Mark Cuban Endorses Hillary & Calls Trump A Crazy Jagoff
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 11:50am

Billionaire investor Mark Cuban made his debut Saturday as a Hillary Clinton surrogate, calling Republican Donald Trump a "jagoff" and greeting him sarcastically in Russian before declaring, "I'm here to endorse Hillary Clinton!"

"Leadership is not yelling and screaming and intimidating," said Cuban, the owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks and Shark Tank star, addressing a raucous crowd at a Clinton rally in his native Pittsburgh. There's a word people from Pittsburgh use for those who behave that way, he said: "Jagoff."

"Is there any bigger jagoff in the world than Donald Trump?" Cuban asked as the crowd roared. Clinton reacted with delight, hugging Cuban on stage. Former President Bill Clinton saluted in Cuban's direction after his remarks, then crossed the stage to shake his hand.

"Trump scares me," Cuban said after speaking on behalf of Clinton and Tim Kaine, her vice presidential nominee. "Donald, initially, I really hoped he would be something different, that as a businessperson, I thought there was an opportunity there. But then he went off the reservation and went bats--- crazy."

As Clinton rolls through Pennsylvania and Ohio on a three-day bus tour, Cuban gave her a new weapon against Trump - a high-profile business executive with a celebrity appeal and an attack-dog style who can refute Trump's claims about his own business prowess or Clinton's failings, and defend Clinton's approach to the economy.

Cuban said jobs "won't be created by terrifiying people. No, Donald Trump." He said jobs would be created by inspiring people as he believes Clinton could. "I'm here to endorse Hillary Clinton."

"In Hillary Clinton's America, the American dream is alive and well," Cuban said.

Cuban said ABC's "Shark Tank," the reality show in which entrepreneurs pitch their business concepts to investors including Cuban, had "kicked The Apprentice's ass," gloating over how the show overtook Trump's former reality-TV show.

In a nod to the controversy over Trump's recent comments suggesting encouragement toward Russian hacking of Clinton's emails, Cuban also said he wanted to say something to Trump, then put on his best accent and declared, "Zdravstvuyte!" Cuban explained: "That's hello in Russian."

Notice that Trump did not say he wanted to hit Cuban, but he did with billionaire Michael Bloomburg, because Cuban is a big guy who would hit back. Trump only picks on little guys he knows he can bully. In fact, Trump has never said a word about anything Cuban says about him, because he is just like O'Reilly, a coward and a bully that only picks on little guys.

Conservative Koch Brothers Say They Will Not Help Donald Trump
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 11:40am

Billionaire industrialist and conservative benefactor Charles Koch's expansive political network will not help Donald Trump win the presidency.

That's the message from one of the Koch network's chief lieutenants as hundreds of the nation's most powerful Republican donors gathered for a weekend retreat on Saturday. With Election Day just three months away, Koch lamented the state of the 2016 contest during a welcome reception inside a luxury hotel at the foot of the Rocky Mountains.

"We don't really, in some cases, don't really have good options," Koch said of the "current political situation."

The Koch network has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to influence politics and public policy over the last decade. But this time it won't spend anything to help the Republican presidential nominee directly in 2016, even though it may evoke Hillary Clinton in attacks of Democratic congressional candidates, said Mark Holden, general counsel and senior vice president of Koch Industries.

None of the presidential candidates are aligned with the Koch network "from a values, and beliefs and policy perspective," Holden said, citing other determining factors such as "running a good campaign" and talking about key issues "in a positive productive way."

"Based on that, we're focused on the Senate," Holden said, noting that the Koch network has devoted around $42 million so far to television and digital advertising to benefit Republican Senate candidates.

The comments came Saturday, the first day in the three-day exclusive gathering for donors who promise to give at least $100,000 each year to the various groups backed by the Koch brothers Freedom Partners - a network of education, policy and political entities that aim to promote a smaller, less intrusive government.

At least three governors, four senators and four members of the House of Representatives are also scheduled to attend, including House Speaker Paul Ryan. Republican presidential candidates have been featured at past Koch gatherings - but not this one.

Neither Trump nor any Trump representatives participated in the event, even though the White House contender campaigned in the same city the day before.

Koch later told his guests that America's frustrated electorate is looking at the wrong place - politicians - for answers.

"And to me, the answers they're getting are frightening," he said without naming any politicians, "because by and large, these answers will make matters worse."

Charles and David Koch have hosted such gatherings of donors and politicians for years, but usually in private. The weekend's event includes a small number of reporters, including one from The Associated Press.

Koch has put the network's budget at roughly $750 million through the end of 2016.

A significant portion was supposed to be directed at electing a Republican to the White House. It will instead go to helping Republican Senate candidates in at least five states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin and Florida, Holden said.

In some cases, the network may try to link Democratic Senate candidates to Clinton, he added, but there are no plans to go after her exclusively in paid advertising. The organization may invest in a handful of races for governor and House of Representatives as well.

Trump Lied About Refusing To Meet With Koch Brothers
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 11:30am

Trump said the Koch brothers wanted to meet with him, and he turned them down, saying this:

"I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!"

Donald J. Trump - @realDonaldTrump
3:01pm - 30 July 2016

But officials with Freedom Works, the Koch's political arm, indicated that they did not requested a meeting with Trump.

"We are not engaging in the presidential election," James Davis, spokesman for Freedom Partners, said.

Trump's tweet comes after Politico reported Friday that Trump's finance team asked for a meeting but that the request was denied by the Koch organization. Trump held two rallies in Colorado Friday, including one in Colorado Springs.

Staying out of presidential politics is a shift for the network that spent $400 million in the last presidential election cycle and planned to spend as much as $300 million on politics and policy objectives in 2016.

Justin Bieber Turned Down $5 Million Dollars To Perform At The RNC
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 11:00am

Now here is my first question: Why would you take $5 million dollars, that could go for political ads or whatever, and waste it paying a singer to perform at your convention. It seems like a giant waste of money to me, and if I were a Republican donor I would be very worried that they wanted to waste my money on hiring a singer.

My second question is: How bad is Trump that a singer turned down the biggest payday of his life for a 45 minute show.

It could've been the biggest single payday of his life, but Justin Bieber declined the offer to perform at the Republican National Convention.

Bieber turned down $5 million from Republican Party donors to perform a 45-minute show at the venue near Quicken Loans Arena during the RNC in Cleveland, Ohio. He wasn't allowed to say anything disparaging about Trump or the GOP.

And btw, O'Reilly and the Republicans cry about free speech when a college or another group blocks a Republican from speaking, but when a singer (or anyone else) is told they can not say anything bad about Trump, they are silent. So they want to deny their free speech rights, while complaining about free speech for all.

Bieber apparently considered it at first, but manager Scooter Braun and label CAA thought it was "100 percent political" and pushed against it.

Bieber, the subject of Gawker speculation over whether he is actually a Trump fan back in April after supposedly liking one of Trump's Instagram videos, cannot vote because he is Canadian.

Braun, however, will most certainly be voting for Hillary Clinton, as he has long been a supporter and even hosted a fundraising event for the Democratic Party nominee back in 2015.

I am still shocked they would even make the offer, because most of the Bieber fans are young girls, who are too young to vote, and if they cared about politics at all, would most likely hate Trump. Most youth are not political, especially young girls. So it would have been a massive waste of money to pay him and got them no votes, it just made no sense.

Some U.S. Intelligence Officials Don't Trust Trump With Classified Briefing
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 10:30am

U.S. intelligence officials are preparing to deliver classified briefings to both major party presidential candidates, despite top spies distrust of Donald Trump, according to a report in The Washington Post.

One senior intelligence official told the Post's Greg Miller that he would refuse to brief Trump. "He's been so uninterested in the truth and so reckless with it when he sees it," he said.

The report comes days after Trump publicly encouraged the Kremlin to release hacked State Department emails.

Intelligence officials were wary of sharing information with Trump even before he made those comments.

In June, eight senior security officials told Reuters they were uneasy with delivering briefings to Trump, worried that his habit of making impulsive and erratic statements about foreign policy could imperil national security.

And of course O'Reilly and his fill-in stooge Eric Bolling ignored this entire story. Because they are both in the tank for Trump (and hate Hillary) and do not want to make him look bad by reporting news like this.

Trump Acts Like 5 Year Old After DNC Convention Ends
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 10:00am

Watch the video of Trump saying all this, it reminded me of a 5 year old kid throwing out threats to other 5 year olds after a bunch of kids made fun of him. Trump is like a child, and it is scary that he is even running for President. When someone says something negative about him, he says he is going to hit them. And calls them names, which is what 5 year olds do, not grown men who are running for President.

Donald Trump Threatens To Hit Democratic Convention Speakers So Hard Their Heads Would Spin

Trump's critics are getting under his skin. Speaking at a rally in Davenport, Iowa, on Thursday, the GOP presidential nominee fumed about the criticism he was receiving from speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

"I mean, the things that were said about me," Trump told the crowd. "I was going to hit a number of those speakers so hard their heads would spin, they'd never recover!"

What began as Trump griping, however, quickly turned ugly.

"I was going to hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was going to hit this guy so hard his head would spin. He wouldn't know what the hell happened."

Trump seemed to confirm in a tweet Friday morning that it was former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the DNC speakers, who is a short man and sometimes has jokes about how short he is on late night talk shows made about him.

"Little" Michael Bloomberg, who never had the guts to run for president, knows nothing about me. His last term as Mayor was a disaster!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2016

Bloomberg, a billionaire former Republican who is now an independent, took aim at Trump's business record during his convention speech. "Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business," Bloomberg told the audience. "God help us."

Bloomberg's criticism seemed to take Trump by surprise. "He came out of nowhere!" Trump said Thursday night. "They made deals with me, [told me] 'Would you help me with this? Would you make this deal and solve this problem?' I solved the problem," the former reality TV star said, practically spitting out the words.

The angrier and more threatening Trump became, the more his audience loved it, interrupting his rant several times to applaud.

Trump also noted how "certain people" had failed to endorse him because he had hit them "so hard" in the past: "That's why I still don't have certain people endorsing me, they still haven't recovered."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are some of the most prominent Republicans who have yet to endorse Trump. Both were his rivals in the GOP primary and have been targets of his bullying.

As Trump raged, it gradually became clear that "hitting" people meant viciously insulting them, rather than resorting to actual physical violence. Still, to hear a major party's presidential nominee using such language to describe his planned retaliation was chilling.

But he probably did also want to hit them, wanting to hurt people is nothing new for Trump. Earlier this year, he told a crowd to be on the lookout for protesters and to "knock the crap out of them," adding "I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."

At another rally in February, Trump spotted a protester and told the crowd he'd "like to punch him in the face."

Yet even as Trump delighted in approval from the rowdy crowd, his comments on Thursday played directly into Democrats hands: One of their chief lines of attack against Trump is that his behavior sets a bad example for America's children.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has already released an ad featuring a medley of Trump's nastiest moments. Donald Trump is just a spoiled rich kid who never grew up, he still acts like he is 5 years old, can you imagine him as President with control of nuclear bombs, pretty scary.

Conservative Former Reagan Official Tells Republicans To Vote For Hillary
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 9:30am

Many Republicans with integrity are running away from the toxic Donald Trump and they are now urging their fellow Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Former Reagan administration official Doug Elmets took to the DNC stage on the last evening to tell Donald Trump that he is no Ronald Reagan.

"I haven't just voted Republican. I worked in President Reagan's White House," the Iowa native said. "I recently led an effort to place a statue of Ronald Reagan in California's Capitol."

"I'm here tonight to say: I knew Ronald Reagan; I worked for Ronald Reagan." And: "Donald Trump, you are no Ronald Reagan."

Elmets explained why a lifelong Republican is voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, "This year's Republican platform is the most alarming I've ever seen. It's laced with anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-women positions that do not represent the views of most Americans. That is why this year, I will vote for a Democrat for the first time."

The former Reagan administration official told his fellow Republicans that if they "believe loyalty to our country is more important than loyalty to party; if you want a President with a good judgment, a steady hand, and the temperament to represent our Nation to the world - and our children; I ask you to join me in voting for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States."

This is pretty awkward. Many Republicans with integrity are running so far away from the toxic Trump that they are now urging their fellow Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Trump Caught Lying About Democrats Trying To Rig Presidential Debates
By: Steve - July 31, 2016 - 8:30am

Donald Trump says the fall debate schedule is "unacceptable," raising the specter that he may try to skip them.

In a tweet on Friday night, Trump lied when he said that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "trying to rig the debates."

In fact, the fall debate schedule was determined almost a year ago by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, a private group made up of both Republicans and Democrats, that decision was made before they even knew Hillary and Trump were running.

His primary complaint is that two of the debates are scheduled on the same nights as NFL games. That's true. (It was also true in 2012, and the debates were still high-rated.)

In an interview with ABC News, Trump said he's "fine" with the commission's three debates, but objected to the specific dates.

"I'll tell you what I don't like. It's against two NFL games," he said. "I got a letter from the NFL saying, 'This is ridiculous.'"

An NFL spokesman said Saturday: "While we'd obviously wish the debate commission could find another night, but we did not send a letter to Trump."

So Trump was caught in two lies, one about Clinton and the Democrats trying to rig the debates, and the other about the NFL sending him a letter.

Because Trump skipped one of the GOP primary debates in January, there has been speculation among media types that he may quibble with the fall debate schedule or even threaten to not show up.

It would be risky for Trump to turn down the debates. Voters consistently tell pollsters that the sessions help them decide which candidate to support.

Trump hasn't threatened a boycott. He told ABC, "I like three debates. I think that's fine. I think it's enough." (The ABC interview was taped Friday.)

But he focused on the NFL scheduling conflict. RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer seconded it in an interview on CNN Saturday morning, and added, "The entire system needs to be re-looked at."

The commission responded to Trump on Saturday afternoon by saying that it "announced the number, dates and sites for the 2016 general election debates in September 2015."

"The CPD did not consult with any political parties or campaigns in making these decisions," the group said.

According to commission officials, sporting events, religious holidays, and other factors cause scheduling headaches every four years. The group seeks to space out the debates and schedule them for different nights of the week.

The first debate of 2016, slated for September 26, coincides with "Monday Night Football" on ESPN. The vice presidential debate is scheduled one week later on October 4, a Tuesday. The second presidential debate, on October 9, coincides with "Sunday Night Football" on NBC. The final debate is slated for October 19, a Wednesday.

NFL games are played on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays in the fall. Fridays and Saturdays are effectively ruled out because TV viewing is lower on weekend evenings. That only leaves Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Trump Reeling As Clinton Gets 10 Point Democratic Convention Bounce
By: Steve - July 30, 2016 - 11:30am

This same poll a week ago had Clinton 5 points ahead of Trump, now she is 15 points ahead.

A new poll taken after the Democratic convention revealed that Hillary Clinton had erased any gains that Trump made after the Republican convention, with a 10 point convention bounce and a 15 point lead.

RABA Research found:

Among likely voters, Clinton garners 46% support to Trump's 31%. Libertarian Gary Johnson now captures 7% of the vote, while Jill Stein sits at 2%.

A RABA Research poll conducted the day after the Republican convention showed a tighter race, with Clinton at 39% and Trump at 34%. Johnson was at 8% in that survey, while Stein had 3% support.

Conservative Joe Scarborough Calls For Republicans To Cut Trump Loose
By: Steve - July 30, 2016 - 11:00am

Here is a partial transcript:

RON FOURNIER: If you were a Republican leader would you have your Senate and House candidates disown Donald Trump and running away from him?

JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): Yes, yes I would. Yes I would, yes I would. I would say, you've got go back to your people and you have to explain. I've always said this. Never underestimate your voters. Tell them the truth. You can see -- you know, the center cannot hold when you have the speaker of the house calling the Republican nominee a racist but saying he's still endorsing the Republican nominee.

It is so bizarre on its face that people are chuckling in the background. But when you have the speaker of the house, the most powerful Republican saying what he said is racist. When you have the most powerful Republican in government, the speaker of the house condemning Donald Trump for his laudatory, continued laudatory remarks of Vladimir Putin, a thug who kills journalists. And who continues to kill journalists, as we speak.

FOURNIER: Cut him loose.

SCARBOROUGH: You've got to cut him loose. WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): I asked the question that we asked of Paul Ryan when he first endorsed. I know he has a different, more complicated series of asks. He's the speaker of the house, he has to help give people cover who are running in their races. But what would be the cost at this point of Paul Ryan or other Republicans coming out and saying, even if they endorsed them, you know what, I've been watching him for the past two months, I cannot offer my support to a man who says A, B, and C. What would that cost them?

SCARBOROUGH: I don't know what it would cost them, I could tell you what it would save, the party of Lincoln. Because if they do not do that, this party is going to break apart. The Reagan coalition is already broken apart. The Reagan coalition that ruled politics since 1980, has been blown to pieces.

Donald Trump is a big government Democrat. A pessimistic big government Democrat. He has been a pessimistic big government Democrat for 65 of his 70 years. That's part of the record. It's not in dispute. And so these Republicans are going to throw away their careers, they're going to throw away their party, over a guy who has been a life-long Democrat? Who doesn't think America is great?

Fox Ignored Army Captain's Muslim Father But Not Katy Perry
By: Steve - July 30, 2016 - 10:30am

Fox News ignored a speech by the father of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 in the Iraq war, instead opting to air commercials during the speech. Fox later went live to a song by pop singer Katy Perry after the speech.

During the final night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, Khizr Khan spoke about the honor he felt to be present at the convention with his wife, "as patriotic American Muslims with undivided loyalty to our country."

Khan's speech was preceded by a video that showed Hillary Clinton calling Captain Khan "the best of America" and explaining the circumstances of his death, for which he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

Khan said this:

"If it was up to Donald Trump, Humayun never would have been in America," Khan said. "Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country."

"Donald Trump," he said, "you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy." He pulled a copy of the Constitution from his pocket. "In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law.'"

"Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America - you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities," Khan said.

"You have sacrificed nothing. And no one."

While CNN and MSNBC aired the video and Khan's speech in full, Fox News Megyn Kelly instead continued with her regular commentary featuring Brit Hume, then went to commercial as the speech began, showing the speech in a small window with no sound, as commercials -- including a Benghazi attack ad played over it.

When Katy Perry came on Megyn Kelly cut off her panelists commentary to air the Katy Perry performance in full.

Fox Knew About Ailes Sexual Harassment For Over 20 Years
By: Steve - July 30, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly said nothing about it, after defending him and saying he is a great man, O'Reilly even said he stands by Ailes 100 percent. So now we know he was sexually harassing women for 20 years, but O'Reilly does not take back what he said, proving he could care less about reporting the truth.

New York Magazine's Gabriel Sherman reported that a former Fox News booking director claims to have been sexually harassed by Roger Ailes "for more than 20 years," Fox executives helped cover it up, and a settlement document she signed with the network "precludes her from speaking to government authorities like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the FBI. Not to mention the press."

Call me crazy, but I think it should be illegal to make employees sign those kinds of settlement agreements saying they can not talk, especially when the things they do not want her to talk about were against the law. The people deserve to know what is going on in these big corporations, especially a so-called news network, and nobody should have to sign those non-disclosure agreements.

Sherman wrote about the former booking director's experience working for Fox and being "psychologically tortured" by Ailes and the network. Laurie Luhn explained that during her time at Fox as a booking director, she was "required to do many things she is now horrified by, including luring young female Fox employees into one-on-one situations with Aies that Luhn knew could result in harassment."

Luhn also recounted her own sexual harassment from Ailes and how the network settled with her on the conditions of an "extensive nondisclosure" agreement which prevented Luhn from taking the network to court:

The morning after Fox News chief Roger Ailes resigned, the cable network's former director of booking placed a call to the New York law firm hired by 21st Century Fox to investigate sexual-harassment allegations against Ailes. Laurie Luhn told the lawyers at Paul, Weiss that she had been harassed by Ailes for more than 20 years, that executives at Fox News had known about it and helped cover it up, and that it had ruined her life. "It was psychological torture," she later told me.

In late 2010 or early 2011, Luhn said, she wrote a letter to Fox lawyer Dianne Brandi saying she had been sexually harassed by Ailes for 20 years. Brandi did not acknowledge receipt of the letter, but, according to a source, she asked Ailes about the sexual-harassment allegations, which he vehemently denied. Ailes, according to the source, told Brandi to work out a settlement. Luhn hired an attorney to negotiate her exit from Fox. Through a spokesperson, Brandi declined to comment.

On June 15, 2011, Luhn and Brandi signed a $3.15 million settlement agreement with extensive nondisclosure provisions. The settlement document, which Luhn showed me, bars her from going to court against Fox for the rest of her life. It also precludes her from speaking to government authorities like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the FBI.

Not to mention the press. Aware that speaking with New York on the record could pose legal risks, Luhn was insistent that she wanted to tell her story. "The truth shall set you free. Nothing else matters," she told me. Her family friend also said this is what Luhn wanted.

And btw, that's the same Diane Brandi that sent me a letter about 15 years ago trying to shut me down for selling advertising on this website. I told her and O'Reilly to sue me, and I never heard from her again, in other words, she is as big of a scamming coward as O'Reilly.

Biden Tore The Roof Off The DNC And Took Trump Down With Him
By: Steve - July 30, 2016 - 9:00am

Joe Biden slammed Donald Trump on Wednesday night in a rousing speech to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, saying that the United States is "second to none" and Americans shouldn't bow to the fear and cynicism of the Republican nominee.

We also shouldn't think for a second that Trump cares about regular Americans, Biden said.

Vice Pres. Biden on Trump: "He's trying to tell us he cares about the middle class...that's a bunch of malarkey!"

The vice president also took issue with Donald Trump's lack of knowledge on the issues, saying no candidate for president "has ever known less or has been less prepared."

Biden: "No major party nominee in the history of this nation has ever known less or has been less prepared."

Biden was also having none of Trump's consistently gloomy depictions of America, concluding his speech by saying that the U.S. is "second to none."

Joe Biden: "We are America, second to none, and we own the finish line."

Joe Biden didn't just bring down the house in Philadelphia on Wednesday night. He reminded the United States of America why they love him so much. And of course O'Reilly ignored almost all of it.

And remember this, when Bush was in office and the country was actually doing bad, the Democrats slammed him and said how bad things are. Then O'Reilly slammed the Democrats for talking bad about Bush and the country, even calling them traitors, until he was slammed for it, then he changed it and said they are bad Americans who hate America.

So we fast forward to 2016, now Trump and the Republicans are doing the very same thing to Obama and Hillary. They are slamming them and saying America is not great, and O'Reilly is silent. In fact, he is saying it with them, and promoting what they say, while repeating almost word for word their ridiculous claims.

O'Reilly does not call them traitors, or bad Americans who hate America. As he did when the Democrats were doing it to Bush, because he is with Trump and the GOP, he is one of them. He is a part of the lies, the bias, and the propaganda about Obama, Hillary, the economy, jobs, etc.

And btw, the Democrats had a good reason to do it, because it was true. Bush run the country into the ground and put us into one of the biggest depressions we have seen in 50 years. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month, the housing market crashed, gas was over $3.00 a gallon, the stock market was at 7,000, and the unemployment rate was over 8%, so Bush deserved to be slammed, he was terrible.

At that time O'Reilly defended what Bush was doing, even though he was one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Now that same O'Reilly slams Obama when things are going good, jobs are back, unemployment is down, the stock market is over 18,000, and the economy is doing good. Then he lies that Obama has been a disaster and the economy is in chaos, which is all propaganda.

O'Reilly claims to be an Independent with a no spin zone who never uses right-wing talking points or propaganda. Then he spins everything to the right, is a Republican, and using every talking point they have as if he is Sean Hannity, and puts out as much propaganda as Donald Trump or the Republican party.

Bill O'Reilly is a racist right-wing fraud, plain and simple. Just watch his show one time and you will see it. Look at the way he covered the two conventions, he put a positive spin on everything at the RNC convention, with mostly Republican guests. Then he put a negative spin on everything at the DNC convention, with the same mostly Republican guests.

In fact, Bill O'Reilly should be sued for fraud for even claiming to be a journalist with a no spin zone. He is not a journalist, he is a paid right-wing pundit pretending to be a journalist, and he spins almost everything to put a positive light on the Republicans, while spinning almost everything to put a negative light on the Democrats.

That is what he is and what he does, I have been doing this website and blog for 16 years, and I have documented it. Now that is a real fact, what say you O'Reilly.

Facts That Show Trump Can Not With With The White Vote Only
By: Steve - July 30, 2016 - 8:30am

This is a detailed article explaining why Donald Trump can not with with the white vote only, facts and details O'Reilly totally ignores to say Trump can win if enough whites vote for him. O'Reilly ignores all this and says Trump can with with the white vote only because he is his friend and biased for him, even though he will not admit it.

Then he has the nerve to call Montel Williams a coward, for refusing to do his show after O'Reilly pulled a bait and switch on him, and after Williams spent 24 years in the military, unlike O'Reilly who is the real coward, and a two time draft dodger.

If it comes down to a question of who the public views more favorably, Trump starts out in a huge hole. But there are other numbers that should be even more troubling to supporters of Trump, and some of them have nothing to do with him, or with his merits or demerits as a candidate.

Let's start with the Electoral College, which is how presidents are actually elected in the United States. Any Republican nominee would start out in a disadvantaged position in this all-important category.

There are 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, which have voted for Democratic presidential candidates in every single election since 1988. These states combine for 242 of the 270 electoral votes required to win the election.

Republicans, on the other hand have won only 13 states in each of the last six elections, and these states combine for just 101 electoral votes. Even if we add in 10 more states that may have voted Democratic once or twice during that span, but could now be considered solidly Republican, the GOP only gets to a position of 191 electors.

Even if Trump could make inroads into the vast swathes of white, working-class voters in those states, he faces other issues that could cancel out such gains.

These starting positions mean that a Republican nominee either has to win almost all of the swing states, or pick off one or more states that haven't gone to the GOP in 28 years.

A Democrat merely has to hold the states that have gone into the blue column over the last six elections and add Florida, or some combination of two or more swing states, perhaps Ohio and Virginia.

One large trouble spot for Trump is among Latinos, whose votes have been crucial to delivering Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico into the Democratic column in the last two elections. Mr. Trump has enraged large sections of the Latino community with his anti-immigrant rhetoric, and the numbers demonstrate the depth of his troubles with this growing demographic.

In 2012, Mitt Romney lost Latinos by a near-record margin of 71 to 27 percent, helping President Obama narrowly carry Florida and win by healthier margins in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. An NBC news poll taken April 21 showed Clinton defeating Trump among Latinos 76 to 11 percent.

Even giving Trump the remaining 13 percent (probably an unlikely scenario) he would still be three percentage points behind Romney's dismal showing in 2012. This would not bode well for his prospects in any of these crucial states.

Throw into the mix the spiking Latino voter registration and the increasing number of Florida Latinos registering as Democrats (even among a Cuban-American constituency that was once staunchly Republican), and there is a perfect storm developing for Trump with this key demographic group, which traditionally given at least a notable chunk of its votes to Republicans.

Trump's historic weakness with Latinos could even jeopardize his prospects in a normally reliable Republican state, Arizona, where a local poll released April 25 showed Clinton defeating him by seven percentage points in a head-to-head matchup.

(The very same poll showed Clinton would lose Arizona decisively to either of the other leading Republican candidates, Ted Cruz or John Kasich.)

Should Trump lose Arizona, he would become only the second Republican candidate to do so since 1948. (Bob Dole lost the state to Bill Clinton in 1996.)

As mentioned in a previous column by The Party Crasher, the superb number-crunchers at have developed a useful tool called the Swing-O-Matic.

Taking into account the demographic changes that have occurred since the last presidential election, this tool determines the likely results in the Electoral College based on how any of five demographic groups (college-educated whites, non-college whites, African-Americans, Latinos and Asians) vote and turn out in the coming election.

Assuming Democratic performance of at least 76 percent among Latinos and a slight spike in Latino turnout (from 48 percent in 2012 to 50 percent today), then assuming the worst case for Democrats among black voters - 88 percent Democratic performance and 50 percent turnout, both representing 20-year lows - Democrats would lose Ohio but retain all other states President Obama won in 2012, for a comfortable 314 to 224 edge in the Electoral College.

Only through a massive increase in the turnout and Republican performance of white working-class voters could Trump overcome these numbers. In 2012, it is estimated that white working-class voters gave 62 percent of their votes to Romney, but only turned out at a 57 percent rate.

If black turnout and Democratic support remains closer to what it has been in recent years, say 90 percent for the Democrats at a 60 percent turnout rate, which would still represent a significant dropoff from the 66 percent black turnout of 2012, that white working class number from Trump would have to increase to 67 percent of the vote at 62 percent turnout. This is an extremely heavy lift.

Of course, all these assumptions put Clinton at the low end of Latino support indicated by the NBC news poll. If the 13 percent who did not indicate a preference split 50-50, she would be looking at 82 percent of the total Latino vote (again, assuming 50 percent turnout).

In that case, Trump's vote among white working-class voters would have to rise to 69 percent at 64 percent turnout; these would be astronomical numbers as compared to 2012.

In short, considering the available data, it is very difficult to see at this point where Trump is going to get the votes he needs to win the states necessary for victory in November. And for the severely deluded individuals who think he can flip the map by winning in New York or other deep blue states (even California): they are crazy, because Clinton will most likely easily win both.

The average Democratic victory in New York over the last six election cycles has exceeded 23 percentage points; the average spread for Team Blue in California during the same time has exceeded 15 percentage points.

Trump's message of shaking up the system has a certain appeal, particularly among white working-class Americans who feel they haven't gotten a fair shake in a very long time.

But here's the bottom line: there just are not enough "angry white men" out there to put Donald Trump in the White House. Unless he can reverse his horrible numbers among Latinos and women of all colors, and perform better than Republicans typically do among numerous other key demographics, Trump's chances of victory in November can be rated almost impossible.

What O'Reilly is doing is saying Trump can win if enough whites vote for him, even though it's pretty much impossible. This is done to get out the vote among whites, because if O'Reilly admitted the truth, that Trump can not win with white votes only, it will suppress the Trump vote, and he will lose by even more than he is going to in November.

Republicans Fall Apart and Blame The Media For Higher Ratings At The DNC
By: Steve - July 29, 2016 - 11:30am

Earth to Donald Trump, this is real simple, the reason the networks gave a little more time to the DNC than the RNC is because they had actual stars who spoke, in the political world and the acting world. Like Bill Clinton and the current President Barack Obama, not to mention the current Vice President. And they did it because they are getting higher ratings, you would think a so-called tv expert would know that.

Trump had a bunch of unknowns and losers speak at the RNC convention, and he wonders why the DNC got more time, give me a break. If the situation was reversed the networks would be doing the opposite. It's about ratings and who your speakers were.

