yet he did not acknowledge that carpet bombing is a war crime under the international Geneva Conventions.

The Fox News moderators challenged Cruz on his voting record not lining up with his tough talk on national security.

"You opposed giving President Obama authority to enforce his red line in Syria," they asked. "You have voted against the Defense Authorization Act for three years. How do you square your rhetoric with your record, sir?"

Instead of addressing the discrepancies in his voting record, Cruz defended his past promises of carpet bombing and saturation bombing parts of Iraq and Syria.

"We need to define the enemy, rebuild the military to defeat the enemy, and we need to be focused and lift the rules of engagement so we're not sending our fighting men and women into combat with their arms tied behind their back," he said.

The Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. joined decades ago along with nearly every other country in the world, explicitly forbids carpet bombing. "Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden," the agreement reads.

"An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions."

When Cruz said Thursday that the U.S. should "lift the rules of engagement" in wartime, he did not explain whether that included rejecting the Geneva Conventions.

Cruz is also incorrect to cite the Gulf War as a positive example of carpet bombing. The U.S. used laser-guided precision bombing during that conflict, which "substantially reduced the accidental damage that would otherwise have befallen civilian buildings."

Even so, thousands of innocent civilians were killed.

Cruz, who is poised to win or take second place in the Iowa caucus, has previously offered incorrect information about carpet bombing.

Cruz is also not the first GOP candidate to advocate for a practice that violates international law. In December, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump called for the ability to assassinate the family members of terrorists. Such intentional killing of civilians would also be a war crime.

Fox News Totally Ignored Gun Issue At GOP Debate
By: Steve - February 1, 2016 - 11:00am

Leading up to the last GOP debate, Fox News noted that "gun control" was "the most searched issue last month" and that Americans "want to hear about gun control." But during the debate, the moderators failed to ask any questions about gun policy.

Fox News and Google sponsored a January 28 Republican primary debate featuring Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. And not one gun policy question was asked.

In failing to ask a gun policy question, Fox News moderators missed an opportunity to ask the Republican field about why they oppose background checks for all gun sales even when the measure is overwhelmingly popular with Americans and most Republicans.

Due to its partnership with Google, Fox News was aware that Americans wanted to hear a question about gun policy. In a January 28 segment on Fox News program Happening Now about "what issues are most important" to voters, Fox News anchor Shannon Bream noted that according to Google Trends data, people "want to hear about gun control."

During Fox's January 28 undercard debate for candidates that failed to qualify for the main debate, moderator Martha MacCallum noted "according to Google, gun control is the most searched issue last month, making up nearly 80 percent of all the U.S. searches," before asking a question about how much funding the federal government should spend on building new mental health institutions.

So the #1 issue searched at Google was gun control, but nobody at Fox asked one question about it. They ignored the entire issue, even though Google was the sponsor of the debate and that is what the people wanted to hear about the most.

Michigan Officials Secretly Gave Bottled Water To State Employees
By: Steve - February 1, 2016 - 10:00am

And they did it a full year before they gave the residents of Flint bottled water. So they were drinking clean water at the same time they were telling the people the water was safe to drink, when they knew it was not safe, which is stunning, and O'Reilly is still ignoring this whole story.

The Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget decided to haul water coolers into the Flint state building in January of 2015 out of concern over the city's water quality, a year before bottled water was being made available to residents, according to documents obtained by Progress Michigan.

Flint switched its water source from Detroit to the Flint River in April 2014, which is now known to have caused lead to leach into the city's tap water. After two boil advisories were issued in August and September of 2014, the city sent residents a notice that the level of trihalomethanes (TTHMs), which can cause liver and kidney problems, had exceed federal limits, although they were told that it was still fine to use the water and no corrective actions needed to be taken.

But concerns raised over water quality were enough for officials in the state's capitol of Lansing to decide to give state employees bottled water from coolers, rather than from water fountains. Coolers were placed next to the fountains on each occupied floor, according to the documents, and were to be provided "as long as the public water does not meet treatment requirements."

So they knew the water was not safe to drink, and yet, they were saying the water was ok and telling them it was safe to drink.

It took researchers uncovering elevated levels of lead in children's bloodstreams for a lead advisory to finally be issued in September of 2015. Residents were told not to drink the water and a public health emergency was declared by the Genesee County Health Department in October, and Flint's mayor declared a state of emergency in December.

The National Guard was activated in January of this year to distribute water from five fire stations -- a full year after water was brought in for state employees out of concern over water quality.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), whose administration made the decision to switch to the Flint River, has claimed he didn't know about the water problems until recently. But the plan to use that source was evaluated and rejected by the city's emergency manager in 2012, according to a deposition.

And while the purported reason for making the change in the first place was to save money while another pipeline was being built, leaked emails show that the city could have stayed with Detroit's water and saved the same amount of money anyway.

So Snyder should now not only be impeached, he should be prosecuted for knowingly letting the people of Flint drink and use water that had poison in it. This is ridiculous that something like this could happen in America, and it was done by a Republican, proving once again that you should never vote for any Republicans.





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