The party with the reality TV show star running for president, who in 2015 got 327 minutes of coverage compared to 141 minutes for Clinton And Sanders, complained today about what they feel is uneven coverage between the conventions.

Republicans whined about liberal media bias after their reality TV show star turned out a network dud of a convention:

"Traditionally, TV networks ABC, NBC and CBS have worked to ensure fairness giving each party the primetime hour of 10:00PM to 11:00PM on Monday through Thursday of their respective parties conventions. While speeches can go over allotted time, they strive for parity," the GOP press release began.

They went on, "Well that changed this year. As the Democrats final night gets underway, we can see quite clearly that each network have given anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes extra per night of primetime coverage to the DNC. And this isn't just due to long speeches alone. All three networks cut away before 11PM on Monday night of the RNC's convention when Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), a rising star in our party, had yet to speak."

Trump got millions and millions of dollars in free publicity, and now he is crying about a few minutes difference in network tv time for the conventions, when his conventions sucked, it's ridiculous.

They say based on their analysis, things were unfair, but Republicans should have understood the problem when they had to use Joni Ernst as their rising star and biggest get of the convention other than Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. She was a rising star that isn't a star, nobody knows who she is, except a few far-right Republicans. I write a political blog every day, and I did not really know who she is, I have barely heard of her.

A star would be Oh, say a former President, like President Bill Clinton. Or a real star like Elizabeth Banks or America Ferrera. Lena Dunham. Meryl Streep for God's sake. Those are stars.

So it makes sense that Democrats got more coverage. The Democrats had a sitting President, a former President, numerous actual stars (not reality TV show wannabes), and numerous party leaders who are political leaders.

But Republicans should not be too upset; the less people who saw the RNC, the better for the Republican Party. And they've gotten tons of free press due to Donald Trump's showmanship.

This isn't a case of liberal media bias, if in fact their calculations are accurate. It's a matter of networks wanting to make money and producers making choices about what will bring in the money and what won't.

Tweny-eight more minutes of death, doom and America sucks versus 28 more minutes of Sarah Silverman and Barack Obama. The choice was made for the networks.

Donald Trump brags that he knows the television business, but if he really understood television, he would know that the first of TV is to always entertain. Trump's convention was not entertaining. It was a dark and gloomy convention that was more public access television than star studded entertainment spectacular that Trump promised.

The stars are shining brightly in Philly, while Trump's dud came, went, and was quickly forgotten. Republicans want to blame the media, but the problem isn't the networks. The problem is Donald Trump. Hell, 30% of the Republican party do not even like him, which is another reasons his ratings were so low. But of course he never mentioned that.

O'Reilly Has No Problem With Foreign Governments Hacking Presidential Candidates
By: Steve - July 29, 2016 - 11:00am

As long as they are a Democrat, I guarantee you he would have a big problem with it if Hillary Clinton asked Russia to hack into the Trump e-mails. In O'Reillyworld he supports foreign governments trying to influence a presidential election in America. As long as it will hurt the Democrat and the person running against his friend Donald Trump.

Bill O'Reilly: "If Trump Wants To Ask Putin To Hand Over Hillary's Emails, Fine"

O'Reilly: "I'll Take Them From Putin, Hand Over The Emails"

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I'll tell you, I I thought the story was just ridiculous. I didn't cover it. If Trump wants to ask Putin to hand over Hillary's emails, fine. I don't care. I'd like to see what the emails are. I don't care whether they come from Putin. I don't care if they come from Michael Jordan. I don't care who they come from. Kobe Bryant can give them to me any time he wants. All right? Oh, Trump is telling the Russians to do espionage. It's like a cartoon. Anyway.

BERNARD GOLDBERG: I got to be honest with you, you know I'm not a -- Donald is is one thing personally, but as a candidate, I'm not a big fan. But when I heard him say that I said, that's not a bad idea.

O'REILLY: Yeah, that's not bad. I'll take them from Putin, hand over the emails.


O'Reilly ignored one important thing, there is a big difference if Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant hack an e-mail, they are Americans, Putin is a russian and the head of a foreign government. So the comparison is ridiculous. And I would bet every dime I have that if Hillary was asking Putin to hack Trump, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for her to be put on trial for treason.

Fox News Ignored Mothers Of The Movement During DNC
By: Steve - July 29, 2016 - 10:00am

As CNN and MSNBC aired the emotional Democratic National Convention tribute by mothers who lost children to gun violence or police shootings in its entirety, Fox News completely ignored the appearance of "Mothers of the Movement."

The mothers seek to rebuild police-community relationships and strive to end gun violence.

On July 26, the nine women who comprise the Mothers of the Movement gathered on stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia to endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The women said that Clinton was a leader "who will say our children's names" and one who "isn't afraid to say that black lives matter" while stressing the need for criminal justice reform and "common sense gun legislation" to stem the tide of violence in their communities.

Both CNN and MSNBC aired the full, heartrending remarks before concluding with a brief analysis.

On Fox News, an outlet that has worked to demonize Black Lives Matter -- labeling it as "a hate group" "a terrorist group" and "a murder movement," and equating it with the Ku Klux Klan -- and diminished its calls for necessary criminal justice reforms, the appearance went unmentioned.

Rather than hearing the stories of the grieving mothers, Fox host Bill O'Reilly continued his show uninterrupted, interviewing guests on general election polling and border security.

O'Reilly has even called them terrorists who hate America and promote cops being killed, which is all lies. They are simply a group of citizens, even some whites, who protest cops killing unarmed black men.

Erik Wemple Hammered Bill O'Reilly For Defending His Slave Comments
By: Steve - July 29, 2016 - 9:00am

Washington Post journalist Erik Wemple hammered Fox News Bill O'Reilly for defending his comments that slaves who built the White House were "well-fed and had decent lodgings," lambasting both his offensive remarks and the gap between historical fact and O'Reilly's assertions.

On July 26, O'Reilly responded to Michelle Obama's Democratic National Convention Speech, where the first lady paid homage to the slaves who helped build the White House, by inexplicably adding that they were "well-fed and had decent lodgings by the government."

The media widely criticized O'Reilly's "morally bankrupt" comments.

O'Reilly, who has a long and sordid history of racist attacks, responded to the media criticism by doubling down, saying on July 27 that his "commentary" was "100 percent accurate and fact."

Wemple excoriated O'Reilly, noting that his remarks fit right in line with the "offensive style of broadcasting" that thrived under recently ousted former Fox President, Roger Ailes. Wemple noted that historians roundly criticized O'Reilly's false claims, explaining that the real conditions of slaves were unknown because "slaves were not given a choice on what they ate or where they lived."

Wemple added that O'Reilly reached new extremes by lashing out at the far left and calling for his entire network "to band together to call out the people who are actively trying to destroy this network" because "they want me dead."

From the July 28 Washington Post article:

Well, it's been a week since Ailes left, and his offensive style of broadcasting lives on. On Wednesday night, host Bill O'Reilly took to the network's airwaves to attempt a defense of his comments of last night regarding first lady Michelle Obama's Monday night speech here at the Democratic National Convention.

She said, in part, "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves, and I watch my daughters -- two beautiful, intelligent, black young women -- playing with their dogs on the White House lawn."

As the Erik Wemple Blog pointed out this morning, Jesse J. Holland, who wrote the book on slaves and the White House, noted that the slaves were housed in a barn and were provided with food.

Yet there's a gap between that historical fact and what O'Reilly alleged, which, again, is that they were well fed and resided in decent lodgings.

Information scarcity notwithstanding, O'Reilly stands by his conclusions about well-fed-decent-lodgings. At this point, it’s incumbent on him to substantiate these judgments or concede that he's making them without supporting documentation -- a common malaise on certain Fox News programs.

A smaller point pertains to O'Reilly's sudden and complete faith in the ability of government to provide sustenance and accommodations for its people. Why does this guy, a small government proponent, all of a sudden think that the public sector can perform such programs with such efficiency?

Further evidence that O’Reilly has reached new extremes emerged in this comment: "I think the time has come now where this whole network is going to have to band together -- all of us -- and we are going to have to call out the people who are actively trying to destroy this network by using lies and deception and propaganda.

We're going to have to start to call them out by name because that's how bad it's become."

What O'Reilly failed to mention is that the sexual harassment scandal of his former boss -- Ailes -- is doing far more to destroy Fox News than could any outside critic.

Kareem Educates Megyn Kelly On Why Black Lives Matter Exists
By: Steve - July 29, 2016 - 8:00am

Kareem should also explain this to Bill O'Reilly, but of course he never will because O'Reilly is too much of a biased right-wing hack to have Kareem on his show.

Note to Bill O'Reilly, look at the answer Kareem gives to why race relations are worse now than they were 7 or 8 years ago, and it's not because of Obama, it's because whites are worried about being the minority in the future.

Here is a partial transcript:

MEGYN KELLY (HOST): So let's just talk about the mother of Michael Brown, and then we'll get to what actually happened here on the stage, because she's been the most controversial choice, and she's the reason some of the Republicans are objecting, because her son was killed, but was killed after aggressing toward the police officer. Your thoughts.

KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR: I think that that is really nitpicking. All of those women had really a tremendous amount of grief and tragedy in their lives, losing their children for no good reason. Even Michael Brown was unarmed. So, to say that he might have been aggressive, it might be true. I wasn't there.

But I think the real issue is, why are police officers oftentimes so aggressive with black people, people that they don't know or don't understand, and they make conclusions and decide that these people are dangerous and they kill them with no justification?

KELLY: Let me just clarify the matter of Michael Brown, because there's a lot of confusion about this. He was -- his case helped lead to the birth of Black Lives Matter and the "hands up, don't shoot" mantra, which turned out to be a lie, according to the DOJ. And this is from the DOJ's report. They said, "Officer Wilson and other witnesses stated that Michael Brown reached into the SUV through the open driver's window" -- this is the cop car, "and that he punched and grabbed the police officer.

So, that case is very dicey. It doesn't speak to all the Black Lives Matters incidents. It's just the most controversial and it's the one that the police officers have said, "it's an insult to us to have the mother of an aggressor toward a cop included in this group of mothers who are the mothers of fallen men whose cases are much more clear."

ABDUL-JABBAR: I don't understand what you're asking me to explain.

KELLY: Whether she should have been included.

ABDUL-JABBAR: That wasn't up to me. I understand what you're talking about. My grandfather and father both were police officers. I understand that we have to conduct ourselves in a way so that all our police officers come home at night.

They are the glue that holds our society together. But exactly why they included Michael Brown's mother, I couldn't give you the reasons for that. But I know that there are far too many examples, over a hundred -- in 2015, over a hundred black Americans were killed by police officers. And these were unarmed black Americans.

KELLY: Do you think that white society, generally, has no real understanding of what it is like to be a black man in today's America?

ABDUL-JABBAR: I think that white society devalues and dismisses the value of black lives. That's what the Black Lives Matter is all about. They seem to think that blacks are prone to violence and wish to harm them, and as soon as anything gets contentious between them and a black person, they pull out their gun and kill that black person, and that eliminates any problem that they might have.

KELLY: You're talking about white law enforcement.

ABDUL-JABBAR: I'm talking about white law enforcement. I'm talking about wannabe law enforcement, people like George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin for no good reason. Trayvon Martin was just going from the convenience store to where his father was. Hadn't committed any crimes or done anything. Why is he dead?

KELLY: Why do you think that is, Kareem? Why are race relations so bad right now in the country versus, eight, 12, 16 years ago?

ABDUL-JABBAR: I think race relations are bad right now because things are changing. People of color are becoming more of a majority in our country. It used to be that the majority of people in this country were white Europeans. That's starting to change now, and I think that white people are starting to feel that maybe their sense of power and privilege is being challenged.

KELLY: Some. I assume you don't mean to paint everybody with that brush?

ABDUL-JABBAR: No. No. Some white people might feel that, and they might feel threatened by the fact that --

KELLY: What do you think is the way out of this? I realize this is more than a 30 second answer, but how do we start to get past it?

ABDUL-JABBAR: I think we start to get past it by communicating with each other, by having police officers and police agencies make a sincere effort to communicate with the people that they are supposed to protect and serve.

And I think that the people in these communities that are having problems with the people that are policing them, they need to realize that if they show some respect and some restraint, police officers can meet them halfway, and we can go about the business of uniting our country and having a nation where all lives are respected and appreciated, and no one has to feel that they're being persecuted.

Black Americans really feel that they're targets, and after all this insane, cowardly murders of police officers, I can see where they would feel assaulted and violated, and we have to get past that.

Allen Clifton Slams O'Reilly For Unhinged Rant Over Slavery Comments
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 11:40am

This was great, Clifton really nailed O'Reilly. But of course O'Reilly is too much of a coward to have a guy like this on his show to discuss it, he only has fake Democrats on who are almost scared to confront him with the truth.

Bill O'Reilly Goes on Unhinged Rant After Criticism Over His Outrageous Slavery Comments

July 28, 2016 By Allen Clifton

Leave it to Bill O'Reilly to keep lowering the bar of journalistic integrity.

On Tuesday, because he just can't help himself, the Fox News host responded to Michelle Obama's comments she made during her wonderful speech at the DNC where she factually pointed out that the place in which she currently lives (the White House) was built by slaves.

O'Reilly admitted that her comments were accurate, but he went on to point out that the slaves who did help build the White House were "well-fed and had decent lodgings." Because that makes slavery better, apparently.

"Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802," O'Reilly said. "However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well."

Yes, that's actually the most watched and popular person on Fox News saying that the practice of owning other humans like pieces of construction and farming equipment wasn't all bad because, well, some were "well-fed and had decent lodgings."

That's like saying Auschwitz wasn't completely terrible because at least most of the Jews imprisoned there were given a place to sleep and a roof over their head.

I don't give a damn if the slaves who helped build the White House were provided with soft beds, prime rib every night for dinner and their clothes were made from the finest silk - they were still slaves!

Naturally, O'Reilly's comments didn't sit well with a lot of people. Within hours this story was nearly everywhere, with most condemning the mind-boggling idiocy of anyone who'd remotely try to put a positive spin on slavery.

Well, on Wednesday, O'Reilly responded to the backlash by claiming that those who are upset by his idiotic comments are just far-left radicals who literally want to see him dead.

"This is a designed attack, came out of Media Matters, spread to Mother Jones and the other smear publications, and then into the Daily News and USA Today, designed to diminish me and to harm the Fox News channel," O'Reilly told fellow Fox News host Eric Bolling. "That's what it is designed to do."

Yeah, because it was the "liberal media" who forced him to say comments where he actually tried to put a positive spin on slavery.

After some more back and forth where O'Reilly, Bolling and Geraldo Rivera continued to try to claim that the outrage over his slavery comments was nothing more than liberals being out to get him, that's when O'Reilly snapped.

"This is provocation. These people are doing this. They want me dead, Bolling, literally dead," O'Reilly said.

A somewhat stunned Bolling tried to downplay O'Reilly's comments, only for the Factor host to double-down on his insistence that liberals literally want him dead.

Talk about trying to play the victim.

Nobody took his comments out of context. The so-called "liberal media" didn't "twist his words." All anyone did with this story was quote him verbatim from a segment where, while he didn't say slavery was a good thing, he did try to find a bright side to the indisputable reality that slaves were used to help build the White House.

However, instead of simply admitting that his comments were rather ignorant, he not only defended his ignorance - he then accused those calling him out of "being out to get him."

I wish I could say I was shocked by O'Reilly's reaction to valid criticism, but I'm not, because this is exactly who he's proven himself to be time and time again.

Billionaire Questions Donald Trump's Sanity
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 11:30am

Americans should vote for Hillary Clinton because, unlike Republican nominee Donald Trump, she is a "sane, competent person," Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor and founder of the Bloomberg financial news and information empire, said at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday.

Bloomberg argued that Trump was a "dangerous demagogue" and a bad businessman who would be a disastrous president. "I'm a New Yorker," he said, "and New Yorkers know a con when we see one."

The billionaire has endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, made the case that Trump's career is characterized by a litany of collapses and missteps, and that the Republican presidential nominee's boasts don't match reality. Americans who want a great businessperson in the White House should look for someone who isn't Trump, Bloomberg said.

"Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits, angry stockholders and contractors who feel cheated and disillusioned customers who feel ripped off," Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg's scathing speech seemed designed to chafe Trump's rawest nerves, mocking Trump's business prowess, his inheritance from his late father, his ego and his intellect.

"Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy," Bloomberg said. Trump claims great wealth, but won't disclose his real net worth and refuses to release his tax returns. The real-estate developer also reacts defensively when his success is questioned.

Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us.

Michael Bloomberg

Bloomberg - who rivals Trump in unwavering self-assurance - favorably compared his own achievements in business and politics with Trump's.

"We've heard a lot of talk in this campaign about needing a leader who understands business. I couldn't agree more. I've built a business - and I didn't start it with a million-dollar check from my father," Bloomberg said. "Because of my success in the private sector, I had the chance to run America's largest city for 12 years."

Bloomberg weighed an independent bid for president this year because he objected to both Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Clinton's primary challenger. Bloomberg was a vocal critic of the Republican candidate - his former friend - long before backing Clinton's White House run.

The financial industry tycoon ridiculed Trump's statements on immigration, national security, foreign trade, and his use of overseas labor. And Bloomberg made dire predictions about the damage a Trump presidency would wreak on virtually every aspect of American life.

"I understand the appeal of a businessman president," Bloomberg said. "But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making. He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence around the world and make our communities less safe."

NY Daily News Said Treasonous Donald Trump Should Be Locked Up
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 11:00am

The New York Daily News came out swinging this week after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump issued a plea for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton. The tabloid described "Comrade Trump's" call for foreign intelligence to attack his rival as "treasonous." Then, the paper took the cry used against Clinton at the Republican National Convention and turned it on the reality TV star:

Tomorrow's front page:

LOCK HIM UP: Comrade Trump's treasonous call for Russia to hack Hillary

- New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) July 28, 2016

The newspaper has been feuding with Trump for months, depicting him as a clown, blasting him as a racist, calling him stupid and mocking the fact that black voters have abandoned his campaign.

More On O'Reilly Attacking Media Matters
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly defended his remarks about the treatment of the slaves who helped build the White House on Wednesday, saying his statement about them being "well-fed" with "decent lodgings" was grounded in fact and held no justification for slavery.

The Fox News host came under fire earlier this week after he commented on Michelle Obama's powerful Democratic National Convention speech in which she addressed waking up "every morning in a house that was built by slaves." On Tuesday, O'Reilly, a self-proclaimed historian, provided context for the remarks.

"Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House," he said. "Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802."

He was soundly slammed by critics he labeled "far-left loons" and "smear merchants" before taking to his show to reiterate the point that "any honest historian" knows slaves were kept "strong."

"In order to keep slaves and free laborers strong, the Washington administration provided meat, bread and other staples, also decent lodging on the grounds of the new presidential building," he said. "That is a fact. Not a justification, not a defense of slavery. Anyone who implies otherwise is beneath contempt. Reporting the story behind Mrs. Obama's very valid points does not diminish the horror of enslavement as these dishonest critics allege."

The White House Historical Association has said slaves did in fact help build the White House. But The New York Times notes "there's no historical evidence either way on the question of how well fed the slaves were."

Social media once again erupted, claiming O'Reilly's comment's detracted from the horrors of slavery.

O'Reilly Attacks Media Matters For Simply Reporting What He Said
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 9:00am

And btw, half the country is slamming O'Reilly for his slaves were well fed comments, so it is not just media matters. But he only went after media matters, because he does not like the fact that they call him out on his nonsense, racism, and biased comments.

Bill O'Reilly: Media Matters Wants "Me Dead, Bolling, Literally Dead"

Earth to O'Reilly, they do not want you dead, nobody does, they just want you to stop lying and stop being a right-wing racist who is biased for the Republicans and Trump. You are a journalist, so they just want you to follow the rules of journalism, which you never do.

And btw, most of the books O'Reilly writes are written by someone else and full of errors. I guess Bolling does not realize that.

Here is a partial transcript of O'Reilly crying that the media attacked him, when all they did was report the truth and quote him.

ERIC BOLLING: These left wing zealots don't realize you write books about history. And I think you did, you cited history.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): No, they realize it, They realize it.

BOLLING: OK, but here is the --

O'REILLY: This is designed though -- this is designed, Geraldo, and you know this better than anybody, this is a designed attack, came out of Media Matters, spread to Mother Jones and the other smear publications, and then into the Daily News and USA Today, designed to diminish me and to harm the Fox News channel. That's what it is designed to do.

BILL O'REILLY: I think the time has come now, where this whole network is going to have to band together, all of us, and we are going to have to call out the people who are actively trying to destroy this network, by using lies and deception and propaganda. We're going to have to start to call them out by name, because that's how bad it's become.

O'REILLY: You saw -- you saw the provocations, and that's what I reported on, the racial provocations. And then we see black men killing cops. Now, cause and effect? You can't do it 100 percent, but certainly you can discuss cause and effect. I'm afraid it's going to happen with Fox News. Geraldo gets water dumped on him, what if somebody hit him in the head with a club?

Our reporters can't go out on the floor? Jesse Watters goes on the floor of the Democratic Convention, and some photographer comes up and starts swearing at him and cursing at him right in his face? This is provocation. These people are doing this. They want me dead, Bolling, literally dead.

O'Reilly Defends Comments That Slaves Building White House Were Well-Fed And Had Decent Lodgings
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 8:00am

O'Reilly: It Is "100 Percent Right" That "In Order To Keep Slaves And Free Laborers Strong, The Washington Administration Provided Meat, Bread, And Other Staples, Also Decent Lodging"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): As any honest historian knows, in order to keep slaves and free laborers strong, the Washington administration provided meat, bread and other staples, also decent lodging on the grounds of the new presidential building. That is a fact.

Real Fact: O'Reilly was not there so he does not know for sure if the slaves that built the White House were well fed or not. He is going by historical records, and they could have been lying. Not to mention Mrs. Adams wrote that slaves who were building the White House were half fed and barely clothed, so it is in dispute, O'Reilly acts as if it is a fact, when it is not.

O'Reilly is a joke, he is trying to justify using slaves to build the White House by saying they were well fed, and had good housing. Even if it was true it still does not justify using slaves to build the White House. O'Reilly should just let it go and stop digging the hole deeper, he is just making it worse.

Abigail Adams Debunks O'Reilly's Claims Slaves Who Built The White House Were Well Fed
By: Steve - July 28, 2016 - 8:00am

It turns out O'Reilly is not much of a history expert, as he claims to be, or he just ignored the truth to make a point, then again maybe both. You would think a history expert would know about this letter from Mrs. Adams, then again, he probably did and just lied about it.

Abigail Adams has the distinction of being the first First Lady to reside in the White House. Construction was ongoing when the Adams family moved in. This is an excerpt from a letter Mrs. Adams wrote to Cotton Tufts upon taking up residence in the newly opened White House.

"The effects of Slavery are visible every where; and I have amused myself from day to day in looking at the labour of 12 negroes from my window, who are employd with four small Horse Carts to remove some dirt in front of the house.

the four carts are all loaded at the same time, and whilst four carry this rubish about half a mile, the remaining eight rest upon their Shovels, Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, or fit for labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast, Such is the case of many of the inhabitants of this place."

Sellers Slams Bill O'Reilly's Lack Of Dignity And Decency In Slavery Comments
By: Steve - July 27, 2016 - 11:50am

Sellers: "He Was Speaking In A Way That Was Disrespectful To The Legacy Of Many People Who Came To This Country In Shackles"

Partial transcript:

BAKARI SELLERS: It's easy to just label this as being ignorant. It's easy to label this as being below what most journalists hold to be the bar. But I think it's deeper than that. I think it's the fact that many times African Americans in this country don't get their life valued. There is a question about human decency. There is a question about human dignity.

And in that clip, Bill O'Reilly didn't display any of that. I think any -- it's not an appearance to defend slavery. What he did was say that slaves were well-fed which is beyond the pale. And it's not as if he gave the appearance of anything. He was speaking in a way that was disrespectful to the legacy of many people who came to this country in shackles and actually were tormented, were died, were beaten.

And if they had any other choice, no, Mr. O'Reilly, they wouldn't be there building the White House. They would be living free. And I think that the fact that he can't understand that, that he can't wrap his head around those words of dignity and decency, I really have no use for him at all.

Note: On the Wednesday Factor O'Reilly is going to slam the media for simply reporting his ridiculous comments about the slaves being well fed and had decent lodgings. Which is what he always does when he is caught saying something biased, racist, or stupid, attack the real journalists who simply report what he said. I will report what he says about it later tonight, or tomorrow.

Crazy Trump Says He Hopes Russia Hacked Clintons E-Mails
By: Steve - July 27, 2016 - 11:40am

Now this is nuts, Trump is now saying he hopes Russia hacked into Clintons e-mails, so he can use them against her. That would be a foreign government getting involved in a presidential election, and it is unheard of, except for Trump.

Wednesday Donald Trump said he hopes Hillary Clinton's deleted emails have fallen into the hands of Russian hackers.

"If they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do," Trump said at a press conference at his resort in Doral, Florida.

The Republican presidential nominee was referring to the widely held suspicion that Russia is responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee's servers, resulting in the leak of tens of thousands of emails just days before the party's nominating convention in Philadelphia.

Trump said that he hoped the hackers had also accessed Clinton's private email servers. "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted."

Trump then addressed the rogue nation directly, saying "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

By actively hoping that American servers were hacked by another nation, Trump broke an unwritten rule of American public office: You don't root against the United States, even when your political opponent is in power.

Basically, Trump wants Russia to help him win an American election for the President of The United States, which is sedition at best and treason in my book.

Regardless of party or platform, American public officials are expected to champion U.S. interests and defend U.S. national security. Trump did the opposite Wednesday.

For the record, it is illegal for a foreign government to hack into American servers, and also a violation of agreements we have with them. But Trump does not care, as long as it will help him win.

Within moments of Trump's press conference, his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R), released a statement distancing himself from the nominee's words. "If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences," Pence said.

Trump even doubled down on his demand for Clinton's emails in a tweet shortly after the press conference.

"If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2016

The 33,000 number refers to emails that Clinton said she and her staff deleted from her servers because they contained "personal and private" information, including correspondence about her daughter Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

Earlier this year, FBI Director James Comey said an exhaustive investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state revealed that she and her staff were careless in their handling of documents. But he recommend to the Department of Justice that no charges were appropriate.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) also pushed back against Trump's hope that Russia successfully got into U.S. servers. "Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election," Brendan Buck, Ryan's spokesman said.

Trump declined to say whether or not Putin should stay out of U.S. elections, telling the assembled press Wednesday, "I'm not going to tell Putin what to do. Why should I tell Putin what to do?"

David Gregory said he was shocked at what Trump said:

DAVID GREGORY: I've run out of words to express my shock and how completely beyond the pale that Donald Trump is as a potential leader of the free world, the commander in chief of our country. This was truly beyond the pale. I mean, he is encouraging Russia, which by all accounts was behind the leak of one of our major political parties, to do more, to go beyond, to try to hack into Hillary Clinton's server to find missing emails to kind of get in the middle of the scandal.

It's as if this is a child playing with matches who doesn't understand how badly he and the country can get burned. It's a very serious thing. And I think that the one thing about Trump is that he is very clear for all to see. He is making very clear what he thinks, how he comes by information, and I think, frankly, the lack of seriousness and the intemperance with which he speaks about important national security matters should certainly give people pause.

And I don't think there's anybody who would think that was anything but a fair reading of what we've seen here. Vladimir Putin is dangerous. He's been dangerous to a Democratic president, to a Republican president, President George W. Bush who thought he had a better relationship with him. And now this nominee of the Republican Party wants a closer relationship with Vladimir Putin which is what he said. And he thinks that he has the ability to have a better relationship. There's no evidence to believe that's the case.

NBC's Mark Murray On Trump Encouraging Russia To Hack Clinton's Server: "Stunning" And "Jaw-Dropping"

MARK MURRAY: There's no doubt that the opposition to Donald Trump is going to be one of the forces that motivates a lot of Hillary Clinton's voters in November. But I just -- let's just talk about the press conference itself. Just jaw-dropping, stunning press conference that he made.

The biggest headline was that Russia, if you're listening, I hope you've hacked into Hillary Clinton's missing emails, and there will be a reward for you. And just to think that there's a presidential nominee who is asking a foreign power to search another candidate is -- I've never seen it in my lifetime. And just stunning.

Clinton's campaign was also quick to respond to Trump's press conference.

"This is the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent," Clinton adviser Jake Sullivan said Wednesday. "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue."

Goolsbee Schools Hannity On What Obama Has Done As President
By: Steve - July 27, 2016 - 11:30am

In the world of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, President Obama has been a disaster. Even though he has done a good job and everyone knows it, the Republicans even know it, they just will not admit it. So they lie about him to try and hurt him politically, and they are also trying to use it to hurt Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party.

And Goolsbee (who is an economist) never even mentioned the stock market is over 18,000, it was down to 7,000 under Bush, $2.00 a gallon gas, the housing market improvement, the low unemployment rate, the fact that about half the debt was added by Bush, they claim Obama did it which ignores the truth that Bush had half that debt, or the record for consecutive monthly job growth.

Hannity will just never give Obama credit for anything, as he lies about what Obama has done. But if all this had happened under a Republican President Hannity would praise him as a God and say he was the best President we ever had, proving what a lying hack he is, just like O'Reilly.

Here is a partial transcript:

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: Look, we can go through the Obama record if you like. You have been confused for a long time, and I can un-confuse you. But it would take time.

HANNITY: Alright, I feel like I've been a little bit unfair to you in this segment. Go ahead, I'll give you a chance to say "In the eighth year of Obama," and the economy sucks, tell us why you think it's great.

GOOLSBEE: No -- look. The last six years, things have gotten substantially better, and the question for us today is if you're looking at the next eight years, or the next four years, if you so dislike deficits, why are you supporting a guy who has got a $12 trillion tax cut? The biggest tax cut of all time?

HANNITY: Reagan doubled revenues by giving us --

GOOLSBEE: This tax cut --

HANNITY: Wait a minute, by dropping the top marginal rates from 70 to 28 percent during his presidency.

GOOLSBEE: In the last six years -- the first two years of the Obama administration, we come in losing 800,000 jobs a month, in the worst recession of our lifetimes. When that recession ends, which he did not cause, we spend six years improving. Poverty among African-Americans has fallen for the last five years. The poverty rate rose more under Ronald Reagan than it has under Barack Obama. You never want to say that.

HANNITY: He is the first president --

GOOLSBEE: You never want to admit that.

Donald Trump Is Basically The Leader Of A Hate Group
By: Steve - July 27, 2016 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly will not admit it, because he is a Republican and Trump is his friend, but Donald Trump is nothing more than the leader of a racist hate group. He is a hero to a group of far-right racists who hate everyone that is not white, and they want America to get rid of all the non-whites because minorities are having more kids than they are and soon the whites will be the minorities.

This is a fact, but O'Reilly will not discuss it. Because he is a friend of Trump and he is helping him to cover it up. Bill O'Reilly knows exactly what Trump is doing, but he ignores it all because he does not want Hillary Clinton to be the next President. So I have some news for O'Reilly, Trump is never going to win, and Hillary will be the next President.

Most Americans will never vote for Trump, when they go to actually vote they will think very hard about it and vote for Hillary over Trump, because they know deep down that Trump is a clown show who is simply using his run for President to get more famous and make more money. And I predict that after Trump loses, he will say he did not care, because he just did it for the fame and money anyway.

Here are some facts about Trump, and what he is doing.

It's been over a year since Donald Trump announced he was running for president. What began as a joke to most people has erupted into the most ridiculous and racist presidential campaign we have ever seen.

The possibility of Trump being our next president is not just something I oppose because he's a Republican. Donald Trump being our next president is something I oppose because he's a pathological lying racist who's based most of his campaign on outright lies and would embarrass this country to such an extent the damage he would cause might never be undone.

Just imagine if he actually won (which will never happen) and he ordered people to be tortured, as he said he would, Americans all over the world would be in fear in any foreign country, fear of getting tortured, especially Americans in the military. Terrorists would most likely start grabbing Americans and torturing them for revenge. And that is just one bad thing that would most likely happen, I could think of 20 more.

I do not even see Trump as a presidential candidate as much as I see him as the head of his own hate group. I've never seen a group of people so crazy and so mad, they are angry and flat-out hateful. Even though things are going pretty good, gas prices are at $2.00 a gallon, the economy is doing good, unemployment is low, the stock market is over 18,000, and the housing market is doing well. They are simply mad because a black man is in the White House and they are slowly becoming the minority.

These far-right white people hate everyone from: Anyone who criticizes Trump. Muslims. African-Americans. Immigrants. Mexicans. Other Republicans. Liberals. Women (at least Trump does). Refugees. Pretty much anyone who isn't a Trump supporter, and anyone who is not white.

Donald Trump has based his entire campaign on fear and lies to stoke the flames of hatred that exist among those who support him. These are people supporting a candidate who is quite literally saying that America is a loser that's no longer great.

That's exactly what the white nationalistic hate groups say and use to rile people up into thinking that the United States is failing them because we've embraced equality and diversity. These people are in a world of their own, a world of only white Republicans who think everything is going to hell because a black Democrat is the President, they are out of touch with reality.

And there is absolutely no reasoning with them, either. It doesn't matter what evidence you show them proving that almost everything Trump has told them is a lie, because it simply does not matter. Unless it comes from his mouth, to them, it's all just part of an big conspiracy against Trump by the media and the establishment, whatever that is.

The bottom line is this, most of Trump's supporters are not supporting him because they care about this great country. They support him because he's preyed on their fear, their anger and their hatred toward basically anyone who is not a white, straight Christian conservative.

These are people who support a candidate who has belittled a war veteran, mocked a man with disabilities and referred to women going to the bathroom as disgusting. These are not proud patriots, as they claim, they are vengeful, hateful, clueless, brainwashed, misinformed bigots. And they got that way partly because of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, who constantly feed them propaganda and lies that make them hate non-whites and gays even more than they already do.

O'Reilly and the GOP love to point out how race relations in America has got worse since Obama was elected the President. But they never mention the real reason why, they say it's because Obama is divisive, but that is a lie and they know it. Race relations have got worse, not because of Obama, because of racists like O'Reilly and his friends at Fox News and the GOP.

O'Reilly, Fox News, and the GOP are constantly telling lies about Obama and minoriries, so the people on the right hate them even more, even though it is almost all nothing but propaganda that is meant to divide the country. Then they complain about race relations getting worse, when they are a big part of why they got worse, and of course they will never admit it, even though they know it's true.

These are people who are terrified that their country is being taken over by people who are not white, and not pro-life gay hating Republicans. These are not people looking for someone to lead this nation for all Americans. These are racist gay hating people who have simply rushed to embrace the most well-known racist, bigot and pusher of intolerance we have in this country, someone who's been propped up by the conservative media for years.

And his name is Donald Trump. He will never be the President. Because while there are some people (all white) who believe in the lying Trump, there are not enough of them to put him in the White House, unless they cheat and rig the elections, and even if they cheated it will still not be enough.

Insane Tucker Carlson Says Gender Neutral Bathrooms At The DNC Is Disgusting
By: Steve - July 27, 2016 - 10:00am

This far-right moron is an idiot. With everything going on in America and the world, Tucker Carlson talks about gender neutral bathrooms, as if anyone cares, they don't.

He says it is disgusting, when the only thing disgusting is him. He even said it was bizarre, and an alternate reality. When he is the lunatic talking about bathrooms at a political convention.

Here is a clue buddy, talk about the issues, the economy, jobs, health care, etc. you freaking jerk.

Fox's Tucker Carlson: Having Gender Neutral Bathrooms At The Democratic National Convention Is "Disgusting"

Partial transcript:

TUCKER CARLSON (CO-HOST): I thought it was the most disorganized event I have ever covered in 25 years. It was the most badly organized, bizarre event.

Well just the whole thing was bizarre, starting from the like gender neutral bathrooms, which are disgusting. I mean I guess we're liberated by this? Everyone should come visit one and see the reality of it. It's unbelievable.

To the totally screwed up security situation outside. To a line of speakers urging Americans to break the law. To no American flags. I mean the whole thing was like an alternate reality.

O'Reilly Cherry Picked Michelle Obama Speech To Defend Slavery
By: Steve - July 27, 2016 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly sparked a firestorm on Tuesday when he pointed out that, while Michelle Obama was "essentially correct" about the White House being built by slaves, those slaves "were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government."

Michelle Obama gave a great 15 minute speech at the DNC convention, and O'Reilly cherry picked one line of it about slavery, what a jerk. He never did that with the Trump speech, or Trump's wife, he only did it to Michelle Obama, proving once again what a biased right-wing hack he is.

It was an awesome speech that talked about everything, all the issues, and O'Reilly only discussed her line about slaves building the White House. Now if someone in journalism did that to Trump or his wife, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call them every name in the book, then he does it to Michelle.

Bill O'Reilly's Reaction To Michelle Obama's Convention Speech: "Michelle Obama Is Essentially Correct In Citing Slaves As Builders Of The White House, But There Were Others Working As Well"

O'Reilly: Slaves Who Built White House Were "Well-Fed And Had Decent Lodgings Provided By The Government"

Here is a partial transcript, O'Reilly never really slammed her, the bad part is that he only talked about one line in a 15 minute speech, and it had to be about slavery. And he used the lame Tip of The Day to do it, which was not a tip, and not even close.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Finally tonight, Factor Tip of The Day. As we mentioned, Talking Points Memo, Michelle Obama referenced slaves building the White House in referring to the evolution of America in a positive way. It was a positive comment. The history behind her remark is fascinating. George Washington selected the site in 1791, and as president laid the cornerstone in 1792. Washington was then running the country out of Philadelphia.

Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House. Records show about 400 payments made to slave masters between 1795 and 1801. In addition, free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. If you could make it here, you could stay here.

In 1800, President John Adams took up residence in what was then called the Executive Mansion. It was only later on they named it the White House. But Adams was in there with Abigail, and they were still hammering nails, the construction was still going on.

Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well. Got it all? There will be a quiz.

I just can't get rid of that history teacher thing. You know what I'm talking about?


Here are some facebook comments about the stupid statement O'Reilly made, and they are not good for O'Reilly, as expected, but of course he will just ignore them and claim he said nothing wrong.

-- So let me buy u then, Bill. You will be required to lick ass from sun up to sun down. Not just my ass either. I may loan u out to my friends and family to lick their ass as well. But don't worry. You will be well fed and have decent lodging. Meaning my left over and a cot in my basement. Sound good? Alrighty then.

-- I want to know, was he there, did he witness the slaves being well fed and having decent lodgings? A report can say anything that they want it to say, that doesn't mean it was actually what happened. I'm sure the slave owners on the plantation also logged in their books that their slaves were well fed and had decent lodgings too.

I would bet that if the slaves were able to leave a written log of what really happened and how they were treated, the facts would be very different. "Until the story of the hunt is told by the lion, the tale of the hunt will always glorigfy the hunter."

-- There were slaves that also stayed in the homes of their slave owners. Some were close to their owners and their families. They ate well. The thing is their dignity was stolen because they were not free. They didn't have a choice.

They couldn't own land and have equal opportunity. Women often were raped by their owners and their family members. They may have had it nicer then other slaves if this is the case but slavery is still slavery. It still ribs a person of dignity and creates horrible psychological damage among other things.

I wonder what would have happened to one if the slaves if they chose to walk off the job. They would have been killed. It doesn't matter if they had it better then other slaves, it still was slavery.

-- And here folks is why many of us look at this dude and folks who think like him at his network and other places as mercilessly partison and bigoted. In his zeal to fact check a brilliant speech by a classy first lady he actually said "slaves" were well fed and had decent lodgings. Sadly, he probably doesn't even realize how offensive that statement is.

-- O'Reilly fancies himself a historian and truth teller. What I don't understand is what difference does it make if the slaves were well fed and housed? The treatment of slaves ran an entire spectrum from brutal treatment that we would not tolerate of animals today to humane and comfortable in some circumstances.

But it doesn't change the fundamental fact that the truths held self evident by Thomas Jefferson in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence were denied to all of them, well fed notwithstanding.

This country has struggled now for 150 years to deal with its history, and much of the domestic trouble we are experiencing today is a terrible consequence of our failure to address our history and fix it. Bill O'Reilly's revisionist view does nothing to advance the solution to this vexing problem.

And there are many more just like that, in fact, I did not see one comment in support of what O'Reilly said, they are all negative.

Will Says Trump Hiding Tax Returns Because Of Russian Connections
By: Steve - July 26, 2016 - 11:30am

Conservative George Will believes Donald Trump won't release his tax returns because they may show how deeply he's involved with Russian oligarchs.

The Fox News contributor and conservative columnist, who left the Republican Party last month because he couldn't support Trump, said Monday night that he believes the GOP's nominee may have improper relationships with foreign investors, reported The Hill.

Russian agents are accused of hacking into the Democratic National Committee's email servers and sharing private data, possibly to help Trump win the November election, which has underscored concerns about his campaign's ties to the former Soviet Union.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Will about those concerns.

"Well, it's the sort of thing we might learn if we saw the candidates tax returns," Will said. "Perhaps one more reason why we're not seeing his tax returns, because he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs and others. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent, it's probably the reasonable surmise."

As Predicted O'Reilly Ignored Police Shooting Unarmed Black Therapist
By: Steve - July 26, 2016 - 11:00am

Three days ago a Miami police officer shot a black unarmed therapist in the leg for no reason while he was laying on the ground on his back telling the police he was unarmed, a therapist, and with his hands in the air. He was no threat to the police, and the autistic patient sitting on the street next to him was playing with a white toy truck.

He did everything the police told him to do and as he was calmly telling them they were unarmed and while he was laying on his back with his hands high in the air, a cop shot him for no reason. And now he has a lawyer who will sue the city so the taxpayers will end up paying him a big settlement, maybe even in the millions.

This is an outrage and every person who pays taxes should be mad as hell. But O'Reilly says nothing, not a thing, while saying the Black Lives Matter group has no reason to protest the police, he even called them a terrorist hate group.

This is real police abuse, and O'Reilly is silent. And it is more proof O'Reilly is a biased hack, by ignoring the problem and then the denial they do anything wrong, O'Reilly is covering for the police and making the problem worse, just as he covers for Trump by ignoring all the negative news about him, he does the very same thing with police abuse stories.

O'Reilly ignores all the police abuse stories, then slams the Black Lives Matter group saying they are wrong to protest because there is nothing to protest. On plant O'Reilly, no police ever do anything wrong, and as long as he ignores it then he can say it never happened. And his stooge viewers buy it, hook, line, and sinker.

O'Reilly Admits The Republican Party Is All White
By: Steve - July 26, 2016 - 10:00am

In the process of admitting the Republican party is nothing but white people, O'Reilly denied that there were any problems at the RNC convention.

You had the delegate revolt, the Melania Trump speech scandal, the Ted Cruz speech where he refused to endorse Trump, his wife even had to be escorted out by security, the Republican Governor of Ohio John Kasich also would not endorse Trump and even refused to speak, he also said Trump will not win Ohio.

O'Reilly also somehow forgot to mention this:

A new RABA Research poll finds that 37% of Americans considered the Republican National Convention a disaster, while just 24% called it a success.

Women voters called the convention a disaster instead of a success by a 3 to 1 margin.

Among young voters, 55% called the convention a disaster, as opposed to just 13% calling it a success.

They even had trouble finding people to speak at the convention, but in the world of Bill O'Reilly there were no problems, just a bunch of white people having a good time. Yes he actually said that, so not only did he admit he is a biased hack who can not report the truth, he admitted the Republican party is nothing but whites.

Here is a partial transcript from his show Monday night.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): When you say the Republican convention got off to a bad start --


O'REILLY: Was that because of the Melania Trump speech? Is that what you are referring to?

MARSH: No. There was that, but there was discord on the floor.

O'REILLY: I was there, I didn't see any discord. I just saw a bunch of white people having a good time, that's all I saw.

KATIE PAVLICH: There was a minor floor fight.

MARSH: Trying to stop Donald Trump from becoming the nominee.

Trump Hit With 300K In Attorney Fees After Stiffing Small Business Owner
By: Steve - July 26, 2016 - 9:00am

This is the real Donald Trump folks, a scamming rat who screws people who own a small business that did work for him. He refuses to pay them until they sue him, then he not only has to pay the money, he has to pay their 300K in legal fees too.

That is what wealthy jerks like Trump do, they try to screw the little guy they claim to want to help, then if the little guy stands up to him he gets his money and Trump ends up paying 10 times more than it would have cost him if he had just paid the guy.

The Miami Herald reported Friday that Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto, presiding over a lawsuit related to unpaid bills brought by a local paint store against the Trump National Doral Miami golf resort, ordered the billionaire politician's company to pay the Doral-based mom-and-pop shop nearly $300,000 in attorney's fees.

Which is just another example of Donald Trump stiffing those who work for him. Not paying his debts. You know, managing money - the thing of which he says he is the master.

The Paint Spot did a job for Trump and Trump failed to make a final payment of $34,863 on a $200,000 bill for paint used at the resort. The guy who thinks he is immune to all laws - and the United States Constitution - figured The Paint Spot had been paid enough regardless of the contract his company had signed.

Try that one next time you run up some bills at a business. See how it works for you. As Judge Cueto showed, it doesn't.

The Herald reports that this led "The Paint Spot to slap a lien on the property and Cueto to order the foreclosure sale of the resort."

Trump avoided disaster by placing the $34K in escrow but that only avoided the auctioning off of the property; it did not remove the lien, and so Judge Cueto ruled that Trump had to pay for 500 hours of legal work plus a 75 percent risk fee for the paint company's lawyers, who had taken the case despite risking not being paid at all.

Of course, this is Trump we are talking about. The Herald reports that Juan Carlos Enriquez, owner of The Paint Spot said, "I'm happy I have a judgment. But he (Trump) hasn't paid yet."

Trump says he has the best people working for him. Apparently, they're good at screwing everyone else out of money while protecting Trump's own dwindling resources.

As Josh Marshall reported today, Trump's "debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. This is in just one year while his liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has even been blackballed by all major US banks."

Trump's entire campaign is built on the idea that he alone can create all the jobs already created by President Obama and save an economy already saved by Obama, when he can't even save his own.

And the GOP claims to be the champions of small businesses. Apparently, this is only if they don't stand between the 1 percent and money.

Trump is a deadbeat racist clown, plain and simple. If he is planning to do to the US what he has done to his own businesses, we all need to get out and vote against Trump on Election Day, because all the things Republicans lied about Obama are actually true of Donald Trump. And that's a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is serious business, this is not a reality show, it's the most important job in the world, being the President of The United States of America. And Donald Trump would be a disaster as the President, he would only help the wealthy and the corporations and most likely start World War III, if not order a country to be nuked, which would be the worst thing that could ever happen.

Note To Trump Supporters: He Is Lying To You All
By: Steve - July 26, 2016 - 8:00am

To begin with, Donald Trump is never going to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

While this has been, by far, his biggest campaign promise, it is never going to happen. Not only is the idea very expensive (and, no, Mexico is not going to pay for it, either), simply building it is almost impossible.

If you don't believe me, just ask Republicans Jeb Bush and Rick Perry who have both recently said that the wall will never be built.

His so-called plan to defeat ISIS is basically just the very same plan President Obama is already doing.

Trump said he would "declare war on ISIS" (which is actually something Congress would have to do), he also said he wouldn't use many U.S. ground forces. Instead, he would rely on countries in the region to do most of the work.

He has also declared he's going to "bomb the hell out of them." Of course, ISIS hides out in ares that are heavily populated with civilians so you can't just "bomb the hell" out of them. If you did, those are called war crimes.

What President Obama is doing right now is ordering thousands of airstrikes, using very minimal ground troops to aid foreign forces fighting on the ground and working with allies in the region to halt the spread of ISIS, which is exactly what Trump is saying he's going to do.

The only difference is that Trump said he is willing to violate international treaties, while committing various war crimes, including torture. Which even the CIA has admitted doesn't work.

He has no idea how he would actually do anything he's promising he'll do if elected.

Ask a Trump supporter to provide details as to how Trump plans to do all of the things he says he's going to do, so guess what, they have no idea, and neither does he.

He's not going to build the wall. Even if he tried, he certainly has no way to make Mexico pay for it.

What's he going to do about the trade deals, start a trade war? You want to see our economy tank worse than it did in 2008, let him start a trade war with countries like China and Mexico. The price of most of our goods would skyrocket, consumer spending would plummet and millions of jobs would be lost.

How is he going to deport the 12 million illegal immigrants? You know how many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of resources that would take to accomplish? And what do you do with the children of illegal immigrants who are American citizens and legally here, but their parents aren't?

Do you put the child in an orphanage? Are you going to rip apart families? Then what do you do about the millions of back-breaking jobs illegal immigrants do in this country that American citizens won't do? If you get rid of all those laborers it would devastate our economy.

Trump has also declared he will get rid of all inner city gangs. Because, you know, that's possible, Not!

Then there's his ban on Muslims that has no actual way of ever working and even most of the members of his own party agree is illegal and unconstitutional. Is he going to call for every single citizen coming into the United States to be interrogated for their religious ties prior to entering the country? Then what does he do if they simply lie?

It's all pretty much impossible and just stupid. He only said it to make him popular with the far-right in America. None of it is going to happen, the President can not just do whatever he wants, there are laws, the constitution, and Congress. Only Congress can declare war, and half of what Trump says he will do is illegal and unconstitutional, so it will never happen.

During the GOP primary, more Republicans voted against Trump than for him, and a big part of his own party is embarrassed he is the candidate.

While Trump likes to brag about setting a new record for most votes cast for a Republican candidate in our nation's history, he always leaves out the other record he set for having the most votes cast against him.

Not only that, but when you listen to how a lot of members of the party talk about him, most really never talk positively about him, they basically just try to pivot toward attacks on Hillary Clinton. While most won't outright attack him, they certainly aren't rushing to heap praise on him.

Almost nothing he says is true. Trump and his supporters can spin it however they like, but he is, by far, the most dishonest presidential candidate we have ever seen in the history of the country.

And it's not just that he lies, it's that he simply makes things up. His go-to source is "what I'm hearing," or his own brain, though he never provides anyone with any credible source to back up all of this idiocy that he claims to hear. But because he's telling people what they want to hear, they never question him.

It's why he's the first one to accuse others of being liars. He figures if he's out there calling everyone else the liar, playing himself up as the victim of people who are out to get him, it makes his supporters actually believe that there's this big anti-Trump conspiracy.

Even though the truth is just that he lies so much; the only option most people have is to constantly call him out for his endless stream of lies and BS.

David Duke Said Trump Is Main reason For Senate Run
By: Steve - July 25, 2016 - 11:00am

Not only did the former KKK leader David Duke say Donald Trump was one of the main reasons he is running for the Senate, he thinks Trump can win. O'Reilly and his friends say Trump is not a racist, so if that's true why are former KKK leaders saying Trump is why they are getting back into politics.

Duke thinks because Trump ran as a white power racist Republican and won the primary, that it shows the people are willing to accept racism, so he is now running for the Senate, and will most likely run the same kind of campaign Trump did, and try to win with the white vote only.

And btw, you can bet the farm O'Reilly will never discuss this topic, ever. Let's be real, if you are a white man who runs to get the white vote only, you are running a racist campaign, that is just a fact.

Here is a partial transcript of what Duke said:

DAVID DUKE: I'll give you some of the factors that encouraged me to do it. The interesting thing is that the people of my state and the people of this country now recognize clearly I've been telling the truth. I saw the Donald Trump statement last night, the speech last night, I was very impressed with it.

And I'm very thankful that Donald Trump -- and really it's obvious, just listen to this applause he got, the obvious fact is that the majority of the Republican Party now, as well as Donald Trump, as well as I think really, he's going to win this race.

Lifetime Republican Resigns After Donald Trump Nomination
By: Steve - July 25, 2016 - 10:00am

Donald Trump's rise from a joke candidate to the leader of the Republican party has been one of the worst things we have seen in modern political history. On one hand, he set a record for the number of votes received by any Republican candidate in history. On the other hand, more people actually voted against him than for him, something he never mentions, and he's pushed the party to the verge of total collapse.

It has been shocking to see someone become a presidential nominee while simultaneously being the most popular and hated candidate in the party.

While the Republican party itself will obviously back him and claim that they hope he becomes our next president, we all know that's not really true. It's actually been kind of funny to sit back and watch Republicans force themselves to act as if they're glad Donald Trump is the party's candidate. Even most Republicans think he is a racist clown, they just mostly will not admit it.

Some Republicans have flat-out refused to endorse Trump, while others have actually left the party altogether.

Take the lifelong Republican Chris Ladd who resigned from his position as a precinct committeeman for the York Township Republican Organization in a great letter where he absolutely trashed Donald Trump and what the GOP has become.

Normally this would not be something I write about because he is just one random Republican resigning from a conservative organization most people have probably never heard of. But this letter is great, and it is by a Republican so O'Reilly can not use the he is a hate-filled liberal who hates Trump card excuse to cover for Trump.

Here is a little of what he wrote:
We come together in political parties to magnify our influence. An organized representative institution can give weight to our will in ways we could not accomplish on our own. Working with others gives us power, but at the cost of constant, calculated compromise. No two people will agree on everything. There is no moral purity in politics.

At the national level, the delusions necessary to sustain our Cold War coalition were becoming dangerous long before Donald Trump arrived. From tax policy to climate change, we have found ourselves less at odds with philosophical rivals than with the fundamentals of math, science and objective reality.

The Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the utter failure of supply-side theory, climate denial, and our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation have all been troubling. Yet it seemed that America’s party of commerce, trade, and pragmatism might still have time to sober up.

Remaining engaged in the party implied a contribution to that renaissance, an investment in hope. Donald Trump has put an end to that hope.

From his fairy-tale wall to his schoolyard bullying and his flirtation with violent racists, Donald Trump offers America a singular narrative - a tale of cowards.

Fearful people, convinced of our inadequacy, trembling before a world alight with imaginary threats, crave a demagogue. Neither party has ever elevated to this level a more toxic figure, one that calls forth the darkest elements of our national character.

Trump is not merely a poor candidate, but an indictment of our character. Preserving a party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy.

Our leaders compromise preserves their personal capital at our collective cost. Their refusal to dissent robs all Republicans of moral cover. Evasion and cowardice has prevailed over conscience. We are now, and shall indefinitely remain, the Party of Donald Trump.

I will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints.

A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the "good Nazis."
There you go O'Reilly, he is a Republican calling Trump a Nazi, and all his supporters Nazis. So go after him big boy, just like you do when a Democrat compares Trump and his followers to Hitler and Nazis. Go get him, oh yeah, I forgot you are a biased and massive hypocrite who only goes after liberals who use Nazi comparisons, you ignore it when Republicans do it almost every fricking day, you coward!

I have seen a lot of people write things about the GOP, Donald Trump and how the Republican party is essentially dead, and this is probably one of the best summaries of the entire Trump situation and what it means for the party I have ever seen.

Reading Ladd's words, you could feel the frustration, anger and disgust that's clearly been building inside of him for decades as he has watched his party transform into essentially nothing more than a racist hate group.

I almost feel sorry for the few rational Republicans who are still left, notice I said almost, I do not feel sorry at all for what has happened to the GOP, because they did it to themselves.

After decades of pandering to racism, bigotry and ignorance (while fueling their party with fear, paranoia and hate against anyone who is gay and not white) it was only a matter of time before someone like Donald Trump, and those supporting him, took over the Republican party.

I think the sane Republicans realize that they no longer have a political party. They have a hate group pretending to be a political party. And I hope the Trump loss to Hillary destroys the party, so then it could be re-born as an actual political party again. Then again, if it dies forever, I will not be sad. Because I disagree with 90% of their platform anyway.

RNC Contact Gave White Supremacist A Convention Pass
By: Steve - July 25, 2016 - 9:00am

Matt Forney, a pro-Trump white supremacist who claims women want to be raped and beaten, attended the second day of the Republican National Convention with a guest pass and reported live from inside the convention arena for a racist radio program.

The white nationalist movement and people like Forney have been celebrating the Republican convention and nominee Donald Trump. They're attending his convention and other campaign events and have used Trump and the RNC to recruit followers, fundraise, and spread their message.

The Trump campaign has had a series of troubling interactions with the white nationalist movement, including giving a white nationalist radio host press credentials, failing to condemn their support, and retweeting them.

Forney has claimed that "Blacks do nothing but murder cops, rob and rape people, and bring death and destruction wherever they go" and argued that America needs "strict black control." He's also written misogynistic pieces claiming that women want to be raped and beaten and shouldn't be educated.

Slate's Michelle Goldberg profiled Forney in the series "Better Know an RNC White Supremacist" and wrote that he "says he’s been gratified by the way the Donald Trump campaign has made his views less taboo."

He wrote a July 20 piece headlined "The Alternative Right Infiltrates the Republican National Convention." Forney received guest credentials from an unnamed "RNC contact" and was able to attend the convention on July 19. At one point, Forney says he was "invited to sit with the Hawaii delegation on the floor and observe the action up close."

Forney retweeted a picture of himself with a July 19 guest pass. He also tweeted pictures of himself actually "Sitting with the Hawaiian delegation on the floor of the RNC," and shots from other spots around the convention.

Forney reported live from the RNC for the white nationalist program Red Ice Radio, which is hosted by Henrik Palmgren and Lana Lokteff. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the program "a racist online radio broadcast" and "white nationalist."

During the July 19 broadcast, Palmgren said that Forney is "inside in the convention center right now." Forney then briefly described what was currently happening at the convention and broadcast live images of the proceedings.

Forney previously held a fundraiser "to help me cover the Republican and Democratic National Conventions this month" with Red Ice Radio and made his "goal with a total of $2,639.88 in donations, exceeding my original goal of $2,500."

He regularly writes virulently anti-women posts. His website includes posts with headlines like "How to Beat Your Girlfriend or Wife and Get Away with It." Forney advocates weekly whippings, claiming: "Since most girls want to be spanked, it's extremely unlikely that she will ever consider your weekly whippings to be 'domestic violence.' Even if she doesn't like the sting of your palm, her sense of shame will keep her from reporting you to the police."

Forney is also anti-gay and uses his Twitter account to call opponents "faggot." The Washington Post's Caitlin Dewey wrote that "Forney is a professional Internet troll" and can contend for "most-hated man" on the internet.

Forney is strongly supporting Trump for president. He explained that he's voting for Trump because "Trump's presidential campaign is the closest America will come to redemption, the last triumph of nationalism before the left swamps us with hordes of barely literate foreigners who will vote them into a permanent majority. I'm not going to sit back and pretend that both parties are identical when one of them is presenting a clear alternative to decay and decline."

Trump's RNC Convention Speech Was Full Of Lies
By: Steve - July 25, 2016 - 8:00am

And of course O'Reilly never called him out on any of it, because he is a biased right-wing fraud of a pretend journalist who is 100% in the tank for his friend Donald Trump.

At the beginning of his big RNC speech, Trump called for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation, and said he would present the facts plainly and honestly. He didn't follow through on that promise.

Trump's speech was much more scripted than his typically ad-libbed rally performances, which are riddled with lies. But his formal acceptance of the nomination was also full of lies. Here is a partial list of some of the misleading claims made by the man whose campaign statements were named the lie of the year by Politifact.

America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world.

Trump has called the United States the highest-taxed nation in the world several times, but America is not even one of the highest-taxed nations in the world, as he said Thursday night.

Politifact found Trump statements like this wrong, saying this: "For the third time, Donald Trump, U.S. is not 'highest taxed nation in the world.'"

The fact-checking website looked at the most recent data from 2014 and found that it shows that the United States wasn't the most highly taxed and actually places near the bottom or around the middle of the pack."

With most wealthy people and big corporations paying no taxes at all, if not getting refunds after tax write-offs. In fact, the wealthy pay less in taxes than the average working man, Warren Buffet makes billions, and he pays less percentage in taxes than the woman who cleans his office. About 40% of corporations pay no taxes at all, zero, and a lot of them get refunds.

Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration's rollback of criminal enforcement.

Trump released blizzard of cherry-picked statistics all directed at one purpose -- convincing you that crime has run amok. The reality is that crime isn't just on a downward trend, but it has been for a very long time.

In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.

The implication here is that Clinton is responsible for ISIS. In Trump's first joint interview with Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) with 60 Minutes on July 17, Trump said "Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies."

This is a lie, she was secretary of state, not the President, so she had no policies, the policies were from President Obama.

The roots of ISIS date back before the Obama administration and Clinton being named Secretary of State. Though the group did not exist as ISIS until 2010, the fact-checking website Politifact ruled that the idea that Clinton is responsible for ISIS is "false." It was called al-Qaida in Iraq in 2004, and then the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006, before turning into the Islamic State of Iraq.

ISIS was created by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who illegally invaded Iraq with lies about WMD's, and then disbanded the Iraqi Army. A lot of them joined Al-Qaida, which then turned into ISIS. If anyone is to blame for ISIS, it is the Republican party, G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and all the people who supported their illegal war, including Bill O'Reilly.

I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

The notion the system was rigged against Sanders is false. At the end of the primary season, Hillary Clinton had won 55 percent of the roughly 30 million votes cast, compared with Sanders 43 percent. That translated to 2,764 total delegates for Clinton and 1,894 for Sanders.

Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.

This figure comes from a letter the Department of Homeland Security submitted to Congress in response to questions from staunchly anti-immigrant Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), in which the agency said they have no way to determine how many aliens have criminal convictions.

The DHS, however, uses a very broad definition of criminal. Most criminal undocumented immigrants deported during the Obama years were actually convicted of minor crimes like traffic offenses or simply illegal entry, a petty misdemeanor under federal criminal law. Additionally, many immigrants ICE targets as criminals have no criminal conviction at all. Deportations of these immigrants have risen drastically under Obama.

My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment.

In an interview with ABC last month, Clinton said she wants to strive for "common-sense gun-safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment." Her website notes she believes "weapons of war have no place on our streets," but she has never indicated she has any desire to do away with the right to bear arms.

And roughly 90% of the American people agree with her, including 70% of Republicans and gun owners. No Democrat has ever proposed to do away with the 2nd amendment, and never will, it's all lies by the right to scare people.

There's no way to screen Syrian refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.

In fact, refugees are incredibly well-vetted. The process takes years, and involves submitting birth certificates, report cards from school, identification cards, driver's licenses, passports, and old utility bills. As a result, refugees who have been resettled in the United States have a nearly spotless record.

Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons.

That is a lie. The Iran deal President Obama made has been successful in dismantling much of Iran's nuclear program.

Since the economic sanctions on Iran were lifted, the government has responded quickly by reducing 98 percent of its uranium stockpile, dismantling thousands of centrifuges, limiting uranium enrichment and research, and filled its reactor with cement.

Household incomes are down more than $4,000 since the year 2000.

This statistic is from 2014 and is badly outdated. The most recent report shows median annual household income in June was $57,206, slightly below the income of $57,826 in January 2000, in 2016 dollars.

So Trump's stat is only off by about 80%, or $3,400.

Trump Lawyer Sends Tony Schwartz Cease-and-Desist Letter
By: Steve - July 24, 2016 - 11:00am

Schwartz said he got a cease-and-desist letter this week asking him to apologize and return all proceeds from the book. Schwartz had said he felt remorse for portraying Trump positively in the book.

When Tony Schwartz began writing "The Art of the Deal," he realized that he needed to put an acceptable face on Trump's loose relationship with the truth. So he concocted an artful euphemism: Truthful hyperbole.

The letter comes after Schwartz gave this quote: "I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization."

When Tony Schwartz, the man who ghostwrote Donald J. Trump's "The Art of the Deal," decided to tell the public about his concerns that Trump isn't fit to serve as President, his main worry was that Trump would threaten to take legal action against him. He was right.

"I put lipstick on a pig," he said. "I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is."

If he were writing "The Art of the Deal" today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath."

On Thursday, reached by e-mail on an airplane, Schwartz said that he would continue to speak out against Trump, and that he would make no retractions or apologies.

"The fact that Trump would take time out of convention week to worry about a critic is evidence to me not only of how thin-skinned he is, but also of how misplaced his priorities are," Schwartz wrote.

He added, "It is axiomatic that when Trump feels attacked, he will strike back. That's precisely what's so frightening about his becoming president."

Now who wants to bet me some big money that Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, ever.

Bill O'Reilly Is A Biased Trump Supporter
By: Steve - July 24, 2016 - 10:00am

The top story segment on the Thursday O'Reilly Factor show was called: "Trump's Momentous Moment"

I am not kidding, in O'Reillyworld the Trump speech at the Republican convention was momentous. Which is just laughable, because it is nothing but propaganda that a speech writer put into a teleprompter for Trump to read.

Most of it was lies, fact-checkers ripped it to pieces proving the lies. It was a joke, the whole thing was just spin and lies that is meant to try and get you to vote for him.

We already know the real Donald Trump, and one propaganda speech at a political convention is not going to change any minds about him. It was not momentous, and not even close. And only a total in the tank Trump stooge would say it was, that would be Trump's friend Bill O'Reilly.

It was simply Trump screaming lies and propaganda, to fire up the far-right base. I would bet that almost no Democrats or Independents watched more than 5 minutes of it in the entire week, so all the speakers were just preaching to the believers.

O'Reilly acted like that one insane speech was a big deal and it will make Trump look sane enough to vote for, which is also laughable. Because unless you are a Trump supporter you watched it and said, wow, this guy is a lying nut job.

Some Republicans may have liked it, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. but everyone else saw it as crazy talk, from a far-right loon that should not even be the nominee. So it will not get Trump any more votes from anyone.

Jon Stewart Slams Sean Hannity For His Support Of Trump
By: Steve - July 24, 2016 - 9:00am

Stewart: "I'm Sure It's Easy For People Without Ethics Or Principles To Embrace Someone Who Embodies Everything That They Said They Hated About The Previous President For The Past Eight Years"

JON STEWART: Well, the convention's over. I thought Donald Trump was going to speak. Ivanka said that he was going to come out. She said he was really compassionate and generous, but then this angry groundhog came out and he just vomited on everybody for an hour.

But the Republicans appear to have a very clear plan for America, and they've articulated it throughout the convention. One, jail your political opponent. Two, inject Rudy Giuliani with a speedball and Red Bull enema. And then, three, spend the rest of the time scaring the holy bejeezus out of everybody.

But I'm not interested in that. I'm actually interested in gymnastics. With the Rio Olympics coming up, I'm enjoying the gymnastics portion of the program that's about to occur. That would be the contortions that many conservatives will now have to do, to embrace Donald J. Trump, a man who clearly embodies the things that they have, for years, said that they have hated about Barack Obama.


FRED THOMPSON: The most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president.

BILL O'REILLY: One of the most divisive presidents in history.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: Notoriously thin-skinned.

LOU DOBBS: Straight-forwardly authoritarian.

PAT CADDELL: He's a raging narcissist who has no grip on reality.


STEWART: "A thin-skinned narcissist with no government experience." Yes. That sounds exactly like -- Barack Obama. So now the right-wing media's going to have to spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week, justifying this choice they've made. Can they make the turn? They already are.

Let's trace their journey through the eyes of one of their most talented gymnasts. Um, uh, his name escapes me. Let's just refer to him as Lumpy. Hey, Lumpy. For instance, here's how Lumpy felt about Barack Obama's divisiveness.


SEAN HANNITY: This president is the most divisive president in history. Scare tactics, class warfare. Racial rhetoric. Divided along racial lines, rich versus poor, black versus white, old versus young.


STEWART: Cats versus dogs. Batman versus Superman. That one against the other two. I've been out of the business a while, I don't know what that is actually. If you don't like divisiveness, what about when Trump suggested Mexico is sending us their rapists? If you don't like divisive rhetoric.


HANNITY: Perhaps inarticulate but he did said, "You know, some people are good people." He didn't say "all Mexicans."


STEWART: You're right. On Cinco de Mayo, we had the Trump Tower taco bowl, and that's one of the healing-est meals on the Trump Tower menu. I'm not an expert on racial unity. But I do believe that some of our more vaunted historical leaders in that area did retweet white supremacists less than Trump. So I believe -- I'm just saying. Then there was the Obama crony that Lumpy couldn't stand. His old friend, Teleprompty.


HANNITY: President Obama, he can't read a sentence without a teleprompter. He sleeps with the darn thing.


STEWART: "He probably sleeps with the darn thing and then probably doesn't call it the next day because it didn't say so on the teleprompter." Lumpy, your 180, please.


HANNITY: We've seen Trump now give a series of policy speeches using a teleprompter, staying on message. Really well done for somebody who had never done it before.


STEWART: You hate teleprompters. You're saying now, "Teleprompters are for stupid people, and I thought Trump handled it pretty good." OK, inexperience aside. Divisiveness aside. The worst thing about Barack Obama is his elitism.


HANNITY: Barack Obama is anything but mainstream. Sitting in his million dollar home, claiming to be for the people, we have to wonder how in touch he is with the average American. Take a look at him ordering his burger with a very special condiment. Dijon mustard? I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger, Mr. President.


STEWART: "Yeah, you elitist. You probably eat that burger with your mouth. Instead of acting like a real American and having a Magnum fire it up your ass. Like they serve them at Arby's." That's how they serve them, actually, at Arby's. They shoot them right up your ass.

Meanwhile, here's how Lumpy feels about the guy who sits in a literal golden throne at the top of a golden tower with his name in gold letters at the top of it, eating pizza with a knife and fork. How do you feel about that guy?


HANNITY: I thought one of the more fascinating descriptions of your dad came from you. You once called him on my show a "blue-collar billionaire."


STEWART: That's not a thing. You know what? It is true, Trump does seem like the kind of guy you want sit down and own a fleet of airplanes with. Look, all that stuff is actually superficial and I'm sure it's easy for people without ethics or principles to embrace someone who embodies everything that they said they hated about the previous president for the past eight years.

Because, really for a president, it's about what's inside. And that's where Lumpy and friends -- that's where they really have found the president lacking.


HANNITY: Who sits in the pews of Jeremiah "G-D" America and "America's chickens have come home to roost" after 9/11? Is that a Christian church to you? He says he's a Christian. I'm a Christian, I wouldn't go to Reverend Wright's church.


STEWART: "Obama would. He's the type of Christian that's, you know, not Christian." Well know what though? When the Pope said that Trump's talk about immigration was not Christian, surely that gave Lumpy pause.


HANNITY: Who is the Pope to say that Donald Trump's not a Christian? How can a Pope or anybody decide if somebody's a Christian in their heart?


STEWART: "Yeah. Who died and made that guy Pope?" So let's just say, for real, here's where we are. Either Lumpy and his friends are lying about being bothered by thin-skinned, authoritarian, less-than-Christian readers-of-prompter being president. Or they don't care, as long as it's their thin-skinned prompter-authoritarian-tyrant- narcissist.

You just want that person to give you your country back. Because you feel that you're this country's rightful owners. There's only one problem with that. This country isn't yours. You don't own it. It never was. There is no real America. You don't own it. You don't own patriotism. You don't own Christianity. You sure as hell don't own respect for the bravery and sacrifice of military, police and firefighters.

So, Lumpy, you and your friends have embraced Donald Trump. Clearly, the "c" next to your names don't stand for "constitutional" or "conservative." But "cravenly," "convenient," --

Trump RNC Convention Speech Got Low Ratings
By: Steve - July 24, 2016 - 8:00am

But of course Trump said he got big ratings, and as usual he was lying.

One thing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump likes to do is brag about himself any chance he gets. Whether it's his supposed wealth, his polling numbers, the size of a crowd or how many votes he received during the GOP primary (though he always fails to mention that more people actually voted against him than for him), Trump absolutely loves to talk about himself.

His braggadocious attitude and arrogance are a big reason why he's been so appealing to millions of Republican voters. They want a brash, loudmouthed blowhard who tells them what they want to hear, even though almost nothing he tells them is actually true.

So, following his big speech on the final night of the Republican National Convention, I was not at all surprised to see him send out a tweet bragging about the night, and the TV viewership numbers:

Donald J. Trump:

"One of the best produced, including the incredible stage & set, in the history of conventions. Great unity! Big T.V. ratings!"

Except, the viewership wasn't exactly big.

Around 29.9 million people watched the final night of the RNC. Admittedly, that is a lot of people focused on a political event. So, technically that's a fairly large number. However, I always emphasize how much context matters, especially in politics. When you factor in context (matching up Thursday night's TV viewership against the final nights of the presidential conventions from the past two elections) Trump's number ranks dead last.

DNC '12 (final night): 35.7m
RNC '12 (final night): 30.3m
DNC '08 (final night): 38.4m
RNC '08 (final night): 38.9m

Not only does Trump's big night rank dead last among all four of those conventions, but it doesn't even come close to three of them. Hell, he couldn't even beat Mitt Romney's viewership and he was an absolutely bland and boring candidate who nobody really cared about. Meanwhile, President Obama and John McCain's numbers from 2008 crushed his.

While Trump's campaign has undoubtedly been successful, there are still a lot of questions concerning how much support he really has. It's one thing to pander to a base of supporters during a primary election -- that's the easy part. The truth is, no matter who the Republican candidate is, they're always going to have most of the base supporting them out of party loyalty.

So, the fact that he's really gotten the base excited is great when it came to the primary, but isn't going to matter all that much when it comes to the general election. If a candidate wants to win the general election, they're going to need to appeal to a much broader range of voters. That's why the viewership totals from Thursday night should worry Republicans and the Trump campaign.

It is a sign that his appeal (as some have speculated) is very limited and a lot of people are starting to get Trump fatigue, losing interest in hearing whatever idiocy he has to say. And I guess we will all find out this November how much of Donald Trump's candidacy was media-driven hype and how much of it was real.

More Proof Bill O'Reilly Is 100% In The Tank For Trump
By: Steve - July 23, 2016 - 11:30am

As if we needed it, here is more proof O'Reilly is a massive Donald Trump supporter.

He took Friday off, so Bret Baier hosted for him, and he called in to talk about the mass shooting in Germany. As he was spinning out some right-wing propaganda blaming Obama, he said this:
"Millions of refugees have fled the Middle East and streamed into the open border society of Europe, disrupting life in every way. This is why Donald Trump has been so successful with his message that we will not allow open borders here. But there is evil in America, Trump is tapping in to that, and he has a very good chance of winning this election."
And there you have it, all the experts on the electoral college have Trump getting crushed by Hillary Clinton, about 320 to 190, or something like that. But the great Bill O'Reilly just ignores all that, the same way he did when Romney ran against Obama and got crushed 330 to 206.

Have fun in your fantasyland Billy, because Trump has no chance and he will get crushed in November. He might get a lot of votes, but he will lose badly in the electoral college vote, which is the vote that matters.

O'Reilly Slams Ken Burns For Comment About His Friend Trump
By: Steve - July 23, 2016 - 11:00am

So out of the hundreds of people who say bad things about Trump every day in print and on tv, including many Republicans, O'Reilly picked one man, Ken Burns to go after and be an attack dog for Trump, as if he was working for the Trump campaign.

And it's funny how Burns just happens to be a liberal that O'Reilly does not like.

Here are the facts in the story, as in all the stuff O'Reilly never reported, including what Burns actually said about Trump.

Recently, a group of historians gathered on Facebook to share some of their very highly educated opinions about Donald Trump. Needless to say, being actual historians, and firm upholders of our fact-based world, these opinions were not favorable.

How could they be? They are talking about a crazy far-right racist who is running for President while trying to get the whites only vote.

Ken Burns said this about Trump:
"We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient proto-fascism anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary. The prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African Americans asked to go to the back of the line, voter suppression gleefully promoted, jingoistic saber-rattling, a total lack of historical awareness, a political paranoia that, predictably, points fingers, always making the other wrong."
Which led Bill O'Reilly to single out Burns, one of the two founding members of Historians on Donald Trump (along with David McCullough), for an uneducated and ill-informed tongue lashing.

Here again, for Trump apologists like O'Reilly it is not Trump's fault that he is acting like a fascist, but rather the fault of those who call attention to it. Being a fascist is okay; calling that person a fascist is a "smear." O'REILLY: I was disappointed with Ken Burns. He is a historian, he knows better. This is a smear tactic that we're seeing far too much of in this campaign.

O'Reilly is right about one thing, saying Ken Burns is a smart guy and a historian, and O'Reilly is neither. He does know better than O'Reilly. And it is not only Burns speaking out about the threat posed by Donald Trump, but other well known and highly respected historians.

It's not as if Burns is the only historian saying those same things, many many others are saying the same thing. But O'Reilly does not like Burns because he is a liberal so he singles him out because of it.

Real historians understand history. Yes, everyone has personal ideologies, and it is impossible to be completely objective, but there is a difference between trying to be objective, as these historians do, and going out of your way to inject bias and to disregard facts in favor of wishful thinking, as does O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly got mad at Burns because he fancies himself a historian, even though his alleged histories are more along the lines of historical fiction, and relentlessly panned by actual historians.

The facts are not to GOP-liking and therefore the purveyors of those facts must be condemned and fact labeled a "smear." But O'Reilly said it himself: Burns knows better than O'Reilly, and O'Reilly just proved it.

Here is the real truth, O'Reilly did not like that Burns told the truth about Trump, so he attacked him as a smear merchant, to try and make him look like he has no credibility. This is what O'Reilly does, when someone says something bad about him or his friends, he attacks them and claims they are liars, when in fact they are almost always telling the truth.

And he does it to one guy, while ignoring a thousand other people who are also trashing Trump. It's basically a message to Burns from O'Reilly to keep your mouth shut about Trump, or he is going to use his cable news show to smear you. It's like mob tactics, O'Reilly is sending a message to Burns, and it is dishonest as you can be.

Secret Service Investigating Trump Adviser For Clinton Execution Comments
By: Steve - July 23, 2016 - 10:00am

This is what they are doing at the Trump/RNC convention.

The Secret Service is officially investigating Al Baldasaro, an adviser to the Donald Trump campaign for veterans issues, who called for Hillary Clinton's execution for "treason."

"The U.S. Secret Service is aware of this matter and will conduct the appropriate investigation," spokesman Robert Hoback told The Daily Beast on Wednesday afternoon.

"Anyone that commits treason should be shot," Baldasaro told The Daily Beast earlier in the day. "I believe Hillary Clinton committed treason. She put people in danger. When people take confidential material off a server, you're sharing information with the enemy. That's treason."

Baldasaro was expanding on a comment he made on Tuesday, when he called for Clinton to be "put in the firing line" over her mishandling of classified emails.

Obama Fact-Checks Trump's Convention Speech
By: Steve - July 23, 2016 - 9:00am

President Barack Obama on Friday responded to the end of the Republican National Convention by saying, "some of the fears that were expressed throughout the week just don't jibe with the facts."

Obama fired back by reassuring Americans that we're not on the "verge of collapse."

"I did not watch the convention. I don't think that's a surprise. I've got a lot of stuff to do, and they are pretty long events," the president said during a news conference, adding that he had read up on many of the claims made during the week, particularly by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Obama went on to pick apart certain dubious statistics and fear-inducing anecdotes about undocumented immigrants.

He noted that the violent crime rate has been lower during his presidency than at any other period in the last several decades. He also noted that while violent crime has seen a small uptick in some cities this year, the overall rate of it is far lower than it was both when Ronald Reagan was president and when Obama took office.

"The fact is that the rate of intentional killings of police officers is also significantly lower than it was when Ronald Reagan was president," he said. "Those are facts. That's the data."

The FBI announced in May that 2015 was one of the safest years for cops on record.

Obama also took on Trump's panic-provoking claim that "nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens" by stating that undocumented immigrants are entering the U.S. at a rate that is two-thirds lower than it was during the Reagan administration.

"We're not going to make good decisions based on fears that don't have a basis in fact," Obama said.

"America is much less violent than it was 20, 30 years ago," the president added. "And immigration is much less of a problem than it was not just 20, 30 years ago, but when I came in as president."

Other inaccuracies in Trump's speech include the claim that "ISIS was not even on the map" before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009.

The terrorist group has its roots going back as far as 2004, five years before President Obama appointed her to the position, according to the National Counterterrorism Center.

Police Commander Suspended For Lies About Charles Kinsey Shooting
By: Steve - July 23, 2016 - 8:00am

A North Miami, Florida, police officer who shot an unarmed black mental health therapist was identified Friday as a SWAT team member, and a police commander accused of fabricating information about the shooting was suspended.

A lawyer for the wounded therapist, Charles Kinsey, meanwhile, told the Miami Herald he does not believe a police union official who claimed the shooting was an accident.

SWAT team member Jonathan Aledda was identified Friday as the cop who fired three shots during the confrontation Monday in which Kinsey was wounded in the leg.

Bystander video shows Kinsey lying in the street with his hands up shortly before the shooting. Kinsey said he had been trying to calm a patient with autism who had run from a nearby group home. The patient's toy truck apparently was mistaken for a gun by a 911 caller.

The cellphone footage adds another vivid flashpoint to recent controversial police shootings of black men in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Falcon Heights, Minnesota. Police officers, meanwhile, have been gunned down by ambushers in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

Kinsey's lawyer, Hilton Napoleon, on Friday cast doubt on the police union leader's explanation. He said he didn't believe that a SWAT team member with four years experience would be a poor shooter. Napoleon also said the officer should have warned Kinsey to move away if the intended target was the other man.

Kinsey, in an interview from his hospital bed, said he asked Aledda why he shot him after he was hit. He said the officer answered, "I don't know."

Aledda is on administrative leave (with pay) while the authorities review what happened.

Police officials also suspended Commander Emile Hollant without pay for what North Miami City Manager Larry Spring Jr. said were inconsistencies in his statements about the shooting.

Republican Nicolle Wallace: The Republican Party Died Tonight
By: Steve - July 22, 2016 - 11:30am

Partial transcript:

NICOLLE WALLACE: Listening to this, I was struck by two things I always believed during my two decades in Republican politics. One, the voters always get it right, and two, the Republican Party that I worked for for two decades died in this room tonight. We are now represented as a Party by a man who believes in protectionism, isolationism, and nativism. And those were the forces that George W. Bush, and I believe John McCain too, were most worried about during their times as the leaders of the Republican Party.

CHUCK TODD: Striking comment. You believe the Party died tonight?

WALLACE: Well, the voters picked this guy. This is where the Republican Party is now. They now are attracted to those forces of isolationism and protectionism. But the party I was part of for two decades is dead.


And she forgot one thing, the Republican party is now seen as the racist white power party, because of Donald Trump and his plan to win the White House with white votes only. Trump is a far-right racist and crazy loon and anyone who supports him is a fool. Including Bill O'Reilly, who is backing Trump all the way, who is even lying and covering for him.

Roger Ailes Resigns From Fox News
By: Steve - July 22, 2016 - 11:00am

The man that O'Reilly said he backed 100% resigned from the Fox News Network. Ailes resigned from Fox News amid sexual harassment allegations -- a shameful end to his controversial twenty-year tenure running the country's conservative cable news channel.

Ailes departure is effective immediately. Rupert Murdoch, the 85-year-old patriarch of parent company 21st Century Fox, is now the channel's chairman and acting CEO.

Ailes, 76, was thought to be untouchable until two weeks ago, when ex-anchor Gretchen Carlson filed a lawsuit against him.

Within days, other women also came forward with similar accounts of harassment. Some of the allegations dated back to the 1960s; others were much more recent. Fox's 9 p.m. host Megyn Kelly told investigators that Ailes harassed her a decade ago.

Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan, who jointly run the company, pressured Ailes to resign. Firing him outright was another option.

After Ailes' resignation was announced, Carlson's lawyers released a statement saying, "Gretchen Carlson's extraordinary courage has caused a seismic shift in the media world. We hope that all businesses now understand that women will no longer tolerate sexual harassment and reputable companies will no longer shield those who abuse women. We will have more to say in coming days as events unfold."

Why You Should Vote All The Republicans Out Of Office
By: Steve - July 22, 2016 - 10:00am

And not vote for Trump either, to send a message to the out of touch with the mainstream far-right Republicans that if they nominate right-wing loons like Trump they will get crushed in the general elections.

Most Americans are aware that despite the deadly massacre in Orlando Florida, Senate Republicans blocked four basic and sensible gun safety laws.

Now, one might say that it is typical of conservatives to block any and all gun safety measures and that would be a partially correct assumption. However, while Senate Republicans were doing their due diligence in service to the NRA and gun manufacturing lobby, both conservatives and liberals on the nation's highest court took a different course.

Maybe it was because some Americans, and people from around the world, are reeling over the deadliest mass shooting in history, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to one state's current ban on semi-automatic rifles. The Connecticut law was enacted shortly after a maniac with an assault rifle slaughtered 20 children and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The Connecticut law made it illegal to sell or possess assault-style weapons and the high court decided it would not weigh in and allow the law to stand. As Adam Liptak of the New York Times reported, "The decision not to hear the case, is part of a trend in which the Justices have given at least tacit approval to gun-control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them."

That decision not to hear the Connecticut case was not the only rare win for gun safety advocates. The Court's Justices also "left in place legislation in New York that bans assault rifles" making New York and Connecticut two of the seven states that "outlaw weapons similar to the one used last week" to massacre 49 American citizens celebrating at the nightclub in Orlando.

Obviously, no matter what any American says, it appears that as influential as the NRA is on conservatives, they have not reached the juncture where the Justices on the Supreme Court bend to their demands. Sadly, that is not the case with Republican politicians.

The current Republican leader Donald Trump is the perfect example of a Republican who dutifully obeys the NRA chief La Pierre when it is politically expedient. To hear Trump today is like listening to La Pierre or Ted Nugent calling for more guns in America. But in 2000 in a book, The America We Deserve, Trump endorsed assault weapons ban and railed on the GOP for serving the NRA.

Trump wrote, "The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions."

And, after the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, Trump tweeted, "President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newtown Connecticut."

Remember, President Obama spoke for Trump with an emotional appeal to Republicans for sane gun safety regulations after 20 children were gunned down in cold blood, but since he is running as a Republican for the presidency, Trump is now firmly in the NRA's camp and dutifully parroting their call for more, not fewer, guns.

It would be easy to say that Republicans are blocking any and all gun safety measures due to the will of the American people, except that is just not the case.

Despite what Republicans say, the will of the people is to mostly support more gun safety laws.

According to a new poll from CNN, 92 percent of the American people support expanded background checks and 85 percent support preventing people on the FBI's terror watch list from buying guns at all.

Republicans in Congress do not agree with the overwhelming majority of the people, including 83 percent of gun owners nationally, who support criminal background checks on all sales of firearms.

Obviously no sane American believes selling assault weapons or any weapons for that matter, to suspected terrorists and that is why the Senate vote informs there are either very, very few sane Republicans in the upper chamber or there is another motivation to keep Americans reeling from bloodbaths.

What is more apparent is that it is not the GOP's lack of sanity driving America's gun proliferation, but the "gun lobby's outsized spending and influence in the Republican Congress" preventing gun safety measure enactment.

The 56 Republicans who voted to allow terror suspects unrestricted access to assault weapons received more than $36 million in political campaign donations. It is not the Republicans devotion to more guns and bloody massacres that is the problem; it is, as usual, the money from the NRA.

It is really getting to the point that there is not much to comment on about Republican devotion to the National Rifle Association. It is a fact that they have no respect or devotion to Americans and their safety regardless their claims that blocking gun safety laws protect Americans.

One might even understand their failure to act after a maniacal anti-LGBT madman slaughtered 49 innocent Americans, what with the GOP's hatred of gays, but this adherence to doing the will of the NRA has persisted even after 20 innocent children were slaughtered and nine innocent African American churchgoers were massacred as they worshipped.

Now that Republicans have once again blocked what any American with half a brain would consider common sense gun safety measures, it is obvious that their comments of condolence after each massacre are as phony and worthless as their prayers for the victims.

Prayers and comments, by the way, that are suggested by the NRA to pacify the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, who want gun safety measures enacted. What is particularly telling is that even the conservatives on the Supreme Court did not think banning assault weapons is an abomination.

But then again, the National Rifle Association is not paying the High Court's Justices to do their bidding like they are the Republicans in Congress. We have a Republican Congress that is bought and paid for by the NRA, and that is a fact.

They go against the will of the people (which is what they were elected to do) and do whatever the NRA tells them to do, even after thousands of people are killed with assault rifles and high capacity ammo clips. The least they could do is ban the high capacity ammo clips, but they refuse to even do that. And because of that they should all be voted out of office.

Illinois Republicans Remove Racist Trump Delegate
By: Steve - July 22, 2016 - 9:00am

The Illinois Republican Party on Wednesday revoked the credentials of a Donald Trump delegate from Chicago who has used a social media handle of "whitepride" for "publicly made racist comments and threats of violence."

Lori Gayne, an elected Trump delegate from the city and west suburban 5th Congressional District, was stripped of her Republican National Convention delegate credentials, state GOP Chairman Tim Schneider said.

GOP officials said Gayne posted something on Facebook on the opening day of the convention that included a photo suggesting law enforcement officers were prepared to shoot African-American protesters and used a racial slur.

In May, a Tribune profile of Trump delegates elected in the March 15 primary revealed that Gayne used the handle "whitepride" on social media.

Now think about that, they knew about the racist in May, which is 3 months ago, and yet they waited until now to remove her, which is very telling.

GAYNE: "With all the racism going on today, I'm very proud to be white. Just like black people are proud to be black and now, as white people, whenever we say something critical we're punished as if we're racists. I'm tired of it. I'm very proud," Gayne said then in an interview.

"I'm so angry I don't even feel like I live in America. You can call me a racist. Black Lives Matter? Those people are out of control," she said.

Except when you say the white cops should shoot all the blacks and use the n-word instead of blacks, you are a racist and you deserved to be removed. It's kind of hard to deny you are a racist and be mad that you are called one, when you use a white power handle and say the cops should shoot all the n-words.

You are a racist, you freaking idiot!

Other social media accounts she used, which didn't feature her real name, found her lashing out at members of the Muslim religion.

State Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, co-chair of the Illinois delegation and a major Trump supporter, said he supported free speech but said Gayne had crossed the bounds to be a representative for Illinois Republicans.

"I don't believe her voice is one we want in the party," Cabello said.

And you know it had to be very bad for the Republicans to remove her. This is not a liberal doing it, this is what people in her own party did to her, so she can not claim a liberal was to blame.

O'Reilly Supported Texas Voter ID Law Ruled Discriminatory
By: Steve - July 22, 2016 - 8:00am

A U.S. Appeals Court Finds Texas Voter ID Law Discriminates Against Minority Voters. Now remember that this law was passed by Republicans and supported by Bill O'Reilly. In fact, O'Reilly said the law was great and he had no problem with it.

O'Reilly: "Leftist Objections To Voter ID Laws Are A Crock"

He said more:

"Voter IDs would make fraud more difficult, everybody knows that," he claimed. "But still, the far left objects."

"This is a ruse," O'Reilly declared. "Because the grievance industry wants people to think the Republican Party is suppressing votes, and if you take that issue away they have one less thing to whine about."

"The left denies any voter fraud, which is absurd."

"Enough's enough," he concluded. "There comes a point when craziness has to be rejected. Let's get the pictures on the Social Security cards, stop the nonsense and be a responsible country."

O'Reilly is not only wrong, he is a liar. Because the left does not deny there is voter fraud, they admit there is a little voter fraud, what they say is that it is vert little, less than 1% of votes are fraud.

Among the conservative lies that refuse to die is the idea that there is widespread voter fraud in America. The most recent warning about the scourge of illegal voting came from the Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who recently claimed "the fact is voter fraud is rampant."

That's simply not true, as many new outlets reported. According to Politifact, there were just 85 prosecutions for voter fraud in Texas from 2002 to 2015, and not all of them led to convictions. That's a paltry number considering that more than 42 million ballots were cast in the state's general elections from 2002 to 2014.

The reality is that voter fraud, which includes a range of offenses from impersonating another voter to casting more than one vote, is extraordinarily rare.

And the tsunami of voter ID laws, address requirements, and sloppy purges of voter rolls has made it much harder for Americans, particularly minorities and poor voters, to cast their ballots.

Voter ID laws are all passed by Republicans, not one has been passed by any Democrats or Independents. They are meant to do one thing, suppress votes with the poor, black, and other minorities, and that is a fact. Many Republicans have even admitted that they know most of the poor and the minorities vote for Democrats, so they are trying to make it harder for them to vote.

O'Reilly ignores all that to claim it's just a ruse by the left to make Republicans look bad, proving that he is a right-wing liar, because he is wrong, and the courts have proven it.

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Texas voter ID law has a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and it has ordered a lower court to devise a remedy before the November elections.

The Texas voter ID law requires voters to present an approved ID card before voting. It has been controversial ever since it was passed in 2011. NPR's Pam Fessler explained why earlier this year:

"Part of that has to do with the type of photo IDs the Legislature designated as legitimate. For example, military IDs and concealed handgun carry permits -- they're lawful to vote. But state employee photo IDs and university photo IDs are not.

"So in federal court, the plaintiff's lawyers have argued successfully that the Legislature approved ID cards that were more likely to be held by white Republican voters and excluded IDs that were more likely to be held by minority Democrats."

"Last summer, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit 'ruled unanimously that the law does not equate to a "poll tax" but does discriminate against minority voters,' as the Two-Way reported. After that ruling, the case was put before the full 5th Circuit for review."

This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the 5th Circuit a deadline of July 20 to rule on the case. As NPR's Nina Totenberg has reported, the deadline was motivated by suspicion that the 5th Circuit might have been "dragging its feet" to keep the law in effect until after the election.

And btw folks, here is something else O'Reilly never reported. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the most Conservative Courts in America.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is home to some of the most conservative federal appeals judges in the country. Five of the court's judges once wrote that a man could be executed despite the fact that his lawyer slept through much of his trial.

In 2011, a Fifth Circuit panel strongly suggested that undocumented immigrants have no Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches or seizures.

The court's former chief judge once cut off one of her few liberal colleagues during an oral argument, telling him "I want you to shut up."

Funny how O'Reilly just forgot to mention any of that, yeah, because he does not want you to know any of it.

The idea, Nina says, was that a ruling by Wednesday "would leave enough time for the Supreme Court to decide whether to block the law for the upcoming election."

In its decision Wednesday, the 5th Circuit called for the lower court to change the law in a way that "disrupts voter identification rules for the 2016 election season as little as possible" -- but it said some changes were necessary to keep the law from discriminating against minorities.

Miami Police Shoot Unarmed Black Man With Hands Up
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 11:55am

UPDATE -- Friday July 22, 2016: O'Reilly did not say a word about this shooting on the Friday night Factor show, Bret Baier was the fill-in host and he did not say a word about it either. As usual, O'Reilly and his fill-in host ignored the entire story, while saying the Black Lives Matter group has no reason to complain about out of control police.

UPDATE -- Thursday July 21, 2016: As expected O'Reilly did not say a word about this shooting on the Thursday night Factor show, and most likely never will. Because he is a biased coward who ignores police misconduct.


Now this is getting ridiculous, this time the police in Miami shot an unarmed black man who was laying on the ground with his hands up, while he was telling them he did not have a gun and that he was a Therapist getting his autistic patient who had escaped his group home.

The autistic man had a white toy truck in his hands and was sitting on the ground in the street. The Therapist was telling the police they did not need their guns because neither of them were armed, then they shot him as he was laying on the ground on his back with his hands up in the air.

And of course it was all on video, and it is an outrage. He even told the police it was a toy truck, and who he was, what he was doing, etc. and they shot him anyway. The cop who shot him should be fired and prosecuted. Yes we should support the police, but not when they do insane things like this.

Video released Wednesday shows the moment before North Miami police shot an unarmed, behavioral therapist as he tried to calm a man with autism, according to WSVN.

A U.S. congresswoman who represents the city told reporters she was shocked by the video that shows the scene before the shooting.

"This is like a nightmare to me," U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson said.

"When you shoot a man lying on the ground with his hands up, explaining to you the situation, and you shoot him anyway? Something's not right with this picture," she said.

Still recovering in a hospital bed, Charles Kinsey is now talking about what happened in that cellphone video recorded Monday.

"When I went to the ground, I went to the ground with my hands up," he said. "And I am laying there just like this, telling them again there is no need for firearms."

"As long as I've got my hands up, they're not gonna shoot me, that's what I'm thinking," Kinsey said. "Wow, was I wrong."

Police were responding to a 911 call about a disturbed man walking around with a gun, threatening suicide. Kinsey said that man was one of his patients, Rinaldo, who has autism. The reported gun, he said, was actually a toy truck.

The video shows Kinsey, with both hands held up in the air, telling officers "All he has is a toy truck. A toy truck. I am a behavior therapist at a group home."

Kinsey was simultaneously trying to calm Rinaldo and explain what was happening to the police, he says, when an officer shot him.

"When it hit me I had my hands in the air, and I'm thinking, 'I just got shot!' Kinsey recalled. "I'm saying, 'Sir, why did you shoot me?' and his words to me were, 'I don't know.'"

Kinsey said the officers then handcuffed him and flipped him over as he bled onto the concrete. Kinsey told WSVN that being cuffed after being shot upsets him the most. He says he still experiences flashbacks when he closes his eyes.

The North Miami Police Department issued a statement asking for witnesses, photos and videos of the officer-involved shooting, and called the investigation open and ongoing. The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office is also investigating.

The officer who shot Kinsey has been placed on administrative leave, with pay. If the officer is not fired then the Miami Police department has no credibility and the DOJ should step in and take over.

Dear Bill O'Reilly, this is why black people fear the police. Now show this video on the Factor and report on it, I want to see what you say about the cop that shot that guy. He was 100% innocent, he had no gun, he was a Therapist trying to get an autistic patient back to his group home, and he was shot for no reason while laying on his back with his hands up.

And then after shooting the guy they rolled him over and handcuffed him, are you kidding me. They shot an unarmed man for no reason then handcuff him while he is bleeding to death, give me a break, that is an outrage, and anyone who looks at the video should be upset and disturbed at what they see. And of course not all cops are bad, but when you see things like this is makes them all look bad.

How much is this going to cost the taxpayers, because he already has a lawyer and he is going to get a lot of taxpayer money for that cop shooting him. Taxpayer money, so every person who pays taxes should be mad at what the cop did. Talk about that O'Reilly, you are always crying about high taxes, well police shooting settlements are part of why taxes are so high, some cities pay millions in settlements every year, and O'Reilly says nothing about it.

What say you O'REILLY! Defend that, I dare you. If you do not support that rogue trigger happy cop being fired, you have zero credibility, none, and you should resign as a so-called journalist. The cop that shot him has no business being a cop, or a gun for that matter, he even told the guy he did not know why he shot him.

CNN & Fox News Are Simply A Joke
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 11:50am

I usually do not watch CNN or Fox News, except for watching O'Reilly to write about him. But just for fun I turned to CNN and watched it for 5 or 10 minutes, then I watched Fox for 5 or 10 minutes, and it was like watching the exact same thing, both of them were almost a mirror of each other.

The only difference is Fox is a little more far-right than CNN, but not much, it's like Fox and Fox Lite.

They both kept saying tonight is the big night for Trump, and how it is his make or break speech that will decide if he is presidential, etc.

Are you freaking kidding me, do these corporate right-wing stooges actually believe that garbage?

They act as if Trump can read a written speech off a teleprompter he is qualified to be the President. It's laughable, because the speech is written by someone else, and he will simply be reading it off a teleprompter.

And all the stooges at Fox and CNN will praise him for it and say how great he did. Even after they slammed Democrats for using teleprompters, they will say nothing about Trump doing it. It's a joke, Trump is a racist idiot who has no policies and no plans, he is just lying about everything to try and get elected, and he is a racist fool that only whites are going to vote for, they even admit it.

And if this fool even comes close to the White House we will be the laughing stock of the world. He needs to go down hard, and get crushed by Hillary, and I am betting he does.

Insane O'Reilly Thinks Trump Can Beat Clinton With White Votes Only
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 11:30am

Which is just ridiculous, because what O'Reilly failed to take into account is that a lot of those white voters are going to vote for Hillary Clinton, including me, and millions of white Democrats. So Trump can not win with just the white vote, and even Chris Wallace told O'Reilly where the flaw was in his argument.

O'Reilly said this:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): For Donald Trump to win, he has to turn out the white vote in great numbers. If he does that, he can live with 20 percent or less of the minority vote. And it's obvious at this convention and by the Trump strategy itself that his campaign believes white voters will put him in the White House.

All of this sounds kind of ominous, that you have an election pitting whites against minorities. And Talking Points wishes that were not the case but it is. This time around, many white voters feel aggrieved, feel that the Obama administration is not looking out for them. That's what Laura Ingraham is talking about. Thus, the rise of Donald Trump.


And that my friends is a lie, because Trump can not win with just the white vote. Bill O'Reilly has no clue what he is talking about. For Trump to with with the white vote only, he would have to get about 70% of all the white vote, which is not possible.

Romney got 59% of the white vote and he got crushed by Obama in the electoral college 330 to 206. It was not even close, and Trump can not win unless he gets at least 40% of the Latino vote, so 20% of the minority vote and 60% of the white vote will not get the job done for Trump.

Not to mention a lot of whites voted for Romney because they are racists and Obama was black, Clinton is white and she will get more white votes than Obama did, so Trump is in big trouble.

Not to mention this, the rise of Trump is because the Republican party had a revolt over the elected officials they have now. It is true they do not like Obama, but Trump won the Republican primary from Republican voters, not because they hate Obama, because they do not like what their own party members in Congress etc. are doing, it was a party revolt. O'Reilly acts like Obama was to blame for the rise of Trump, which is a lie.

O'Reilly is so far in the tank for Trump he can not see or think straight, and it is pathetic.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Received Special Guest Credential At RNC
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 11:00am

This right-wing nut thinks the U.S. Government was to blame for the 9-11 terrorist attacks, And Trump gave him special credentials to his convention.

Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist radio host and 9/11 Truth leader who has been courted by Donald Trump's presidential campaign, has reportedly been awarded with a "special guest" credential at the Republican National Convention.

David Corn spotted Jones entering the arena, and tweeted this:

Just saw Alex Jones enter the arena with a special guest credential. That is all you need to know about this convention. #RNCinCLE

- David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 20, 2016

Jones helped launch the conspiracy that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government and has also claimed that the government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, and the mass shootings in Aurora, CO, and Sandy Hook Elementary School, among other tragedies.

In other words, the guy is a freaking lunatic. But Donald Trump loves him so much he gave him special credentials to the RNC convention.

Trump has courted Jones and his audience, appearing on Jones show in December and praising his amazing reputation. Key Trump ally Roger Stone regularly appears on Jones program.

In turn, Jones has heavily promoted Trump's campaign; most recently, Jones spoke at Stone's July 18 "America First Unity Rally," which was attended by Jones fans who noted the radio host's key role in bringing them to support the GOP nominee.

Krauthammer Said It Looks Bad Calling For Clinton To Be Jailed
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 10:00am

Charles Krauthammer: RNC Delegates Chanting "Lock Her Up" Is "Not A Good Way To Present The Party"

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I would point out that yesterday, during the speech of Christie, a crowd of several thousand people here -- we were here -- began shouting about Hillary Clinton, "lock her up."

Now, I can understand you want to rally the base, but if you're trying to appeal to the 17 remaining Americans who are undecided, that's not the way you want to go. If you're going to unite the party and unite the country, which is what people are looking for, that is not a good way to present the party.

BRET BAIER (HOST): But Charles, let me say, in Philadelphia, don't you expect there's going to be a whole slew of speakers who go directly after Donald Trump and every aspect of Donald Trump?

KRAUTHAMMER: Of course they will. But I don't know that I've ever seen a crowd of this size calling for the other side's presidential candidate to be jailed. Now I will agree that some of that chanting was sort of good-natured, over the top stuff that was done sort of half-heartedly.

But there was some malice in that, and I think that's one thing. With the execution thing, there are a lot of -- and we saw it in a lot of the Trump rallies. It's something the Trump campaign has to work on to try to diminish or to tamp down rather than to incite it because --

BAIER: Understood.

KRAUTHAMMER: It just looks bad for them.

Cruz Wife Led Out By Security After Ted Does Not Endorse Trump
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 9:00am

CLEVELAND - Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) saw his big moment at the Republican National Convention drowned out by thunderous boos on Wednesday night as he declined to endorse his former foe Donald Trump for president.

The speech had started with a diametrically different tone. Cruz came out to a hero's welcome, and earned sustained applause as he laid out a conservative case for governance.

But the crowd, led by the New York delegation, grew notably restless as the speech went on and Cruz refused to mention Trump's name. Cruz acknowledged them - "I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation" - but kept soldiering on, a slight smirk on his face.

The restlessness turned to outright jeers when Cruz told the crowd to "vote your conscience" - a phrase that has been adopted by the group of Republicans who had asked delegates to not coronate Trump as the nominee. And when he declared that Republicans are "fighting, not for one particular candidate or one campaign," the boos began.

Trump's family looked on from their box seats, they were not happy and not applauding.

As the speech entered its closing stages, Cruz had completely lost the crowd. Screams of endorse came from the rafters. John Antoniello, the Chairman of the Staten Island GOP, helped lead them.

If the situation wasn't chaotic enough, it rose a level higher in that moment. In an act of pure showmanship, the room's eyes turned back to that Trump booth. The candidate had perfectly timed his entrance to take away attention from his former primary foe.

Cruz had been upstaged while standing on the stage.

Much of Wednesday night's drama shouldn't have come as a surprise. Over the course of the week at the Republican National Convention, one of the more entertaining side shows has been the battle among Republican elites to position themselves for the 2020 election. And no politician has been on the receiving end of more of that 2020 chatter - facilitated, in part, by his top adviser - than Cruz.

By letting it be known early on that he would not formally endorse, Cruz also gave the Trump campaign plenty of time to prepare.

"He had an opportunity to blow the roof off the place, and he blew it," said Carl Paladino, the Buffalo real estate developer who is one of Trump's top backers in the state.

Peter Kalikow, the former owner of the New York Post and New York delegate, said he wasn't surprised that Cruz didn't endorse Trump.

Bill O'Reilly Slammed Montel Williams On The Factor
By: Steve - July 21, 2016 - 8:00am

O'Reilly said Montel Williams refused to do his show, after he agreed to do it. So then O'Reilly called him a coward and banned him from the show.

Montel said this on his twitter page:

Montel Williams:

I'll respond to O'Reilly's "version" of events shortly. Let's say I see it differently.

Montel Williams:

Nothing Bill O'Reilly said about me tonight was accurate. Calling me a coward when he hasn't served is ridiculous and unprofessional.

Montel Williams:

Oh I showed up - Bill has an serious honest problem.

Montel Williams:

Let's just say @oreillyfactor calling me a coward is amusing. A guy who never served a day in his life...

Montel Williams:

Bill calling me a coward is laughable. The guy who didn't serve but lied about his war reporting?

Montel Williams:

My understanding of the segment was diff than theirs, it wasn't resolved, left, bill fell apart

Montel Williams:

Let's get over Bill's untruth there - I showed up - he in fact saw me. I left after a bait and switch was pulled

Jason Watkins:

He said O'Reilly told him the topic was one thing, then changed it at the last minute. That's shady.

Williams took to Periscope to fire back. And, wow:

"The word coward is usually used on people who have done most of the things that you've done, like embellishing lies about your credentials as a journalist, like the fact that your own daughter in a testimony in a court case said that you dragged your ex-wife down a flight of stairs. You wanna talk about coward, homeboy? We know who the coward is."

Montel hammered O'Reilly on Periscope, and it was great. If you want to see it just go to the Montel Williams twitter page. He laid into O'Reilly like nobody I have ever seen, it was a 2 minute takedown of the dishonest O'Reilly explaining exactly what O'Reilly did and why he left.

Montel explained in the two-minute video that he initially agreed to be on "The O'Reilly Factor," but changed his mind when producers switched topics on him at the last minute.

"This is the first time I have not done an interview that I was scheduled to do, probably in the last five years," he said. "That does not bring O'Reilly's show to a screeching halt. It should not have even affected Bill."

His message then transitioned into a heated rebuttal of the "cowardly" label, insisting that O'Reilly is the real coward.

Referencing the scandals that have marked O'Reilly's career, including allegations of domestic abuse raised during his custody battle, Williams said "We know who the coward is."

"You want to talk about coward? That's what a coward truly is, somebody who's going to call somebody a name on air, and not even to their face. I'm calling you one now, so the whole world can see it." "Leave me alone," he said. "You don't want me on your show anymore? I don't care."

O'Reilly calling him a coward for refusing to do his lame right-wing cable news show is pathetic, especially when Montel Williams is a 24 year veteran of the military, and O'Reilly dodged the draft 2 times, one time to go to school in England, and another time he took a teaching job to avoid serving.

Delegates Say Their Votes Were Changed Against Their Will To Nominate Trump
By: Steve - July 20, 2016 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it, while trying to cover for Trump by ignoring it and telling people Trump can win in November. Which is the same thing he said about Romney, before he got crushed 330 to 206.

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump officially became the Republican Party's presidential nominee. But the moment that should have signified party unity was broken by shouts of dissent and demands for a recount as multiple delegations had their votes changed against their will.

In the delegation from Washington, D.C., ten were assigned to support Rubio and nine to Kasich, based on how D.C. Republicans voted in the primary. But the RNC overruled them, and assigned all 19 votes to Trump.

Minutes after the vote, first-time D.C. delegate Kris Hammond told said he felt insulted and excluded by his party and its nominee.

"How is Trump going to listen to us if he's elected president, if he's not listening to us now?" he fumed. "He's not allowing dissent. He's not going to allow anything other than subservience to Donald Trump."

"I am not surprised," Hammond said of the surprise switch. "It has reinforced my previous conception that you cannot trust this party to do the honorable thing and act in a responsible manner."

"We were told all along that this is not the way the rules would be interpreted," D.C. delegate Chip Nottingham added. "To just be insulted like that is outrageous. The Trump campaign didn't need our 19 votes. They didn't ask for our 19 votes. They never earned them."

Three states also had their votes changed to back Trump against the will of the delegates, using provisions in the party rules of those states. But some, including Alaska, rose up in protest, demanding a recount.

"I was very unhappy when they announced our vote," Cruz delegate Larry DeVilbiss from Palmer, Alaska said. "Back in our state it looks tacky because we had a preferential poll, and we had our delegation proportionate to all those votes. I'm upset. I know voters will be upset."

After an extended musical interlude, RNC chairman Reince Priebus overruled them, and the nomination of Trump proceeded.

But some delegates refused to go down quietly. Hammond, a civil rights attorney, said he is considering resigning from the local Republican Party Committee and casting a protest vote for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson. He said that he wants his fellow DC Republicans to join him.

"This is Donald Trump and the Republican Party giving the District of Columbia a big middle finger," he said. "Why would I pledge loyalty to someone who did not respect me? I think if Gary Johnson can defeat Donald Trump in the District of Columbia, that will be a slap in the face. He will find out that he cannot disrespect DC voters."

Nottingham, a platform committee member, said he felt "not good" about the document.

"I voted against it every step of the way," he said. "We would prefer that the national party not micromanage us. It's unnecessary."

As some top Republican strategists are warning, Hammond said he fears the Republican Party will damage itself in the long term by supporting Trump in the short term. He compared attending the GOP convention to "trying to talk an old friend out of committing suicide."

The Republican Convention Is So Bad Even Trump Is Not Watching
By: Steve - July 20, 2016 - 10:00am

Instead of watching the convention Trump called into Fox News to do a live interview with Bill O'Reilly. While the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith was speaking live at the Republican convention, Donald Trump showed how much he cared by hijacking his own convention and called into Fox News.

Donald Trump loves to talk about how much he cares about what happened in Benghazi, and how Hillary Clinton got four Americans killed, but while the mother of one of the four Americans who was killed in Benghazi, Patrica Smith, spoke to the Republican convention, Donald Trump called Fox News to talk to Bill O'Reilly.

I guess Trump's name was not being mentioned enough, so he did a phone interview to compete with his own presidential convention.

The highlight of Trump's Fox interview was his lie that Republicans held the convention in Cleveland because he wanted it in Ohio.

The truth is that Republicans selected Cleveland as the location of the convention in 2014, which was a year before Trump announced that he was running for president.

The Benghazi Truthers that Trump sent out on stage have been a sad collection of broken people whose speaking slots reeked of cynical exploitation. Donald Trump openly competed for airtime with his convention, because his ego is so big that he can't handle not being the center of attention.

The Trump convention has been a blatant attempt to scare people into voting for him. It has also been so boring and bad that even Donald Trump is not watching it.

The RNC Delegate Revolt O'Reilly & Fox News Ignored
By: Steve - July 20, 2016 - 9:00am

There was a delegate revolt at the Republican convention, but you would not know it if you watch the O'Reilly Factor or the Fox News Network, because they ignored all of it.

Boos, screams of no, and cries of shame rang throughout the Republican National Convention's arena Monday afternoon as party leaders rejected demands from at least ten states to allow a vote on the rules that bind delegates to vote for Donald Trump.

The delegates leading the eleventh-hour rebellion, including Colorado's Kendal Unruh, were furious. She said minutes after the vote that she felt cheated by her own party and its nominee.

'The fact that Donald Trump ran on a platform of populism and listening to will of the people...and the very first course of action he could take he squash the grassroots, to line up with the establishment, and become the establishment, be the party boss, and make sure that he thwarted the will of the people, this does not bode well for the party," she said.

Unruh has for months led a movement to unbind delegates and allow them to vote for a candidate other than Trump. Her attempts to win this freedom during the Rules Committee's negotiations last week went down in flames, so she and other Republicans opposed to Trump scrambled Monday to force a floor fight.

Anti-Trump delegates claimed they had enough signatures to force a roll call vote on the rules, thanks to support from Colorado, Washington state, Utah, Minnesota, Wyoming, Maine, Iowa, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

But Deputy RNC Committee Chair Steve Womack called instead for a voice vote -- asking delegates to shout out yea or nay on adopting the rules without changes. A well-organized group of dissenters screamed out in protest, drowning out the nays. But Womack ignored the clamor and announced from the podium, "The ayes have it."

The room immediately erupted in chaos. Many delegates marched out of the hall. Others booed and chanted, Shame!

The voice vote is a sham, it's done when they know they would not win in a real vote. They call for a aye or ney, and even if the neys win they just say the ayes have it, which is exactly what they did, and why they were so mad.

Womack fled the stage, then returned and held a second voice vote that he also called for the ayes. He then announced that several states had withdrawn their support for opening up the rules to a roll call vote -- a decision that some delegates attributed to intimidation tactics from the RNC and Trump loyalists.

"We had Trump people looking over our delegates shoulders taking pictures of their texts," Unruh said. "We had Trump delegates that were standing in front of the microphones to deny us access. You see the strong arm tactics. You have the coercion."

Virginia delegate Tommy Valentine, a 22-year old first-time convention attendee, said that representatives from the Trump campaign tried to retaliate against him for favoring a roll call vote.

"I had one Trump staffer who came to me and said, 'When Trump becomes president, he will remember,'" adding that the Trump campaign staff also made a vague mention of Virginia's tax dollars. "I said, 'Are you threatening me or are you threatening Virginia?' And he said, 'No, no that's not what I meant.'"

Valentine said he watched the same staffers attempt to strong-arm others. "They were going around to the delegates who would sign the documents intimidating them and telling them to take their names off it," he said.

When the effort to force a roll call vote failed and convention leaders attempted to move on, former Virginia Attorney General and delegate Ken Cuccinelli threw his credentials on the ground in frustration. He said he wanted to know which states withdrew their support from the petition effort and why.

"Why wouldn't they name the states?" he asked angrily.

Convention leaders then asked all 2,000-plus delegates to stand and pose for a group photo as cameras floated over the massive stadium. But the moment that should have symbolized the party's unity was broken by more chanting from the delegates who felt they were denied a voice. Some began chanting, roll call vote!

During the group picture, Valentine turned his back on the camera. "I'm not going to smile for the stupid picture," he said. "I'm an elected official, sent here by my district, and they just ignored me."

Valentine said that the rejection of the vote makes him question his role in the nominating process.

"These people just broke parliamentary procedures, their own rules," he said angrily, pointing to the arena stage. "Why should I even come to the convention? Why should I come tomorrow? Why should I come Wednesday? Why should I come Thursday?"

As one of the youngest delegates on the floor, Valentine noted that the rejection of the vote hurts the party's chances with young people. "How are we going to recruit young people when we tell them: your voice doesn't matter?"

Despite their defeat on the floor on Monday, Unruh and other anti-Trump delegates are vowing to fight on.

"This entire system is rigged to force the vote for Donald Trump," she said. "If he had allowed a free process, a fair process, and earned the vote fair and square, you wouldn't have this division in the party. This is what's sad: that the RNC doesn't want chaos in the party but then they create the chaos."

Valentine, who represents a district in Northern Virginia, said the chaos shows how little unity exists in the Republican Party going into the general election.

"If the Trump campaign were so sure about unity, they shouldn't be afraid of a roll call vote," Valentine said.

As the chaos erupted on the floor of the Republican National Convention following a voice vote over whether or not delegates would be free to vote on the conventions rules, Fox News first ignored it and then criticized other media outlets for reporting on it.

In what was billed as the last stand for the Stop Trump movement, a voice vote was taken to adopt rules drafted by the RNC rules committee. Despite chaos on the floor, it was ruled that "the ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to," a ruling which was denounced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and other anti-Trump conservatives.

While MSNBC and CNN were covering the scene from the RNC, Fox host Stuart Varney was attacking The Washington Post for its reporting. When the network finally turned to the uproar, Varney used it to attack other media outlets for reporting on the "commotion."

Fox CEO Roger Ailes Has Until August 1 To Resign Or Be Fired
By: Steve - July 20, 2016 - 8:00am

Parent company 21st Century Fox has given Fox News CEO Roger Ailes a deadline of August 1 to resign or be fired in light of its investigation into his alleged sexual harassment.

Ailes has been under fire since July 6, when former Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson filed a lawsuit against him alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. As other women have come forward to levy similar accusations against Ailes, the network's hosts and anchors -- along with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly -- have rallied around him.

Yesterday, Sherman reported that his sources say Rupert Murdoch and his sons Lachlan and James, the company's leaders, had decided to give him the choice to resign or be fired. Today, Sherman reports that the deadline for that offer is August 1, and that it is in part triggered by allegations from Fox anchor Megyn Kelly that Ailes had sexually harassed her as well. From Sherman's report:

According to two sources briefed on parent company 21st Century Fox's outside probe of the Fox News executive, led by New York-based law firm Paul, Weiss, Kelly has told investigators that Ailes made unwanted sexual advances towards her about ten years ago when she was a young correspondent at Fox. Kelly, according to the sources, has described her harassment by Ailes in detail.

Kelly's comments to investigators might explain why the Murdochs are moving so quickly to oust Ailes. As New York reported yesterday, Rupert and sons James and Lachlan, the three top executives at 21st Century Fox, have, according to multiple sources, decided that Ailes needs to be removed.

Kelly, who has become something of a feminist icon thanks to her tangles with GOP nominee Donald Trump, is seen by many inside Fox as the future of the network. She's currently in contract negotiations.

According to two sources, yesterday afternoon lawyers for 21st Century Fox gave Ailes a deadline of August 1st to resign or face being fired for cause. Ailes's legal team, which now includes Susan Estrich, former campaign manager for Michael Dukakis, has yet to respond to the offer. Ailes has also received advice on strategy from Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani, sources say.

Ryan Selfie Shows The Future Of The Republican Party
By: Steve - July 19, 2016 - 11:30am

The top Republican in the country Paul Ryan took what he thought was a great selfie, until someone noticed something, everyone in the photo is white. This is the future of the Republican party folks, and it is all white.

The photo is Paul Ryan with more than 100 young Republicans, and not one Black, Mexican, Asian, or anyone of color is in the photo.

Ryan loves to pretend that the GOP does not have a race problem. The 2012 autopsy report from the spectacular loss of the Romney/Ryan ticket to President Obama and Vice President Biden had a lot of so-called minority outreach goals. The problem is, they ignored the report because their far-right base is all right-wing loons, so they just go with what the base wants.

Clearly, none of those goals have been accomplished. After all, the current GOP standard-bearer, Donald Trump, has run a campaign that is steeped in racism. He kicked off his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, he has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, has called women fat pigs and dogs, and accused Fox host and debate moderator Megyn Kelly of being menstrual when called out on this, and a whole host of other things that play to the bigotry that is so inherent in the current incarnation of the GOP.

Here is the photo:

Women For Trump Event Draws About 30 People
By: Steve - July 19, 2016 - 11:00am

And quite a few of them were journalists who were there to cover the event, the actual number of women who showed up was far less than 30, more like 15 or so.

The Donald Trump campaign plans to use the Republican National Convention to change his image with undecided female voters.

But he has his work cut out for him if the attendance at a "Women Vote Trump" event held Monday in Cleveland is any indication.

Two journalists covering the event pointed out how poorly attended the event was - bad news for a candidate whose favorite word is "huge."

Laurie Penny, a British freelance journalist, posted a photo of the audience featuring lots of empty seats.

The photos show about 15 women in the audience, and about a hundred empty seats.

Journalist Oliver Laughland, who was there tweeted this:

Q&A now happening, but crowd so small the panel are asking themselves most of the questions.

Amy Kremer, the co-founder of Women for Trump, tried to put the best spin on the low turnout.

"I knew I was going to take a beating and a lashing for supporting Donald Trump," she said defiantly from behind a lectern, according to "From other conservatives! But who are you to judge me?"

Jezebel estimated there were 30 people in attendance, including journalists.

By comparison, an anti-Trump rally held Sunday that asked 100 women to parade in the nude as a protest against Trump attracted more than 1,800 willing volunteers.

The Trump campaign hopes to improve the candidate's numbers with women this week by mellowing out his often heated rhetoric, spotlighting his family, especially daughter Ivanka, and focusing on security.

Whether it works will depend on whether women voters forget the many inflammatory and vile things he's made about their gender, many of which have been helpfully collected in the following video.

The First Trump/Pence Interview Was A Total Clown Show
By: Steve - July 19, 2016 - 10:00am

On Sunday, Donald Trump and Mike Pence appeared on 60 Minutes in their first joint interview since it was announced that the Indiana governor was going to be Trump’s running mate, and my God was it a train wreck.

It was one of the most awkward things I have ever seen. The Trump/Pence team might rank up there with McCain/Palin as one of the most odd couples we've ever had in politics. I know it's tough for many folks reading this to sit through any sort of Trump speech or interview, but I would encourage everyone to watch this disaster.

One of the first insane moments came when Trump said he was going to declare war on ISIS, but he would only send very few troops in on the ground. Ignoring the fact that Congress declares war - not the president - and he apparently doesn't understand that if you don't send in enough ground forces to get the job done, our troops are going to get stretched thin, fatigued - and slaughtered.

This was classic Trump trying to talk big about ISIS, while proving that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

When the war in Iraq was brought up, Leslie Stahl mentioned the fact that Pence actually voted for the war when he was a member of Congress.

"I don't care," Trump said.

"What do you mean you don't care?," Stahl responded.

"It was a long time ago," he replied. "And they were also mislead."

Yeah, they were mislead, by the Bush administration. Funny how he forgot to mention that, or that he has said Iraq was a massive mistake and anyone who voted for it was wrong.

Stahl, obviously taken back by Trump's remarks, then reminded him that he had used Hillary Clinton's vote on Iraq frequently throughout his campaign as a sign of her bad judgement.

At which point he essentially said that Pence was allowed to make that mistake but Hillary wasn't.

You can't make this stuff up. It's like arguing with a 5 year old child, it makes no sense and he thinks he always wins.

When religion was brought up, Trump claimed that he's religious because he won the evangelical vote. By that logic, since he's winning the white supremacist vote, (using his own logic) that means he's also a racist.

Leslie Stahl then asked Pence (who's spoken out against negative campaigning) what she thought of Trump's negative attacks and name calling. Pence tried to provide a half-assed non-answer to her question, only to have Trump cut him off (as he did throughout this entire interview) to provide his own non-answer to her question.

At one point, when Pence was asked whether or not he disagreed with comments Trump made where he said he didn't think Sen. John McCain was a war hero, Trump literally said to the Indiana governor, "You could say yes. That's okay. On that one you could say yes. It's fine."

Really? Are you kidding me? I have never seen anything like this where a presidential candidate was basically telling his running mate that it was okay if they answered a question honestly. Not only that, but despite telling him it was alright for him to be honest about that question - he never let Pence actually answer.

Stahl then brought up the fact that Mike Pence has been very pro-trade agreements, including the TPP, while Trump has based a large part of his campaigning saying that these agreements represent a rape of our country.

At which point both men tried to do what they had done many times throughout this interview and dance around their obvious differences in policy beliefs, with both men claiming that Trump isn't against free trade, he just wants better deals.

When the topic of torture was brought up, Pence was asked whether or not he backs Trump's support of waterboarding and a hell of a lot more. He more or less refused to provide a direct answer as to whether or not he supports torture. A simple question turned into a rather incoherent word salad of the Indiana governor seemingly doing anything and everything he could to not provide a yes or no answer to a direct question.

Perhaps the best part of this whole interview occurred when Stahl said that most people don't view Trump as a humble man. He disputed this point, claiming he is actually quite humble.

"I think I am, actually, humble," Trump replied. "I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."

Yeah, the guy who constantly brags about himself, his success, his supposed wealth and has his name written all over practically everything he owns stated, with a straight face, that he's actually a very humble person, give me a break, Trump can not even spell humble.

This interview was one of the most awkward, unintentionally comical and ridiculous things I have ever watched. Normally sitting through an interview with Donald Trump would make my skin crawl, but this thing was so bizarre that it was actually entertaining.

These two might go down as one of the most disastrous presidential tickets in U.S. history.

Heilemann: Gingrich's Call To Test American Muslims Faith Insane
By: Steve - July 19, 2016 - 9:00am

Heilemann: "I Believe That Violates At Least Three Parts Of The U.S. Constitution"

And Gingrich knows it, he just said it to the far-right base to send them a message that they are with them, even though it's unconstitutional.

Partial transcript:

JOHN HEILEMANN (CO-HOST): Can we take a moment though just to pause on the thing President Obama was criticizing there in a fairly direct way, which was Newt Gingrich's comments last night, which were some of the most outrageous things I have heard a presidential candidate say in a long time. They're more outrageous than the things Trump has proposed. They violate --

MARK HALPERIN (CO-HOST): Outrageous that Gingrich walked it back a bit today.

HEILEMANN: He started out last night basically saying anyone of the Muslim belief should be rounded up, questioned, we should find out if they believe in Sharia law, and if they do we have to deport them.

I believe that violates at least three parts of the U.S. Constitution -- and that he said that it should be a felony for us to look at websites that have information about Al Qaeda or about ISIS on them. That would basically put most of the CIA and a fair number of journalists in jail, too. Insane. Insane.

HALPERIN: Gingrich put on display why a lot of people, including me, thought putting him on the ticket would have risked having the running mate be the story more often than the top of the ticket.

Blacks Protesting Would Be A Crime In The Trump Administration
By: Steve - July 19, 2016 - 8:00am

O'Reilly Pushes Trump To Say He'd Single Out Black Lives Matter For Criminal Charges If Elected

Bill O'Reilly: Would You "Order The Attorney General To Look Into" Black Lives Matter "For Possible Charges?"

Charges? For what? Protesting while black. It's ridiculous, and only something two old white racits would even think of, all they do is protest police abuse, and that is not a crime idiots.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): At the top of the broadcast we were discussing the terrible police assassinations. I think it's domestic terrorism. And whether the Republican Party is going to make that issue, killing police officers, a campaign issue. Will you do that?

DONALD TRUMP: Of course. It's a big issue. It's a horrible issue. And it's going to be a very important one. It's called law and order. We want law and order. And that's going to be one of my big issues and always has been.

O'REILLY: What about the Black Lives Matter movement? Will they be singled out as a provocateur in this terrible situation?

TRUMP: Well, you see them marching and you see them on occasion, at least, I have seen it, where they are essentially calling death to the police. And that's not acceptable whether you like them or don't like them, that, Bill, is not acceptable. But I have seen it and you have seen it.

O'REILLY: When you say it's not acceptable, if you are elected president, what can you do about a group like that?

TRUMP: Well I think you have to look into it very seriously because people get themselves into big jams for saying a lot less than that. I have seen them marching down the street essentially calling death to the police. And I think we're going to have to look into that. Especially in light of what is happening with these maniacs going and shooting our police.

O'REILLY: When you say look into it, there is a constitutional right, of course, to freedom of assembly and free speech. Are you saying that you would order the attorney general to look into it for possible charges?

TRUMP: When you see something like that taking place, that's really a threat, if you think about it. And when you see something like that taking place, we are going to have to, perhaps, talk with the attorney general about it or do something. But, at a minimum, we're going to have to be watching. Because that's really bad stuff and it's happened more than once.

O'REILLY: Do you believe the group, Black Lives Matter, is a fuse-lighter in the assassinations of these police officers?

TRUMP: Well, certainly in certain instances they are. And they certainly have ignited people and you see that. You see that all over. And I think it's a very, very serious situation and we just can't let it happen. Now, everybody is free to say what you want to say up to a point. But when you are calling death to police and to kill the police, essentially, which is what they said, that's a real problem, Bill. That's a real big problem.

Bill O'Reilly Is A Big Hypocrite
By: Steve - July 18, 2016 - 11:30am

When the abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered by a white right-wing pro-life loon, some people partly blamed O'Reilly and other Republicans in the media who had spent months slamming Tiller on the air. O'Reilly and others called him Tiller the baby Killer over and over. O'Reilly even said there was a "special place in hell" for him.

O'Reilly repeatedly referred to Dr. Tiller in his own words as "Tiller the baby killer," and as "Dr. Killer," a fact he later denied. In a 2006 anti-Tiller rant on his radio show, O'Reilly said, "And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech. But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn't get worse."

In March 2009, after Tiller was acquitted of charges of performing illegal late-term abortions, O'Reilly said that Tiller was "acquitted today of murdering babies, there's got to be a special place in hell for this guy." In May of that year, Tiller was assassinated by an anti-abortion gunman while attending a service at his Kansas church. Weeks later, O'Reilly accused then-Salon editor Joan Walsh of having "blood on her hands" for defending Tiller, whose practice he described as "an abortion mill."

O'Reilly exploited the shooting of doctor Tiller to defend his previous attacks on him, claiming that after Tiller's assassination "some far-left loons blamed me. The truth is, I reported accurately on Tiller."

O'Reilly also laughingly said he never called him tiller the baby killer, he said he was simply reporting what other people said about him, and what they were calling him. Even though it was documented that O'Reilly said "tiller the baby killer" about 14 times over a 12 month period.

Basically O'Reilly said do not blame him, or anyone who called him tiller the baby killer, even though he knew it was making people mad at the doctor and they also found some of O'Reillys books at the killers house, they also knew he was a regular Fox News viewer.

But O'Reilly said he was not to blame at all, so he had nothing to do with the murder, the shooter id the only one to blame, not the pro-life groups he was in, nobody but the shooter.

So we move forward to today, cops are shot and killed by blacks who are mad at the police. Does O'Reilly blame the shooter, and the shooter alone, as he did after doctor Tiller was killed. Hell no, he blames Obama, Black Lives Matter, liberals, and on and on, he blames everyone but the shooter.

It's a massive double standard and total hypocrisy. When a white pro-life nut kills an abortion doctor, O'Reilly blames the shooter and nobody else. But when a black man kills some cops, O'Reilly blames everyone but the shooter. He even called Black Lives Matter a terrorist group, which is just insane.

And btw, when the Tea Party was formed after Obama took office in 2009, which is mostly a bunch of white Republican racists, O'Reilly promoted them and praised them. He said they were great Americans, when they held protests O'Reilly reported on them and talked about how great they are and how they have the right to protest.

But when blacks protest something, or liberals, O'Reilly calls them a bunch of dirty hippies or a terrorist group. He does not promote or praise them, he slams them and calls them un-American. The bias is stunning, and O'Reilly is a joke.

Fox News Says Only White People Can Objectively Report the News
By: Steve - July 18, 2016 - 11:00am

When Brit Hume attacked President Obama last week by saying, "The president has consistently chosen to see things through the eyes of an aggrieved black activist rather than of a president of all the people," he was wrong.

First of all, for suggesting that in Fox News Whitesplaining style, that only white people can see things objectively, and secondly, for proving his own lack of objectivity by favoring talking points over observable and documented fact.

Hume's straight man, Bret Baier, set the stage on Monday's Special Report with Bret Baier.
BRET BAIER (HOST): The premise for the recent protest is that it is open season on African-Americans by police. But do the facts back that up? Senior political analyst Brit Hume is in Washington tonight. Good evening, Brit.

BRIT HUME: Hi there, Bret. In Dallas, Tuesday, President Obama will be trying to calm racial tensions that his own behavior has done much to aggravate. From his denunciation of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police as acting, quote, stupidly in the arrest of black Harvard law professor Henry Lewis Gates -- they didn't, to his assertion that the motives of the Dallas cop killer are unclear, they aren't.

The president has consistently chosen to see things through the eyes of an aggrieved black activist rather than of a president of all the people. He has not failed to speak out whenever a black is killed by a white police officer, but has said next to nothing about the continuing slaughter of blacks by other blacks in the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities.

He has made his sympathy for the Black Lives Matter movement obvious, and never mind that the whole premise of the movement seems to be fallacious.
The idea that unless you are white, you can't see things objectively, is insane and racist.

After all, what are most Republicans these days but activists? Being an activist is okay as long as it's not a black activist? In fact, conservative and far-right activists are promoted and seen as great Americans by Hume, O'Reilly, and all of Fox News. The only activists they do not like are the ones they do not agree with politically.

Let's not forget that Fox News audience is overwhelmingly conservative and white. It is more than glaringly obvious that there is some highly subjective reporting going on there. We have to leave "reporting" in quotation marks because it's not really reporting when most of it is invented by white people for white people.

Dana Bash: Pence Is Twisting Himself Into A Pretzel Changing His Positions
By: Steve - July 18, 2016 - 10:00am

Partial transcript from CNN's Newsroom:

GLORIA BORGER: I have to say, Wolf, look, if you look at the picture today, the picture was of, as we were talking about earlier, an arranged marriage, which Donald Trump really admitted and openly said, "I'm an outsider."

WOLF BLITZER (HOST): In a speech introducing his vice presidential running mate you don't often hear the presidential nominee being as honest and candid as he was right there.

BORGER: He eventually got around to praising Mike Pence's record in Indiana, but this is the reason he chose him. So it clearly wasn't for love. It wasn't because they had a long-standing relationship. It is because he knew that this is something he needed and he had been convinced of that and did it.

Now I think that what we're going to see are questions -- and I'm sure -- and this does give Hillary Clinton an opening. On the one hand Pence balances this ticket to a great degree.

But on the other hand, Pence is going to be asked over and over again by not only Democrats but by voters, "How can you change your mind on everything from trade to the Muslim ban, the war in Iraq," you know, down the entire list.

We saw him start to do that last night. But I think it may dog him a little bit.

DANA BASH: I agree, and can I saw something about that? Four years ago is a perfect example of two candidates on the same ticket, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who didn't agree on everything.

The biggest difference was on immigration, which is a huge deal for the Republican base. But Paul Ryan said, "You know what? I don't agree with him, we don't agree, but he's the guy at the top of the ticket and he sets the rule, he sets the policy, he sets the agenda and I'm along for the ride."

What Mike Pence is doing here is twisting himself into a pretzel on some of the core, core issues which I think is actually pretty dangerous, especially on the issue of trade, which is, you know, the heart and soul of Trump's economic plan and economic pitch to voters out there.

And, you know, there are already clips that I'm seeing reminding us of Mike Pence on the House floor praising NAFTA, talking about how great it was for jobs in his state. And now he's -- never mind that he disagrees with Trump, OK fine, they can explain that, but now he's starting to sound like he is contradicting himself and flip-flopping, which I think is even more dangerous than not agreeing.

New Poll Gives Hillary Clinton Big Electoral College Lead
By: Steve - July 18, 2016 - 9:00am

Have you noticed O'Reilly never reports any of these polls, even though he loves the polls and usually reports them all the time. He is ignoring them, because it has his friend Donald Trump getting crushed in the electoral college vote, wheich is what really matters.

O'Reilly cherry picks the polls he reports, and he only reports the popular vote polls that have it close. He never reports the electoral college vote polls, because Clinton is crushing Trump in every one of them, and because O'Reilly is a biased hack who is in the Tank for Trump.

Now remember this folks, in 2012 when Obama ran against Romney they did the exact same thing, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox only reported the popular vote polls that had it close, and some that had Romney ahead of Obama. Then the actual election happened and Obama crushed Romney in the electoral college vote, 335 to 206, it was not even close.

Now they are doing it again, they are ignoring the electoral college vote. And once again they will not like what happens in November, Clinton is going to crush Trump about 330 to 200, and that is my unscientific prediction.

The new poll says Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump if the election were held today, heading to a relatively easy victory even if Trump were to win the key battleground state of Ohio.

A massive new poll by Morning Consult finds Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, would collect 320 Electoral College votes to Trump's 212, far more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

The poll, taken between April and early July, surveyed nearly 60,000 registered voters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, a large enough sample to make a complete estimate of Electoral College results as the presidential race stands now.

Morning Consult's overall result is consistent with the fluctuating but persistent lead Clinton has maintained over Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, in national polling since it became clear they would face each other in the general election.

Trump Tried To Back Out Of Choosing Mike Pence For VP
By: Steve - July 18, 2016 - 8:00am

According to multiple reports on Friday, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee tried and failed to fire his own running mate -- all before he'd even formally announced who he was.

CNN's Dana Bash and NBC News Kelly O'Donnell both reported that Trump got cold feet Thursday night over his apparent vp choice, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. According to Bash, Trump was "so unsure" about his offer to Pence that "around midnight last night, he asked aides if he could get out of it."

There are only a handful of people who would have the knowledge needed to leak this information. Interestingly, the person who seemed to be the least happy about Pence was Donald Trump.

CNN reported that Trump really wanted Chris Christie as his running mate. Trump spent a Monday interview with The Washington Post claiming that his VP pick was meaningless and wouldn't help the ticket.

Looking back, it's clear that Trump was trying to downplay expectations for a running mate that he didn't want. It appears that the biggest critic of Mike Pence is his own running mate. Trump has a history of leaking stories to the press, so it would surprise absolutely no one if the leak were authorized by Trump himself.

Trump postponed his scheduled press conference announcing his running mate on Thursday night because he was angry that Indiana Republicans had already leaked word that the choice was going to be Pence. It looks like Mike Pence was forced on Donald Trump by his campaign manager Paul Manafort and the Republican Party.

Donald Trump may have never wanted Mike Pence, which is why someone in his campaign is trashing the VP choice hours after it was announced. Even if Trump did not authorize the leak, the news that the nominee tried to dump Gov. Pence after he arrived in New York highlights the personality of an unstable man who can't make a decision and is unfit for the White House.

Trump Campaign Dumps New Logo One Day After Public Viewing
By: Steve - July 17, 2016 - 11:00am

After a day of ridicule for a poorly designed Trump/Pence campaign logo that launched a thousand memes, the Trump campaign disappeared the design from their official website overnight.

Following the Twitter announcement of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as businessman Donald Trump's choice of a running mate should he still be given the GOP presidential nomination, the logo was unveiled online and immediately became a massive joke.

With some commenters noting the T&P styling and comparing it to dangling toilet paper coming off a roll, others pointed out the penetration of the Trump 'T' into the Pence 'P' had a disturbing sexual connotation that became the subject of many headlines, none good.

Full Frontal host Samantha Bee's staff almost immediately posted an animated GIF, under the heading: "Breaking the Mattress of America."

This is how bad the Trump campaign is, they designed it and they all looked at that ridiculous logo and said, yeah it's great. Then the rest of the world saw it and they said, what an idiot, they approved that garbage.

Trump Campaign Solicits Illegal Foreign Donations Despite Warnings
By: Steve - July 17, 2016 - 10:00am

When the Clintons were accused of doing this through their foundation O'Reilly, Fox News, and the GOP had a field day with it saying how wrong, un-American, and illegal it was. But when Trump does it O'Reilly and the rest of the GOP are silent.

Donald Trump's campaign is still soliciting illegal donations from foreign individuals - including members of foreign governments at their official email addresses - weeks after the campaign was put on notice by watchdog groups.

Foreign members of parliament from the United Kingdom and Australia confirmed to The Hill that they received fundraising solicitations from the Trump campaign as recently as July 12 - two weeks after a widely publicized FEC complaint issued on June 29 by the watchdogs Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center.

Federal law on foreign money in campaigns is black and white, campaign finance lawyers on both sides of the political divide agree.

It is illegal for foreign individuals, corporations and governments to either give money directly to U.S. candidates or spend on advertising to influence U.S. elections.

Bombshell Report Finds Major Trump Proposals All Violate The Constitution
By: Steve - July 17, 2016 - 9:00am

A new analysis of Donald Trump's proposals and plans by the ACLU revealed that a Trump presidency would violate numerous articles of the Constitution.

A new analysis of Donald Trump's proposals and plans by the ACLU revealed that a Trump presidency would violate numerous articles of the Constitution.

The analysis examines Trump's campaign promises to deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants, to ban Muslims from entering the United States, to surveil American Muslims and their houses of worship, to reinstate torture, and to revise libel laws.

"If implemented, Donald Trump's proposed policies will spark a constitutional and legal challenge that would require all hands on deck at the ACLU," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The ACLU and its more than 300 attorneys in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., stand ready to challenge and impede implementation of his unlawful proposals, should he attempt to see them through."

The ACLU said Trump's proposals would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution. Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump has sparked controversy with his stated positions on immigration, Muslim Americans, torture, and freedom of speech, among other issues.

"Taken together, his policies and positions, if put into place, would violate the Constitution and federal and international law," Romero said. "We stand ready to defend our Constitution."

The threat that Trump poses to the system which our government is built on is real. Donald Trump will stomp all over the Constitution. At a time when attacks like the one in Nice, France inspire fear in many, it is vital that people like Donald Trump not be allowed to manipulate fears to destroy our liberties.

The warning signs are there for all to see. Trump's agenda is a threat to the freedom of all, and an attack on the Constitution.

Trump And The RNC Did Not Invite Sarah Palin To The Convention
By: Steve - July 17, 2016 - 8:00am

Now get this, Trump actually said she was not invited because Alaska is too far away from Cleveland. I am not kidding, he really said that.

Donald Trump is claiming that he didn't invite Sarah Palin to the Republican convention because Alaska is too far away from Cleveland, Ohio.

The Washington Examiner reported:

"She was asked," Trump told the Washington Examiner in a phone interview on Thursday. "It's a little bit difficult because of where she is. We love Sarah. Little bit difficult because of, you know, it's a long ways away."

They probably can not afford the plane ticket for her because they are broke and nobody wants to give them any money.

This may come as a newsflash to Trump, but Alaska is in the United States of America, and they have airports.

Trump has given an excuse that would not fool a four-year-old child. The real reason that Trump didn't invite Palin is that the Republican Party didn't want her there. It isn't like the Republican Party doesn't have access to air travel.

The Republican Party is erasing Sarah Palin, much in the same way that they have erased both Bush presidencies. When Republicans talk about the White House, they act like George W. Bush's two terms in office never happened.

Trump is not fooling anybody. Palin could be in Cleveland right now, and he still wouldn't invite her. The reality is that even Donald Trump thinks that Palin is too big of a loser to be given a spot at his so-called "winners" convention.

Trump Pulled Tourists Off The Street To Fill Room For VP Announcement
By: Steve - July 17, 2016 - 7:00am

The crowd for Donald Trump's VP announcement was made up of Trump family, friends, and tourists who were pulled off the street.

Partial transcript:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (HOST): Katy, was there anything different about today?

KATY TUR: Certainly different. This was a room not filled with Donald Trump supporters from rallies, but rather a number of New York GOPers, some friends and family, and then just tourists who came in literally from off the street.

Secret Service swept them and they sat down, a little bit gobsmacked that they were able to get in so easily and that this wasn't an event that had more invitees here. That being said, it was typical in the way that Donald Trump spent a good portion of the time talking about, frankly, himself, relitigating the primaries, talking about all the deals he's made.

Also, perpetuating this idea that he was against the Iraq war when he was not. He spent 29 minutes before he got to Governor Mike Pence (R-IN). And he said part of the reason why he chose him - and he admitted this - was that he needed party unity, that he's an outsider and that he needed somebody who would smooth over relations in Washington.
Trump has a history of this type of behavior during the presidential campaign. In the past year, Trump has gone as far as to hire actors to play supporters to make his New York City media events seem well attended and popular.

Something you would never know if you only watch The O'Reilly Factor and Fox News, because they never report it.

For a candidate who talks about national security and keeping America safe, the Trump campaign is very reckless with who they let into their events. The fact that Trump had to pad the room with tourists speaks volumes about the real popularity of Trump's campaign, and his struggles with the Republican Party.

Donald Trump treated the announcement of his VP like the taping of a late night talk show. Republicans should have been able to stage a major event to launch the 2016 ticket, but Donald Trump refuses to act like a real presidential candidate.

The news conference that should have been packed to the walls with enthusiastic GOP voters was reduced to a spectacle for tourists to gawk at. Democrats are running a campaign for president, while Donald Trump has turned the GOP into a lousy reality show with no chance of being renewed in November.

Sexual Harasser O'Reilly Defends Sexual Harasser Ailes
By: Steve - July 16, 2016 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly called Roger Ailes the "best boss I've ever had" on NBC's "Late Night with Seth Meyers" Wednesday, defending the Fox News CEO against numerous claims of sexual harassment.

Fox News host Gretchen Carlson filed a lawsuit against Ailes earlier this month, alleging he sexually harassed her. Since then, more than a dozen women have shared similar stories of harassment by Ailes.

"I stand behind Roger 100 percent," O'Reilly told Meyers on the show, adding that "in this country, every famous, powerful or wealthy person is a target. You're a target, I'm a target. Anytime, somebody could come out and sue us, attack us, go to the press or anything like that."

The Fox News host said this was "a deplorable situation" and called for an option from the English system of civil law, "whereby if you file a frivolous lawsuit and you lose, the judges are right to make you pay all court costs." Until then, O'Reilly said we will continue to have our current "out-of-control, tabloid society that is tremendously destructive."

Then again, Ailes could be guilty and O'Reilly never said a word about any of that. He acts like Ailes is innocent and the lawsuit is bogus, when he has no clue if Ailes is guilty or not.

And most likely Ailes is guilty, because women in the news business never file these kinds of lawsuits, unless they want to end their career, because nobody will ever hire them again. Not to mention, many other women have come forward to say Ailes sexually harassed them too. O'Reilly ignores all that to defend a sexual harasser.

O'Reilly himself has been accused of sexual harassment by a former Fox producer. The network supported O'Reilly throughout the lawsuit, which he settled in 2004.

And btw folks, O'Reilly said the lawsuit against him was bogus, that he would never settle out of court, and he would take it all the way. Then he found out she had recordings of him, and the lying coward settled out of court and paid her Millions.

O'Reilly also never disputed what he said to her, the even had transcripts of a few of the recordings, he just tried to deny it was sexual harassment, even though it clearly was, from a male boss to a female employee.

O'Reilly was also accused of domestic violence during a custody battle in 2015; O'Reilly's own teenage daughter told a court-appointed forensic examiner that she witnessed him "choking her mom as he dragged her down some stairs" by the neck.

And this is the guy who lectures people about morality and family values, and is defending a man who is most likely guilty of sexual harassment against Gretchen Carlson, and many more women.

Broke Republicans Beg Sheldon Adelson For $6 Million For Convention
By: Steve - July 16, 2016 - 9:00am

In a letter dated July 12th, the RNC sent a letter to billionaire Sheldon Adelson begging for 6 million dollars. Things are so bad for Republicans that even the Koch brothers do not want to be seen funding Donald Trump.

Politico reports:
Millions of dollars short and running out of time, organizers of the Republican National Convention have written an urgent request for $6 million to Las Vegas billionaire couple Sheldon and Miriam Adelson to cover the bills for next week’s festivities.
David Koch even pulled his $1 million dollar pledge.
In a letter addressed to the Adelsons, obtained by POLITICO, the Cleveland 2016 Host Committee revealed the names of more than two dozen prominent corporations and individuals who have reneged on a collective $8.1 million in pledged donations.
On March 30, Coca-Cola pulled their support after ColorOfChange sent letters to Coca-Cola, Google, Xerox, Adobe Systems, AT&T, and Cisco Systems asking them not to support the Republican National Convention if Donald Trump was the nominee. Coke had already donated $75,000.00 but they said in March that they have no plans to donate more.

Facebook, Google, and Microsoft also will not be giving Trump's convention any money.

Apple took an even stronger stance than other corporate giants against Trump and his Republican convention by announcing that they would not provide money or technology to the Trump hate event.

Trump is so bad that Republicans can't even pay for their own convention, and days before it's set to start, they had to run to Big Daddy Adelson to beg for money. Which is pretty sad.

The good news is we finally have evidence of the trickle down theory Republicans have believed in for years, in spite of evidence disproving it. But this isn't exactly the same as giving to the rich so it will "trickle down" on the poor. No, this is the trickle down effect of hate.

And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, never, nothing, not one word. Because O'Reilly is a friend of Trump and he is biased for him, so he does not report anything even negative at all about Trump.

What There Is Of The Trump Campaign Is An Actual Joke
By: Steve - July 16, 2016 - 8:00am

Here is some big news you will never hear reported by Bill O'Reilly or Fox News. Donald Trump barely has an actual campaign, it's mostly just Trump, his family, and a few close advisors.

As he heads for the Republican convention in Cleveland next week, Donald Trump's campaign infrastructure remains severely underdeveloped. In some places it appears to be non-existent.

The degree to which his campaign is barebones may not be fully appreciated.

The Huffington Post attempted to call the contact phone numbers for the Trump campaign in all 50 states. A few of the state operations had no websites or no numbers listed. Many of the other numbers didn't work. When they left voicemails, they didn't get callbacks.

On only six occasions did someone actually answer the phone. And in several of those instances, the person who picked up explained that a physical office would be opened up only after the convention.

An official in South Carolina said that the Trump campaign pulled out of the state after the primary but that they were expecting to re-open following the convention. Individuals in New Hampshire and Washington said they did have at least one office in the state. In the latter, there was just one, with a Seattle office coming soon.

An official in Fayetteville, North Carolina, said that the campaign had closed down their headquarters after the primary but that one office was open in the Charlotte area.

And live voices on the other end of the phone line doesn't mean that Trump has functioning operations in those few states. In Ohio, a news report noted that Trump has a physical office. In California, it has been reported that one is coming shortly. In Florida, there is a Trump office as well, though it will apparently close during the convention. In Virginia, there may not be an office but there are active volunteers -- as is the case in other states like Wisconsin.

But if you're a Trump supporter wanting to find a place to work phone banks, pick up some yard signs or otherwise volunteer to help, the process isn't easy. The campaign has a distinct website for nearly every state except, for some reason, Iowa, North Dakota and Wyoming.

They're largely similar: information on where to vote in the now-past primary or caucus, a "get out the vote" video featuring Ivanka Trump, a form to sign up to volunteer, and a number to call for help. But in many states, the phone numbers don't function at all, raising the question of why they're listed in the first place.

The phone numbers listed for Alabama, Arizona, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia all had a recording identifying itself as the Trump campaign headquarters. But many of them went straight to voicemail.

The Nevada and Florida numbers didn't have an outgoing message, other than to tell callers that the mailbox was full.

Fourteen of the state websites list numbers for the Trump headquarters in New York City -- 15, if you count the New York state website -- rather than for campaign offices within the state. There are no numbers listed on the websites for Massachusetts or Texas.

Then there are the states where you get an error message if you dial in. Arkansas and Oklahoma share a phone number, but it's not in service. There’s an application error for Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

An automated voice informs callers to the Connecticut and Pennsylvania offices that the customer they are attempting to reach has not set up a voicemail and suggests they try again later.

The Republican National Committee is trying to help Trump catch up on this front. While officials there likewise did not return a request for comment, top GOP aides have expressed confidence in earlier conversations that they can run a competitive ground game in the fall.

Still, they start from a serious deficit. On Monday, the Associated Press reported that the RNC was lagging in terms of staffing in critical battleground states. While they were hoping for 220 paid staff in Ohio, for example, they had around 50 in May.

The Clinton presence is certainly more noticeable than Trump's. The campaign currently has more than 100 offices in 14 states. All told, it has staff in 45 of the 50 states, and plans to add more in August.

Tebow Dumps Trump And Will Not Speak At RNC Convention
By: Steve - July 15, 2016 - 11:30am

Things are so bad for Donald Trump that even Tim Tebow is bailing on his convention in Cleveland next week. Tim Tebow, in Facebook video, says he will NOT be speaking at the RNC.

The Trump convention that was going to be full of stars has a lack of stars, as stars from the political world and the sports world dumped Trump. By the time the GOP hits Cleveland all that may be left to speak for Trump could be Bobby Knight, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and Trump's wife and kids.

Donald Trump calls himself a winner who is loved by everyone, but nobody wants to speak at his convention. It wasn't a surprise that Tebow bailed on Trump. He has a job at ESPN, and being associated with the toxic pit of division that is Donald Trump would certainly not be good for the squeaky clean right-wing evangelical image that Tebow has spent years building.

It turns out that Tebow is just like much of the Republican Party. They might vote for Trump, but they sure do not want anything to do with him. Trump wanted sports superstars at his convention, but it turns out that he couldn't even get washed up has-been Tim Tebow.

Insane Fox Host Says Race Relations Fixed When We Elected A Black President
By: Steve - July 15, 2016 - 11:00am

While most people are familiar with Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Eric Bolling, Jeanine Pirro is probably one of the more outlandish personalities featured on America's conservative entertainment network. With Pirro, it's not just what she says, but how she says it. Her over-the-top fear-mongering is often so outlandish that I often find myself wondering how in the world anyone could take her seriously.

Especially when she says completely idiotic comments like she did on Thursday declaring that racism was fixed in America because President Obama was elected twice.

"The problem is that this president is looking in a rear view mirror," Pirro said. "It doesn't matter if he's at a prayer breakfast and says, 'You Christians had it coming,' and it goes back to Christ and Jim Crow and slavery. I mean, why doesn't he look forward?"

First, when he made his comments about the Crusades last December, he did not say anything remotely close to "you Christians had it coming." What he said when he made those comments was that, while we're seeing radical aspects of Islam in parts of the world today, there was a time when Christianity was also violent. He wasn't trying to smear Christians at all. He was simply pointing out a historical fact showing that any religion, if distorted by fanatics, can be used as a weapon of violence.

But of course Pirro wasn't done.

"We've passed the Civil War, we've passed the Civil Rights era, we've got the laws in place, he is identifying things that he thinks are a problem and he doesn't get his facts straight," she added. "America was colorblind when we voted for a black president twice. The problem is primarily fixed. He keeps making it worse. They have fewer jobs now. He is just stoking the flames."

This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard from Republicans. They want us to believe that somehow racism is no longer an issue because we elected our nation's first African-American president.

It's not as if President Obama was elected unanimously. In both elections, millions and millions of people voted against him. And let's not pretend as if the tea party doesn't mainly exist because a bunch of conservative and rural white people really didn't like the idea of a black guy being in charge.

And it's not a coincidence that the tea party (a movement that's frequently linked to racism) magically sprang up just around the same time that Barack Obama was going to become president.

I always find it laughable when those who support the party of racists, bigots, birthers, and the millions who believe President Obama is a Muslim accuse him of dividing people. They hate him, they vilify him and they use blatant fear-mongering propaganda to slander him -- and yet he's the one who they say is being divisive.

And there's no point in trying to reason with any of these people because they're absolutely unreasonable. They want to hate Obama, and they absolutely refuse to face the realities of what the modern-day GOP has become). They're going to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe no matter how untrue, ridiculous or crazy it is.

It's stunning that people on a tv news show say things that stupid, let alone be the host of a tv news show. It is just stupid, to claim race relations were fixed when we elected a black president twice. Race relations got worse, because all the white racists in the country (who are almost all in the Republican party) lost their mind when a black man was put in the White House.

Race relations will never be fixed, unless all the racists die, or stop being racists, and that is not going to happen. What else is shocking is the people at Fox act as if Obama is to blame for the race relation problem. The people to blame for racism and the race relation problem are the racists, not the people of color they hate because of the color of their skin.

These are the dumbest and worst people in the world, think about it, they are racist against and hate someone, simply because they are not white and have dark colored skin. And Fox News hires them, let's them host a show, and never fires them when they say stupid things like she did, because they agree with her and they like what she said.

Jeb Bush Says People Will Be Betrayed by Donald Trump
By: Steve - July 15, 2016 - 10:00am

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush predicts that Donald Trump's supporters will "feel betrayed" when his promises go unfulfilled.

Bush said that Trump, "to his credit was very smart at exploiting these kind of opportunities. He's a master at understanding how the media works - more than anybody I've ever seen in politics. Kudos to him, for kind of creating the environment and then manipulating the environment to his effect."

But, the former primary foe of Trump added that the "tragedy" of his presumptive nomination is that "there isn't going to be a wall built. And Mexico's not going to pay for it. And there's not going to be a ban on Muslims.

"This is all like an alternative universe that he created. The reality is, that's not going to happen. And people are going to be deeply frustrated and the divides will grow in our country."

"And this extraordinary country, still the greatest country on the face of the earth, will continue to stagger instead of soar. And that's the heartbreaking part of this, is I think people are really going to feel betrayed."

D.L. Hughley Call Out Kelly Fuhrman And Fox On Racism & Policing
By: Steve - July 15, 2016 - 9:00am

Now this was great, for once someone went on Fox and gave them a truth fix, Megyn Kelly seemed as if she had no idea what to say, because she has never been called out for anything before. Here is a partial transcript.

D.L. HUGHLEY: I didn't know Mark Fuhrman was going to be here.

MEGYN KELLY (HOST): What did you make of that, because you're shaking your head?

HUGHLEY: I think that cops have a different perspective than us, and I think it was interesting to hear Mark Fuhrman, who was actually, got in trouble for perjuring himself, call somebody a liar. It's ridiculous.

HUGHLEY: We were talking about the young man that just got murdered in Minnesota.

KELLY: And the rush to judgment and the assumption you know something when you don't actually know it.

HUGHLEY: Well first off, what I'll tell you is this. It is not uncommon for you all to see one thing. The only place racism doesn't exist is Fox News and the police department.

KELLY: Come on.

HUGHLEY: That's the only place. That's absolutely true.

KELLY: That's insulting. You just insulted millions of people watching this channel.

HUGHLEY: And you know what? I'm insulted by the things I hear on this network, so we're even. I could care less about insulting people that insult me on a daily basis.

HUGHLEY: I think a lot of people on this network have never seen a black man they didn't think deserved it.


Hughley was talking about this, Mark Fuhrman Said Alton Sterling "Has To Take Responsibility For His Own Death At The Hands Of Cops."

And how Fuhrman is a known racist who was caught using the n-word about a thousand times on tape, after saying under oath in the O.J. trial that he never used the n-word one time. Then Fox hires the racist liar to work for them, and he is put on the air to say the cops never do anything wrong and none of them are racists.

Hughley hit Megyn Kelly with a truth bomb and she was shocked, and then of course she said she was insulted and all her viewers were insulted, when all he did was tell the truth.

Krauthammer Calls Out O'Reilly For Spinning Trump's Lack Of Specifics
By: Steve - July 15, 2016 - 8:00am

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I think most Americans would agree with you in both parties, all right, that we certainly haven't handled ISIS the way we should have handled it. Then it becomes a big campaign issue because Trump is going to say I'm going to stomp them into the ground. I'm going to get the war declaration. I'm going to do this I'm going to do that.

Short on specifics to be fair. Okay? But he is going to come across and he's going to point to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and say these people can't protect you. They won't protect you. On and on and on. Will that have a direct effect on whether Mr. Trump wins or not?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Short on specifics? That is entirely empty. We have got to be strong and we have got to be smart.

O'REILLY: Alright, let's assume that's true. Answer the overarch question. Is it going to be enough to put him into the White House?

KRAUTHAMMER: I think if you are naïve and a guy says I'm going to be strong, I'm going to be smart but he doesn't say a word about what he is going to do and how he is going to do it, who the enemy is and what the strategy is because he says I don't want to give away secrets.

I don't want ISIS to be on guard when I unveil this truly sophisticated strategy. Look, this is spinning on your part by saying short on specifics. He doesn't -- he may have an idea of what he is going to do but he has never told us.

O'REILLY: It's not spinning. It's an accurate statement. He's short on specifics. You're a wordsmith.

KRAUTHAMMER: In other words, he's got no specifics.

O'REILLY: You're saying no and I'm saying short.

KRAUTHAMMER: Short meaning what? You're going to make a declaration of war and that's going to end the ISIS threat?

O'REILLY: I don't know what he's going to do.


O'Reilly is so far in the tank for Trump he can not see straight, he just made the point for Krauthammer, the point he is making is that nobody knows what Trump is going to do about anything, because he lies so much you can not believe anything he says, and he does not have any specifics about anything.

O'Reilly even said he does not know what Trump is going to do, nobody does, and that is the problem. How can you expect people to vote for him when they have no idea what he is going to do, and he will not tell anyone. It's insane to ask people to vote for someone to be the President when you have no idea what they will do about anything, and what he does say can not be believed because he lies so much you can not trust him.

Sean Hannity Paid For Gingrich To Take A Private Jet To Meet Trump
By: Steve - July 14, 2016 - 11:00am

And btw, that is illegal. Not to mention unethical, can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if a host of an MSNBC show paid for a Democrat to have a private jet to meet with Hillary Clinton, all hell would break loose and O'Reilly would spend half the show calling for the feds to investigate, and for the host to be fired.

On Wednesday, Fox News host Sean Hannity paid for a private jet to shuttle former House Speaker turned Fox News commentator Newt Gingrich to Indianapolis for a meeting with Donald Trump. The meeting was reportedly one of three arranged by the Trump campaign to give him an opportunity to meet with the three finalists in his vice presidential search -- Gingrich, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

Is the trip only Hannity's business? Hannity seems to believe his jet was not a campaign contribution but a gift to a "dear friend of mine" and "a private citizen."

Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert with the Campaign Legal Center, disagrees.

According to Ryan, if the Associated Press report is accurate that the meeting was arranged at the request of the Trump campaign, the cost of the private jet would be an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign, subject to the $2700 limit.

If Trump failed to report Hannity's in-kind contribution on their next report, Ryan said, that would be illegal.

It's unclear what kind of private jet Hannity provided, but the cost of even a one-way trip on a small jet from DC to Indianapolis, which takes over an hour, would likely far exceed $2700. If so, Hannity's contribution itself would be illegal because it would exceed the limit.

If, on the other hand, it was Gingrich who requested the meeting in Indiana, Hannity would still have made a campaign contribution. (This scenario seems unlikely, since Trump met with multiple finalists in Indiana on the same day.) In this case, the contribution would be to Gingrich's "testing the waters" committee for vice president.

Such committees are still required to abide by FEC rules, including the $2700 limit. Gingrich would only be required to file with the FEC if he ultimately becomes the vice presidential nominee. In any event, an in-kind contribution to Gingrich from Hannity in this scenario that exceeded $2700 would also violate election law.

Gingrich then appeared as a guest on Sean Hannity's show and Hannity questioned him extensively about his meeting with Trump. But he failed to report that he paid to make the meeting happen.

Insane Trump Claims He Is Winning On Fox News
By: Steve - July 14, 2016 - 10:00am

Let's face it folks, Donald Trump is a delusional liar. He went on Fox News Wednesday and said this: "I guess based on the polls I'm seeing, I'm leading, and I haven't started spending money yet."

Okay, so let me take a look at the electoral college maps, that actually decide who the next President is, remember the popular vote means nothing, it's the electoral college that decides the election. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore in 2000, but he still won the election and became the President.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball Electoral College Map:

Our Electoral College totals have not budged: 347 electoral votes Safe, Likely, or Leaning to Clinton and 191 Safe/Likely/Leaning Trump.

The state of the general election has not shifted much at all in the nearly three months since we issued our first Clinton-versus-Trump map. Clinton remains a substantial favorite. If this is how the election actually turns out, Clinton would win a victory smaller than Barack Obama's 2008 win (365 electoral votes) but bigger than his 2012 reelection (332).

And there are many more, every electoral college map there is has Clinton winning, and Trump is no higher than 164 in any of them. Clinton is over 200 in all of them, so all she has to do is win a few swing states and she wins big, which she is doing, she is ahead in almost every swing state.

Nate Silver, the election guru who picks every election for president almost exactly right is giving Hillary Clinton an 80% chance to win, he gives Trump a 20% chance.

It goes on and on, but Trump ignores all that to claim he is winning, it's ridiculous and just laughable. A couple polls have it close in the popular vote, which means nothing, because the electoral college is what matters, and he never mentions that.

The Facts O'Reilly Ignores About Police And Racism
By: Steve - July 14, 2016 - 9:00am

This is an article written by a black man who was a cop for 5 years in the St. Louis Police Department. He knows what happens in police work because he did the job for 5 years, something O'Reilly has never done. All O'Reilly does is spin out right-wing talking points about it, instead of doing interviews with former black cops, who actually know the truth.

And O'Reilly has no idea what it is like to be a black man in America when they are pulled over or stopped by a white cop. Because he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, and he is a white Republican.

Notice that O'Reilly never has guests like this on his show, ever, not once.

I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing

by Redditt Hudson on July 7, 2016

On any given day, in any police department in the nation, 15 percent of officers will do the right thing no matter what is happening. Fifteen percent of officers will abuse their authority at every opportunity. The remaining 70 percent could go either way depending on who they are working with.

That's a theory from my friend K.L. Williams, who has trained thousands of officers around the country in use of force. Based on what I experienced as a black man serving in the St. Louis Police Department for five years, I agree with him.

I worked with men and women who became cops for all the right reasons -- they really wanted to help make their communities better. And I worked with people like the president of my police academy class, who sent out an email after President Obama won the 2008 election that included the statement, "I can't believe I live in a country full of ni**er lovers!!!!!!!!"

He patrolled the streets in St. Louis in a number of black communities with the authority to act under the color of law.

That remaining 70 percent of officers are highly susceptible to the culture in a given department. In the absence of any real effort to challenge department cultures, they become part of the problem. If their command ranks are racist or allow institutional racism to persist, or if a number of officers in their department are racist, they may end up doing terrible things.

It is not only white officers who abuse their authority. The effect of institutional racism is such that no matter what color the officer abusing the citizen is, in the vast majority of those cases of abuse that citizen will be black or brown. That is what is allowed.

And no matter what an officer has done to a black person, that officer can always cover himself in the running narrative of heroism, risk, and sacrifice that is available to a uniformed police officer by virtue of simply reporting for duty. Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo was acquitted of all charges against him in the shooting deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, both black and unarmed.

Thirteen Cleveland police officers fired 137 shots at them. Brelo, having reloaded at some point during the shooting, fired 49 of the 137 shots. He took his final 15 shots at them after all the other officers stopped firing (122 shots at that point) and, "fearing for his life," he jumped onto the hood of the car and shot 15 times through the windshield.

Not only was this excessive, it was tactically asinine if Brelo believed they were armed and firing. But they weren't armed, and they weren't firing. Judge John O'Donnell acquitted Brelo under the rationale that because he couldn't determine which shots actually killed Russell and Williams, no one is guilty.

Let's be clear: this is part of what the Department of Justice means when it describes a "pattern of unconstitutional policing and excessive force."

Nevertheless, many Americans believe that police officers are generally good, noble heroes. A Gallup poll from 2014 asked Americans to rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in various fields: police officers ranked in the top five, just above members of the clergy.

The profession -- the endeavor -- is noble. But this myth about the general goodness of cops obscures the truth of what needs to be done to fix the system. It makes it look like all we need to do is hire good people, rather than fix the entire system. Institutional racism runs throughout our criminal justice system.

Its presence in police culture, though often flatly denied by the many police apologists that appear in the media now, has been central to the breakdown in police-community relationships for decades in spite of good people doing police work.

Here's what I wish Americans understood about the men and women who serve in their police departments -- and what needs to be done to make the system better for everyone.

1) There are officers who willfully violate the human rights of the people in the communities they serve

As a new officer with the St. Louis in the mid-1990s, I responded to a call for an "officer in need of aid." I was partnered that day with a white female officer. When we got to the scene, it turned out that the officer was fine, and the aid call was canceled. He'd been in a foot pursuit chasing a suspect in an armed robbery and lost him.

The officer I was with asked him if he'd seen where the suspect went. The officer picked a house on the block we were on, and we went to it and knocked on the door. A young man about 18 years old answered the door, partially opening it and peering out at my partner and me. He was standing on crutches.

My partner accused him of harboring a suspect. He denied it. He said that this was his family's home and he was home alone.

My partner then forced the door the rest of the way open, grabbed him by his throat, and snatched him out of the house onto the front porch. She took him to the ledge of the porch and, still holding him by the throat, punched him hard in the face and then in the groin. My partner that day snatched an 18-year-old kid off crutches and assaulted him, simply for stating the fact that he was home alone.

I got the officer off of him. But because an aid call had gone out, several other officers had arrived on the scene. One of those officers, who was black, ascended the stairs and asked what was going on. My partner pointed to the young man, still lying on the porch, and said, "That son of a bitch just assaulted me."

The black officer then went up to the young man and told him to "get the f up, I'm taking you in for assaulting an officer." The young man looked up at the officer and said, "Man ... you see I can't go." His crutches lay not far from him.

The officer picked him up, cuffed him, and slammed him into the house, where he was able to prop himself up by leaning against it. The officer then told him again to get moving to the police car on the street because he was under arrest. The young man told him one last time, in a pleading tone that was somehow angry at the same time, "You see I can't go!"

The officer reached down and grabbed both the young man's ankles and yanked up. This caused the young man to strike his head on the porch. The officer then dragged him to the police car. We then searched the house. No one was in it.

These kinds of scenes play themselves out everyday all over our country in black and brown communities. Beyond the many unarmed blacks killed by police, including recently Freddie Gray in Baltimore, other police abuses that don't result in death foment resentment, distrust, and malice toward police in black and brown communities all over the country.

Long before Darren Wilson shot and killed unarmed Michael Brown last August, there was a poisonous relationship between the Ferguson, Missouri, department and the community it claimed to serve. For example, in 2009 Henry Davis was stopped unlawfully in Ferguson, taken to the police station, and brutally beaten while in handcuffs. He was then charged for bleeding on the officers uniforms after they beat him.

In a searing report released in March 2015, the US Department of Justice uncovered a pattern of racial bias in the Ferguson Police Department. And it argued that the disparities could only be explained, at least in part, by unlawful bias and stereotypes against African Americans.

The disparities were rooted in the city's reliance on the police department and courts for local budget revenue: Federal officials found that city officials worked together at every level of enforcement -- from city management to the local prosecutor to the police department -- to make as much money from fines and court fees as possible, ranging from schemes to raise total fines for municipal code violations to asking cops to write as many citations as possible.

2) The bad officers corrupt the departments they work for

About that 15 percent of officers who regularly abuse their power: a major problem is they exert an outsize influence on department culture and find support for their actions from ranking officers and police unions.

Chicago is a prime example of this: the city has created a reparations fund for the hundreds of victims who were tortured by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and officers under his command from the 1970s to the early '90s.

The victims were electrically shocked, suffocated, and beaten into false confessions that resulted in many of them being convicted and serving time for crimes they didn't commit. One man, Darrell Cannon, spent 24 years in prison for a crime he confessed to but didn't commit.

He confessed when officers repeatedly appeared to load a shotgun and after doing so each time put it in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Other men received electric shocks until they confessed.

The torture was systematic, and the culture that allowed for it is systemic. I call your attention to the words "and officers under his command." Police departments are generally a functioning closed community where people know who is doing what.

How many officers "under the command" of Commander Burge do you think didn't know what was being done to these men? How many do you think were uncomfortable with the knowledge? Ultimately, though, they were okay with it. And Burge got four years in prison, and now receives his full taxpayer-funded pension.

3) The mainstream media helps sustain the narrative of heroism that even corrupt officers take refuge in

This is critical to understanding why police-community relations in black and brown communities across the country are as bad as they are. In this interview with Fox News, former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir never acknowledges the lived experience of thousands and thousands of blacks in New York, Baltimore, Ferguson, or anywhere in the country.

In fact, he seems to be completely unaware of it. This allows him to leave viewers with the impression that the recent protests against police brutality are baseless, and that allegations of racism are "totally wrong -- just not true." The reality of police abuse is not limited to a number of "very small incidents" that have impacted black people nationwide, but generations of experienced and witnessed abuse.

The media is complicit in this myth-making: notice that the interviewer does not challenge Safir. She doesn't point out, for example, the over $1 billion in settlements the NYPD has paid out over the last decade and a half for the misconduct of its officers. She doesn't reference the numerous accounts of actual black or Hispanic NYPD officers who have been profiled and even assaulted without cause when they were out of uniform by white NYPD officers.

She leads him with her questions to reference the heroism, selflessness, risk, and sacrifice that are a part of the endeavor that is law enforcement, but very clearly not always characteristic of police work in black and brown communities. The staging for this interview -- US flag waving, somber-faced officers -- is wash, rinse, and repeat with our national media.

When you take a job as a police officer, you do so voluntarily. You understand the risks associated with the work. But because you signed on to do a dangerous job does not mean you are then allowed to violate the human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of the people you serve.

It's the opposite. You should protect those rights, and when you don't you should be held accountable. That simple statement will be received by police apologists as "anti-cop." It is not.

4) Cameras provide the most objective record of police-citizen encounters available

When Walter Scott was killed by officer Michael Slager in South Carolina last year, the initial police report put Scott in the wrong. It stated that Scott had gone for Slager's Taser, and Slager was in fear for his life. If not for the video recording that later surfaced, the report would have likely been taken by many at face value. Instead we see that Slager shot Scott repeatedly and planted the Taser next to his body after the fact.

Every officer in the country should be wearing a body camera that remains activated throughout any interaction they have with the public while on duty. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for officers when they are on duty and in service to the public.

Citizens must also have the right to record police officers as they carry out their public service, provided that they are at a safe distance, based on the circumstances, and not interfering. Witnessing an interaction does not by itself constitute interference.

5) There are officers around the country who want to address institutional racism

The National Coalition of Law Enforcement Officers for Justice, Reform and Accountability is a new coalition of current and former law enforcement officers from around the nation. Its mission is to fight institutional racism in our criminal justice system and police culture, and to push for accountability for police officers that abuse their power.

These men and women are ready to reach out to the thousands of officers around the country who have been looking for a national law enforcement organization that works to remake police culture. The first priority is accountability -- punishment -- for officers who willfully abuse the rights and bodies of those they are sworn to serve.

Training means absolutely nothing if officers don't adhere to it and are not held accountable when they don't. It is key to any meaningful reform.

Police abuse in black and brown communities is generations old. It is nothing new. It has become more visible to mainstream America largely because of the proliferation of personal recording devices, cellphone cameras, video recorders -- they're everywhere. We need police officers. We also need them to be held accountable to the communities they serve.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Calls Donald Trump A Faker
By: Steve - July 14, 2016 - 8:00am

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

"He is a faker," she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."

Ginsburg's comments came in a previously scheduled interview related to research for a book on Chief Justice John Roberts. It took a detour to raise the reverberations from her criticism of Trump to The Associated Press and The New York Times in recent interviews.

"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," she had said in the Times interview published Monday.

Trump responded Wednesday morning by calling on Ginsburg to resign.

"Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!" Trump tweeted.

The 83-year-old justice expressed no regret on Monday for the comments or surprise that she would be criticized. Any disbelief she expressed stemmed from the fact that Trump has gotten so far in the election cycle.

"At first I thought it was funny," she said of Trump's early candidacy. "To think that there's a possibility that he could be president."

"I think he has gotten so much free publicity," she added, drawing a contrast between what she believes is tougher media treatment of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and returning to an overriding complaint: "Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns."

CNN's Corey Lewandowski Is Still Being Paid By Donald Trump
By: Steve - July 13, 2016 - 11:30am

Former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is still being paid by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's campaign while simultaneously drawing a salary as a CNN contributor to discuss the candidate on-air.

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo and host Don Lemon noted that Lewandowski is "still receiving severance from the Trump campaign" while introducing him in July 11 and July 12 segments.

These references appear to be the first time CNN has disclosed the severance payments even though Lewandowski was hired almost a month ago, raising questions about when the network became aware that its commentator was still being paid by his former employer.

Media observers (and everyone else) have harshly criticized CNN over Lewandowski's hiring pointing to his non-disclosure and likely non-disparagement agreements with the Trump campaign as "profoundly disturbing" ethical conflicts.

Since his hiring, Lewandowski has by his own admission continued to advise the Trump campaign, even pushing a camera away from the candidate during a campaign stop.

In his on-air appearances, Lewandowski has acted more like a spokesman for the campaign than as an independent commentator, defending all of Trump's crazy statements in a way that, as one Washington Post reporter noted, indicates he "has not yet transitioned out of his role as a Trump employee."

That pattern continued during the segments in which CNN revealed that he is receiving severance from the campaign. In his New Day appearance on July 11, Lewandowski defended Trump from criticism of his reference to a perceived supporter as "my African-American" by stating, "The way Mr. Trump talks, anybody who knows him, and I know him very well, he'd say, my Corey. You're my Corey. That's a term of endearment. It's not a pejorative term."

In his CNN Tonight appearance on July 12, his statements about Trump's beliefs about race in America led Lemon to interject, "don't give me talking points."

CNN also employs contributors with minor ties to Hillary Clinton's campaign. But employing a contributor who continues to be paid by the candidate whose performance and positions he is being asked to analyze is unprecedented.

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, and never will. Because he is a friend of Trump and supports him. But if Hillary Clinton was still paying someone from her campaign and they were working for CNN to defend her, I can guarantee you O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for CNN to fire them.

Trump Proves Racism By Turning Down NAACP Speech Invitation
By: Steve - July 13, 2016 - 11:00am

Well it's official, Donald Trump is a racist, because he is refusing to speak to the NAACP. Trump showed his true colors by turning down an invitation to address the NAACP convention.

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump has declined an invitation to attend the NAACP's convention, the group's president said Tuesday.

"We will hear from Secretary Clinton. We won't hear from Mr. Trump," NAACP president and CEO Cornell William Brooks said Tuesday.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton will speak at the NAACP convention on July 18.

O'Reilly & Guiliani Black Lives Matter Attacks Show Their Racism
By: Steve - July 13, 2016 - 10:00am

Both Rudy Giuliani and Bill O'Reilly, have made outrageous claims about Black Lives Matter. Giuliani claimed Friday on MSNBC Live that, "I think that the reason there's a target on police officer's backs is because of groups like Black Lives Matter."

Giuliani has long had a problem with the truth. Politifact, for example, rated his oft-repeated 2014 claim that President Barack Obama said "that everybody should hate the police," to be not just "pants on fire" (which is their biggest lie rating) but "an outlandish distortion."

And Bill O'Reilly, who thinks it's insane to criticize Trump for his taco bowl tweet, used his show to show he doesn't think it's insane to say something as stupid as this:

"Black Lives Matter was just exactly who they are then as who they are today. They're a terrorist group. They're quickly becoming a terrorist group committing hate crimes."

Which is just ridiculous, because they are not a terrorist group, and they in no way do any hate crime. They are simply a group of people who protest police abuse, they support the good police, and oppose the bad ones.

They protest about violence against blacks by pointing out that black lives, like all others, matter. They do not say other lives do not matter, or that police lives do not matter, they just say black lives matter too.

Remember back in May when O'Reilly claimed "Sympathetic media and many race hustlers are backing Black Lives Matter" and that "there is a violent sub-culture in the African-American community that should be exposed and confronted"?

What needs to be confronted is the culture of pervasive racism of the sort promoted by O'Reilly, that we could only wish qualified for the sub category.

If you need more evidence, look at what O'Reilly also said Friday, that "there are very few white Americans who respect Black Lives Matter," and that, based on this false premise of Fox News virtual reality.

"If African-Americans really want to bring the country together and have good racial relations, they have to distance themselves from Black Lives Matter. Am I wrong?" Yes you fricking right-wing idiot you are wrong.

This frequently heard claim that saying black lives matter means other lives don't, has been rebutted again and again, but conservatives refuse to hear the logic. Their brains seem to seize up at sight of the words black and matter in the same sentence.

The world is quite full enough of people who do this sort of projection, like conservative Christians who accuse non-Christians of cavorting with a devil they do not believe in, and other sorts of illogical madness. And we certainly see it from racists like Bill O'Reilly and Rudy Giuliani.

Dallas Police Chief Says Good Guys With Guns Made Things Worse
By: Steve - July 13, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly and Fox News ignored it, with no segments or discussions about what he said. He basically said the Texas open carry gun laws make things worse for the police, because when the shooting starts they don't know who to shoot at. And they were opposed to the law passing, but Texas passed it anyway.

Chief David Brown: In Open Carry States "We Don't Know Who The Good Guy Is Versus Who The Bad Guy Is If Everybody Starts Shooting"

Partial transcript:

REPORTER: We know that there was at least one gentleman who was a subject -- person of interest, during the demonstration he had an AR-15 around his shoulder. What does this tell you about people using the new Texas law of open carry at a demonstration like this?

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF DAVID BROWN: That it's difficult at best. We expressed this, it's a little different here in Texas in the way we view open carry, concealed carry. We've had great dialogue with our state legislators about this. We've expressed all of our concerns.

We are trying as best as we can as a law enforcement community to make it work so the citizens can express their Second Amendment rights.

But it's increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s slung over and shootings occur in a crowd and they begin running, and we don't know -- or we don't know if they're the shooter or not, or they begin, it's been the presumption that a good guy with a gun is the best way to resolve some of these things.

Well, we don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting, and we've expressed that concern as well. I have every belief and trust that our folks are listening at the state on this issue, particularly as it involves protests, particularly as it involves protest.

O'Reilly Slams Obama For Dallas Police Eulogy Speech
By: Steve - July 13, 2016 - 8:00am

And of course, only right-wing stooges are slamming Obama for it, even though O'Reilly says he is not a partisan right-winger, every night he says the very same things all the partisan right-wingers are saying. Proving once again that he is a partisan hack, he just will not admit it.

O'Reilly: "White People Have Been The Subject Of Bigotry As Well"

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): The president went on to say that race relations have, quote, "improved dramatically in my lifetime." However, raising the specter of slavery and Jim Crow gives the haters an excuse and fuels the grievance industry. If we are ever to become one nation under God, we'll have to put the grievances behind us, and not use them as an excuse for current bad behavior.

That means acceptance of past sins and a determination to never let mass discrimination happen again. To some extent, the president understands that. But he is not powerful enough in stating it. Instead, he dwells on the problem rather than on the solution.

And white people have been the subject of bigotry as well. The truth is bias will always be with us. Every country has it. From the dawn of mankind, unfair treatment has occurred on this planet. Americans should all be in this together, but we're not.

What we really need is a federal government to create laws that are fair to everyone and make sure they are enforced without prejudice. That's not going to be easy. But it is possible. And that's the memo.

Fox News Suspends Potential Trump Running Mate Newt Gingrich
By: Steve - July 12, 2016 - 11:00am

Fox News has suspended Newt Gingrich from his contributor position "effective immediately" while he jockeys to be Donald Trump's running mate.

Fox News released a statement today announcing it has "mutually agreed" with Gingrich to suspend his contract "due to the intense media speculation about Gingrich's potential selection as Trump's running mate and to avoid all conflicts of interest that may arise."

Which makes no sense, because Gingrich has repeatedly been mentioned on Fox News and elsewhere as a potential Trump running mate for months. If the network truly hoped to avoid conflicts of interest, it should have suspended Gingrich a long time ago, not a few days before Trump is reportedly set to announce his running mate.

Fox's own personalities have been pushing Gingrich as a VP choice since Trump became the presumptive nominee. They have touted Gingrich -- the first speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to be punished by the House for ethics violations -- as a genius, a conservative with bona fides, and someone who would "bring tremendous stability, tremendous gravitas, incredible intellect, and judgment experience."

Fox News host Sean Hannity recently said, "I wouldn't be happy with anyone but Newt."

Gingrich was first hired by Fox News in October 1999 and left the network in spring 2011 to unsuccessfully run for president. He became a host for the short-lived Crossfire revival on CNN in September 2013; the show was canceled in October 2014. He returned to Fox News in October 2015.

Gingrich's media career has been marked by egregious ethical violations and outrageous commentary. He has also repeatedly scammed subscribers to his email list with warnings about the Illuminati and promises of miracle cancer cures.

Trump University Taught Students How To Exploit Disabled Homeowners
By: Steve - July 12, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is another story about Trump U. that you will never see reported by Bill O'Reilly, but if Trump was a Democrat I guarantee you he would report it.

Trump University, the former for-profit business education venture that has landed Donald Trump in various courts to defend himself against claims of fraud, promised to teach students the secrets of Trump's financial success.

One particular course offered by Trump U presented a particularly blunt strategy for making money: target destitute, "completely disabled" homeowners headed into foreclosure and convince them to sell their homes at a discounted price. That is, exploit disabled people for profit.

That advice comes near the end of a nearly three-hour audio lesson-paired with a workbook-that was offered by Trump University in 2006, shortly before the housing market collapsed. It was a year after the opening of Trump University, which shut down in 2010 and has prompted lawsuits against Trump from former students who allege that the school was a scam that ripped them off.

The 2006 course, titled "Real Estate Goldmine: How to Get Rich Investing in Pre-Foreclosures," begins with a monologue by Trump, who says, "We're not peddling get-rich-quick schemes, no blue-sky promises or an easy road to riches."

But he pledges that his course will offer a "real estate gold mine." Then Trump University's Jon Ward interviews real estate investment adviser Gary Eldred about the best strategies for taking advantage of homeowners facing foreclosures. Throughout the course, Eldred provides a variety of tips on spotting homes that are in pre-foreclosure-for instance, look for an owner delinquent on payments because he could be foreclosed on imminently-and he offers strategies for persuading owners to sell their homes at a discount when they're facing foreclosure.

He repeatedly notes that a buyer should be kind when approaching pre-foreclosure owners about purchasing their properties, because these potential sellers are going through a stressful time.

But Eldred does cover how to take advantage of short sales-a deal in which a buyer talks the homeowner into selling and convinces the mortgage lender to reduce the seller's debt. Eldred points out that a key aspect of such a transaction is convincing a lender that the owner won't be able to pay back the loan as it stands. The goal, Eldred says, is to find homeowners who are in a truly desperate financial position.

"Under no circumstance will a lender accept a short sale if they think they can squeeze that borrower for an extra nickel, so certified destitution evidence needs to be included," he explains. He lists the conditions that are ideal for a short sale: "The borrower is out of work, the borrower has $50,000 in unpaid medical claims, the borrow is completely disabled, the borrower has an extraordinarily messy divorce where everything has been squandered."

During the course, Eldred laments several times that foreclosures are a painful but inevitable part of the economy. Trump makes a similar point in his introduction. "The sad fact is, more and more property owners are getting themselves in trouble!"

Trump says. "Defaulting on mortgages and losing their homes or commercial properties. I'm sorry for them, but life goes on, and the fact is, one person's misfortune is someone else's opportunity. That's just the way the world works. This program shows you how to make a lot of money from investing in pre-foreclosures."

House Republican Sides With FBI Over Trump On Charging Clinton
By: Steve - July 12, 2016 - 9:00am

Rep. Chris Collins, R-New York, said Tuesday he agrees with FBI Director James Comey's decision to not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server at the State Department.

Collins, the first member of Congress to back Donald Trump, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" that on the FBI's decision, he agrees with Comey -- not Trump.

"Director Comey is one of the better appointments that President Obama has made and I accept what he said that while her actions may not have been intended, it shows extremely poor judgment," Collins said.

And btw folks, every Secretary of State before Hillary Clinton also used private e-mail servers, they all did it. So if you charge Hillary Clinton, you also have to charge Condi Rice and Colin Powell. They all do it, which is something O'Reilly and Fox News do not tell you.

Insane O'Reilly Says MLK Would Not Support Black Lives Matter
By: Steve - July 12, 2016 - 8:00am

Are you kidding me, of course he would. If Martin Luther King were alive today he would not only support the Black Lives Matter movement, he would most likely be the leader of it. Bill O'Reilly is a lying fool, and how dare he try to speak for Martin Luther King.

On top of that MLK would also hate Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, for being a right-wing propaganda news network, and he would hate O'Reilly for being a racist. But the insane and delusional O'Reilly does not see that, and tries to speak for him, which is just ridiculous.

And btw, there is not a designed campaign of prejudice against blacks by the police, everyone knows that. It's just a small percentage of white cops who are shooting and killing blacks, nobody even said there was a designed campaign of prejudice, so it was stupid for O'Reilly to deny there is. Most cops are good, the BLM movement just wants them to get rid of the bad cops after they shoot people for no reason, or the wrong reason.

O'Reilly also says the key stat in the USA is that less than 2 percent of all police civilian interactions result in any kind of physical confrontation. Which is wrong, the key stat is the percentage of blacks to the population that are killed by cops, compared to whites, and that is far higher, and the stat that O'Reilly ignores, while spinning the stats.

Remember that O'Reilly also recently said racism is not a big problem anymore, and that there is no white privilege in America, which is ridiculous. He is either clueless, or a liar, or both.

After the ridiculous TPM from O'Reilly he had two guests on, one Democrat and one Republican, so it was a fair and balanced debate. Hahahaha, Not! The biased hack had one guest on to discuss it, Charles Krauthammer, the far-right loon who works for Fox News.

No Democratic guest, no black guest, no balance at all. It was just two old right-wing white guys talking about the Black Lives Matter movement and lying about what MLK would do. It was just laughable, O'Reilly did not even have the token Fox News black guy (Juan Williams) on to discuss it. It was typical O'Reilly, one right-winger lies and another one swears to it.

Here is what the racist right-wing fool said Monday night:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Skin color is a very personal situation. Every one of my black friends has felt diminished at times because of their complexions. It's wrong, there is no excuse for it, but it happens in every country. Enter American law enforcement, which is now under siege for allegedly treating black Americans more harshly than white Americans.

Talking Points does not believe, does not believe there is a designed campaign of prejudice. What is happening here is cause and effect. Because black Americans commit far more crimes proportionately than whites or other ethnic groups, they come into contact with police more often, and that contact sometimes turns volatile.

However, the key stat in the USA is that less than 2 percent of all police civilian interactions result in any kind of physical confrontation. That's extremely low. The issue of incarceration, again, deals with crime. The inner city drug traffic and the violence that comes along with that has put American police agencies and law abiding citizens in a dangerous place.

It's no surprise that black and Hispanic drug traffickers are arrested and incarcerated. No surprise. Their numbers are greater proportionally than white drug traffickers.

With all due respect to President Obama, well-meaning activists do not associate themselves with a group that often commits violent acts, and encourages violence through irresponsible rhetoric. Dr. King would not participate in a Black Lives Matter protest.

Even Trump Friend Tom Brady Says He Will Not Speak At RNC Convention
By: Steve - July 11, 2016 - 11:00am

Trump has been caught in yet another lie, he said Tome Brady was going to speak at the RNC convention, and he was lying. Because Tom Brady said he will not do it.

Another one bites the dust.

Donald Trump's vision of filling the Republican Convention with sports heroes is going up in smoke as yet another decline piles up.

Patriots quarterback Tom Brady will not appear at the Republican National Convention, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter.

Trump had already asked Mike Ditka to speak at the Republican convention, and the legendary football coach turned the Republican nominee down.

Tom Brady is reportedly a friend of Trump's. But even friendship can't make him sacrifice his public image.

Brady was blasted by Patriots fans back in March for his endorsement of Trump.

Donald Trump is so toxic that not even a friend like Tom Brady will speak at his convention.

O'Reilly Slams Minnesota Governor For Simply Stating The Truth
By: Steve - July 11, 2016 - 10:00am

Wednesday evening, Philando Castile was shot to death by a St. Anthony Police Department cop in the Twin Cities suburb of Falcon Heights.

Castile's death sparked large protests, this time during the early morning hours in front of the Governor's Mansion in St. Paul. During a news conference on Thursday, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton said he believes that if Castile had been white, the 32-year-old longtime St. Paul public schools employee that many are describing as a role model for kids would still be alive.

Castile was pulled over for a taillight violation, and he ended up dead at the hands of the police. How many whites end up dead after getting pulled over for a taillight being out, none that I can think of. The cop told him to show his I.D. and when he reached to get it he was shot and killed. So he did exactly what the cop told him to do, and he was killed anyway.

DAYTON: "Would this had happened if those passengers were white? I don't think it would've," Dayton said. "So I'm forced to confront, and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront, that this kind of racism exists."

Then O'Reilly slammed the Governor for simply saying the truth, after playing statements from blacks about the shooting, O'Reilly hammered the Governor, here is a partial transcript from the Factor:

O'REILLY: Even worse than those provocateurs was the Governor of Minnesota:
GOV. MARK DAYTON (D-MN): "Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver and the passenger were white? I don't think it would have. So I'm forced to confront and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront, this kind of racism exists. And that it's incumbent upon all of us to vow that we're going to do whatever we can to see it doesn't happen it doesn't continue to happen.”
O'REILLY: Dayton may be right but you don't throw a rhetorical bomb like that just hours after a horrendous death at the hands of police. That's just dangerous to law enforcement. It is Dayton's job to provide calm, not inflame the situation. Huge mistake on his part.

So O'Reilly admits that Dayton is probably right, but he slams him anyway, which makes no sense. If we cover it up the problem will never be fixed, we need more elected officials like Governor Dayton to speak out with the truth and not sugar coat the problem, then maybe something will be done about it.

O'Reilly wants him to just shut his mouth and not say the truth. Which just makes the problem worse, if more people spoke out about police misconduct it would stop, but the crazy O'Reilly does not see that.

O'Reilly says blacks being killed by white cops is not a big problem, and the stats prove it. But they really do not, he spins the stats to fit his argument. While it is true that more than twice as many whites have been killed by cops as blacks overall, blacks are killed at more than double the rate relative to their population.

There are more whites in America than blacks, so of course more whites will be killed. You can not look at total kills, you have to look at the percentage of whites who are killed relative to their population, and the same for blacks. O'Reilly does not do that, so he is spinning the stats in his favor. Even though he claims to have a no spin zone.

Blacks are killed at double the rate of whites, and that is a fact. And why they are killed is not in the stats, almost no whites are killed for having a taillight out, O'Reilly never mentions any of that. The whites that are killed by cops were doing serious crimes like bank robbery, or shooting at them, etc. not for having a taillight out.

Blacks are in fear of the police, because they know they could get shot and killed for simply being black and having a taillight out. Whites do not have that fear, if I get pulled over for a taillight out, or anything, I have no fear I am going to be shot and killed by the police, but blacks do, because it happens. O'Reilly either ignores that, or does not understand it, or both.

Last year, the ACLU released a study that found blacks in Minneapolis are 8.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a low-level offense. The phenomenon isn't unique to that city -- from car searches to arrests for pot-related offenses, study after study shows that black people are discriminated against by law enforcement more than whites.

The officers involved in Clark's shooting didn't face criminal charges. Earlier Thursday, Dayton announced he'd spoken with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to request that the U.S. Department of Justice begin an immediate independent federal investigation into Castile's death.

Roger Stone's Pro-Trump RNC Rally Drops White Nationalist Sponsor
By: Steve - July 10, 2016 - 11:00am

But the most impartant part of the story is that they were only dropped after the media reported about it, which is a bad sign for what they would do if the media was not watching them.

A pro-Donald Trump rally scheduled to take place at the Republican National Convention and co-hosted by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone has cut ties with a white nationalist website that was sponsoring the event.

It was reported last week that a unity rally featuring several Trump surrogates scheduled to be held in Cleveland on July 18 was being co-sponsored by Eternal Sentry, a self-described altright website that has repeatedly warned about "White Genocide" and posted other racist and anti-Semitic material.

Paul Chambers, who produces the Eternal Sentry website and was also listed as the Content Creation Team Director for rally co-host Citizens for Trump, has also posted racist material arguing that whites need to fight back against African-Americans and "send them back to the mud-huts they so desperately and obviously desire."

Citizens for Trump's Tim Selaty told he was not aware of Chambers harmful views and that his group had failed to do its due diligence. According to Selaty, Chambers "decided to drop his sponsorship and resign his volunteer position on our staff."

A citizens group organizing a pro-Donald Trump rally in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention said Friday it has cut ties with a former sponsor that published social media posts attacking Jews and equating racial diversity with "White Genocide."

Eternal Sentry's affiliation with the Citizens for Trump rally was publicized on Thursday by Media Matters, the progressive watchdog group.

Since at least May, Citizens for Trump had included Eternal Sentry as a sponsor on fliers for its rally. Eternal Sentry identifies itself as "alt-right," a catch-all term for an edgy, far-right brand of conservatism, and on its website rails against multiculturalism, feminism, homosexuality, abortion and other cultural forces and political causes.

In May, an image including the phrase "Diversity is just their code word for White Genocide" was published on Eternal Sentry's Facebook page.

In a June 28 post from his personal Facebook account, which is now not publicly accessible but an image of which was captured by Media Matters, Chambers wrote that white people need "to take our country back for ourselves and send them [African-Americans] back to the mud-huts they so desperately and obviously desire."

Which sounds just like Trump with his take America back and his make America great again campaign slogan, it's like he got it right from the white power websites.

Although Eternal Sentry is no longer sponsoring the rally, the rally will still feature controversial speakers like Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones. Stone was recently banned from CNN and MSNBC for his history of racist and sexist rhetoric targeting media and political figures, including calling one an "elitist c..t and another a "house negro," as well as calling Hispanic and black commentators on CNN "quota hires."

Alex Jones believes that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks and has called the Oklahoma City bombing, Aurora shooting, and Sandy Hook shooting staged. He has also suggested that the CIA funds Beyonce to cause mayhem in America.

Notice something else, Bill O'reilly and the other so-called journalists at Fox News have not said a word about any of this, and never will, they just ignore it to help Trump.

Six More Women Accuse Roger Ailes of Sexual Harassment
By: Steve - July 10, 2016 - 10:30am

After former Fox host Gretchen Carlson sued Fox News CEO and Chairman Roger Ailes for sexual harassment and retaliation on Wednesday, six more women have come forward claiming that they had similar experiences with Ailes.

In an interview with New York Magazine, these six women -- two whom have chosen to use their names and four whom have remained anonymous -- individually describe their encounters with Ailes, all claiming that he made sexual advances towards them.

The women -- who include a former Republican National Committee field adviser, three former models, a media consultant and a former TV producer -- all claim that Ailes sexually harassed them. Kellie Boyle, the former RNC field adviser, alleged that during a 1989 interview for a job, Ailes refused to hire her after she said she wouldn't perform sexual favors for him.

Marsha Callahan, a former model, claimed that during an audition for The Mike Douglas Show in the late 1960s, then-producer Ailes made her lift up her skirt in front of him to show off her legs and told her he would give her a part on the show if she slept with him and his "select friends." Callahan declined but still got a part on the show.

Limbaugh Puts Out The Same BLM Propaganda As O'Reilly
By: Steve - July 9, 2016 - 11:30am

Bill O'Reilly says he is not a Republican, he says he never uses right-wing talking points, he says he never puts out right-wing propaganda, and he says he is an Independent journalist who is fair to both sides in the no spin zone.

Then one day after 12 police were shot in Dallas by a black man we find O'Reilly using the same talking points the Republicans are putting out, and the exact same propaganda Rush Limbaugh is putting out. O'Reilly's position and comments on the situation are almost word for word what the Republicans are saying about it, and almost word for word what Limbaugh said about it.

They all attacked the group Black Lives Matter, when all they do is protest the unfair treatment some white cops give to blacks. They had nothing to do with the cops getting shot, and the shooter was not a member of the Black Lives Matter group.

He was simply an angry black man who had enough of white cops killing black men. Yes he was wrong to shoot the police, everyone agrees with that. But he did it all on his own and he was not a member of any group, he was not a terrorist and he was not a part of BLM.

But O'Reilly, the Republicans, almost all of Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh could not wait to blame the shooting on the BLM and Obama. Which is just ridiculous, and only total right-wing stooges are putting that propaganda out.

Limbaugh said this:
LIMBAUGH: Black Lives Matter was just exactly who they are then as who they are today. They're a terrorist group. They're quickly becoming a terrorist group committing hate crimes.
O'Reilly said almost the exact same thing, he said they are a hate group who are hurting America and dividing the country. When they are simply a group of people that protest the unjustified shooting of blacks by white cops. Not one BLM member has been found to do any crimes, not one.

They do have video of some people saying kill the cops at a rally, but nobody has ever proven they were in the BLM movement. And even if they are you are going to have a few crazy people in any group, the founders can not control that, and they have said if they are found to be part of the group they will get rid of them.

You can not label the entire group by the actions of a few crazy people, who were not even proven to be in the group. They are not a hate group, they are good Americans who protest what is an injustice against their people by white cops. Which the constitution and the bill of rights gives them the right to do.

The only people calling them a terrorist group, or a hate group, are right-wing loons like O'Reilly, Hannity, some Republicans, and Rush Limbaugh. And they are idiots who spin and lie for the Republican party.

And btw, anyone who blames the shooting on President Obama, or any other Democrat, are idiots. President Obama and the Democratic party had nothing to do with any of it, the person to blame is the shooter, and nobody else.

President Obama and the Democrats oppose violence, and have said so publicly many many times. They do peaceful protests, and that is a fact. The only violence you see at protests are at Trump speeches, where his crew beat up anyone who speaks out against him, but O'Reilly and the Republicans do not care about that.

Bill O'Reilly is just as big of a far-right loon as anyone in America, and that includes Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, two of the biggest right-wing liars in the country. The problem is, O'Reilly just will not admit it, at least with Limbaugh and Hannity they have the balls to admit they are partisan right-wing hacks.

Two White Republicans Says Blacks Police Complaints Overblown
By: Steve - July 9, 2016 - 11:00am

And one of the whites is a known racist, Mark Fuhrman. Yes it actually happened, and of course it happened on Fox News. Only on Fox could you have two white Republicans claim that police killing blacks is overblown and not really a big problem, even though it has pretty much started a race war and got 12 cops shot.

Megyn Kelly was the other white person on Fox, and she had the racist Mark Fuhrman on to discuss it. Now here is my first question, why is the proven racist idiot Mark Fuhrman on a news network discussing racial issues. My second question is, how the hell did he even get hired as a news analyst, oh I forgot, it's the Fox News Network, they hire racist idiots.

And only on Fox could they have a discussion on race relations with no blacks and two white Republicans, and do it with the racist from the O.J. trial. Earth to Fox News, if you do not want to be seen as a racist news network, do not hire racists to give analysis on racial issues.

And btw Megyn Kelly, nobody is saying all cops are bad, nobody, so you are a liar when you say they are. In fact, we know that probably 95% of the cops are good and do a good job, it's the 5% of the bad ones that are making them all look bad. I have not seen one person anywhere say all cops are bad, ever, so Kelly is a massive liar.

Here is a partial transcript:

MEGYN KELLY (HOST): There's been, you know, a big brush. A lot of these folks paint with a very big brush, Mark, and they find a couple of shootings that are deeply problematic. There's no question we've seen that over the past year and try to push a narrative that all cops are bad, and all cops are out to kill innocent young black men.

MARK FUHRMAN: Well, Megyn, we could have done this for the last five decades, 10 decades. You can always find something that doesn't look like justice was served one way or another, where somebody made a mistake, somebody was overzealous, somebody was overaggressive. If you're going to take this micro-moment in the history of a city, a county, a state or a country and use that as a movement, you can never combat this. There's always going to be something. It's like having a perfect family. It doesn't exist.

KELLY: Especially in the days of iPhones, Brad, and social media where, you know, every encounter gets caught on camera. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's happening more. It's getting caught on camera more. But the vast majority of police officers out there want to protect us and want to enforce the law and don't run around shooting innocent people. However, you don't hear that message forcefully brought by all the people in power.

O'Reilly Puts Out More Lies About Black Lives Matter
By: Steve - July 9, 2016 - 10:00am

O'Reilly said this Friday night to the NAACP Director Hilary Shelton: "White Americans Despise Black Lives Matter And If Black Americans Don't Understand That, We're Just Going To Grow Further Apart"

1) That is a lie, I am 100% white, as white as a person can get. And I support the Black Lives Matter movement, because what they are protesting about is true, far too many blacks are killed by white cops, while whites are rarely ever killed by the same cops.

I know of white men who shoot at cops and they are not killed, they are taken alive. While not all, but many blacks who do not even have a gun are killed by white cops, and some who have guns but never pull them are also killed, which you almost never hear about with white cops and white suspects.

O'Reilly even admitted that too many white cops are killing blacks, and yet he argues that the Black Lives Matter movement is a hate group and hurting America. When it is the bad cops who are the problem, not the people who are protesting the bad cops.

2) I know many whites who support the Black Lives Matter movement, so O'Reilly is lying when he says white Americans hate them, maybe the right-wing whites he knows do, but most of the whites I know do not hate them, and a lot even support them.

3) Let us get something else straight, just because people support the Black Lives Matter movement it does not mean they do not think white lives and police lives do not matter too. Because they do, all lives matter. The people who claim that are right-wing idiots who are putting out propaganda.

4) Bill O'Reilly is not helping the racial problem with blacks and white cops, he is hurting it. He is just stirring the pot even more by trying to divide the country, for ratings. And it is sad to say but it is working, the last 2 nights he has had a big ratings spike, as I predicted he would.

5) O'Reilly is an idiot, he is a right-wing white man with a cable news show, and instead of doing fair and balanced reporting on the Dallas police shooting, as a real journalist would, he is using the shooting to spin out his biased views. And it is not helping anyone, it is just making things worse by making his right-wing viewers even more mad at blacks for protesting the unfair treatment they get from white cops.

Here is a partial transcript of Hilary Shelton from the NAACP telling O'Reilly how wrong he is:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So, you know what I think? I think that if you really want, if African-Americans really want to bring the country together and have good racial relations, they have to distance themselves from Black Lives Matter. Am I wrong?

HILARY SHELTON: I disagree with you. But let me first offer our thoughts, our prayers, and our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in Dallas. It was an awful tragedy. It should not have happened. We are all very saddened by it. We have to get to the bottom of that issue as well.

The reason I disagree with you is I believe in my conversations with leaders of Black Lives Matter, and even my participation in a demonstration in which we marched from the capitol building here in Washington, D.C., to the front of the White House in a very peaceful demonstration with a number of members of Congress.

In much the same way those marched in Dallas, Texas, we saw things very differently. We have to take on those issues in a very significant way. Let us not forget two things, Bill. Number one is that those marches were for good reasons. Indeed, if we look at the disparities and the attacks of African-Americans and the killings of African-Americans by police officers, even unarmed African-Americans, the numbers and the data is important as well.

I heard you share a number of very helpful anecdotes, and anecdotes help make the story human. But the breadth and depth of the problem are very well rooted in data, and we look at the data, we see that twice as many African-Americans and unarmed African-Americans are shot by police officers than white Americans in our society.

That raises a problem. When we look at the images of those videos that we saw and we see an African-American, though each of them had a gun, neither of them were reaching for the gun and in both cases those guns were quite legal. But I think we're all outraged to see the video on the wall and see what we saw on our television screens.

O'REILLY: Let's get back to trying to bring the country together. I will submit to you tonight, and there are millions of people watching us right now, that there are very few white Americans who respect Black Lives Matter just because of what they did last night in Oakland. Just because of what they're during right now in front of the White House.

There's not one sign up there saying, you know, the Dallas police officers, that shouldn't happen. We're protesting that too. And so white Americans despise this crew. And if black Americans don't understand that, we're just going to grow further apart.

SHELTON: Well first I think you have to look at what's in front of you. If you look at the film clips that you've even shown, what you see is that those Black Lives Matter marches are extremely well integrated. They're well integrated --

O'REILLY: Oh come on. Mr. Shelton, you know who's driving the violence there. You know who it is.

SHELTON: With African-Americans and Latinos. There are plenty of white Americans. Look at the video footage. Watch it. Look at the video footage. It's not the case. When I was at the White House, there was not one incident of violence going on. People were there because they were equally outraged. This is a human, American issue.


Bill O'Reilly just does not get it, he says the problem is the Black Lives Matter people who are protesting, which is just ridiculous. The problem is the bad white cops who kill blacks, let's face facts. There are white cops who are killing blacks and not whites. O'Reilly has it backwards, the problem is the bad cops, not the people who are protesting the bad cops.

And if it does not stop I am afraid there is going to be a race war, if it has not already started. Blacks are only going to take so much, then they are going to fight back, and we have already seen it in Dallas. O'Reilly can not see that because he is a biased old right-wing white guy, case closed.

O'Reilly Ignores Another Great Economy & Jobs Report
By: Steve - July 9, 2016 - 9:00am

Once again Bill O'Reilly has ignored more good economic and jobs news. The stock market is over 18,000, jobs are growing at a record rate, and unemployment is down to very low levels. Which is all good news for the American people and the country.

But if you listen to O'Reilly, Trump, Fox News, and the Republicans you would think the economy is a disaster, job growth is terrible, the stock market is crashing, and the economy is in chaos. Because they are lying about it to try and make Obama and Hillary Clinton look bad.

It's called right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly is the leader of the pack. Just a month ago O'Reilly, Trump, and the Republicans were telling voters that the economy is terrible, but after it was announced that the economy created 287,000 new jobs, the reaction has been silence.

Except for Trump, who keeps saying he will bring jobs back to America, even though they are already back under Obama, and he makes jobs in foreign countries making his ties and suits. Not to mention, in history America always gains more jobs under Democratic Presidents than Republicans, and that is a fact that can not be disputed.

The economy added 287,000 jobs in June, a clear indication that the economy continues to make solid progress. U.S. businesses have now added 14.8 million jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in early 2010. So far in 2016, job growth has averaged a solid 172,000 jobs a month, well above the pace needed to maintain a low and stable unemployment rate.

Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate ticked up in June, while part-time employment for economic reasons as a share of the labor force saw its largest one-month drop since 2010. Most importantly, average hourly earnings for private employees have increased 2.6 percent over the last twelve months, tied for the fastest twelve-month pace since the recovery began.

And O'Reilly ignores it all, while telling you the sky is falling under Obama and that he is a bad President, even though none of what O'Reilly claims is true, it's all right-wing propaganda.

O'Reilly and the Republicans have responded to the good economic news with stone cold silence because they can't admit that their policies have failed, their nominee is a joke, and America is doing great under a Democratic president.

O'Reilly Wrong About Dallas Cop Shooter & Black Lives Matter
By: Steve - July 9, 2016 - 8:00am

On the Friday night show Bill O'Reilly said the man who shot the police in Dallas is a terrorist, and the Black Lives Matter movement is hurting America. And he is wrong on both counts.

The man who shot the police is not a terrorist, he is simply a black American who went too far in his protest of white cops killing blacks. Nobody should ever shoot the police, and he was very wrong to do that. But he is not a terrorist, he was a domestic killer who went beyond peaceful protesting about an injustice by the police.

A terrorist blows people and places up with bombs, or shoots a place up with guns to scare the general public. The Dallas cop shooter killed the cops to send a message to the police in America that they need to stop killing black men. That is not terrorism, it's a man who was mad at the police and he went too far to get revenge.

O'Reilly did say that the police departments in America need to train the police better and they need to stop killing so many black men. So he was right about that, but he is very wrong that the shooter was a terrorist and that the black lives matter movement is wrong to protest what they police are doing.

O'Reilly even called them a hate group, which is 100% wrong. They are not a hate group, they are simply protesting the unfair treatment a lot of blacks are getting from white cops, that lead to a lot of them getting shot and killed.

Overall O'Reilly just does not get it, the shooting was not terrorism and the black lives matter movement is not a hate group. They are Americans who are protesting bad cops, which they have a right to do. O'Reilly does not see that because he is a biased old right-wing loon.

Actual Journalist Slams O'Reilly For His Unfair Obama Attacks
By: Steve - July 8, 2016 - 11:00am

Hrafnkell Haraldsson from slammed O'Reilly for his ridiculous attacks on Obama for simply going to his half-brothers wedding, 25 years ago.

Bill O'Reilly likes to write fake history, much like David Barton, and he has proven himself to be just about as impervious to facts as Barton. His work is so bad it is difficult to believe he is not really "pulling a Colbert." He is that over the top.

On Wednesday's edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly accused President Obama of having "deep emotional ties to Islam." I say accused because for O'Reilly this is a problem, as it puts our country in danger.

Republicans don't get this kind of scrutiny for palling around with white supremacists, Neo-Confederate secessionists, domestic homegrown terrorists, Neo-Nazis and even the KKK, but President Obama can't go to a Muslim wedding?

O'Reilly took issue with President Obama's personal religious beliefs with the same reasoning that make his books so reviled by actual historians, bringing on Obama biographer David Mendell to lecture him.

By following O'Reilly's tortured logic, because all my relatives and friends are Christians, you could accuse me of having deep ties to Christianity. However, that doesn't make me less a Pagan. Muslim friends and family do not make Obama less a Christian.

A bigger problem for O'Reilly's argument is simply this: so what? What difference does it make what religion Obama follows, or what religion friends and family follow? And what business is it of O'Reilly's?

The First Amendment levels the playing field and forbids the establishment of a state religion. Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the "No Religious Test Clause," states in language even O'Reilly should be able to comprehend that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It doesn't matter what religion Obama is, and it matters far less what religion his friends and family are.


And btw folks, when Romney ran for President and he was attacked for being a Mormon O'Reilly slammed the attackers and said religion should be kept out of politics. O'Reilly even said it was unfair to go after Romney for his religion. Then he does the very same thing and attacks Obama over his religion, even after Obama said he is not a Muslim, that he is a christian.

One Person Shows Up For Republican Protest Over FBI Not Charging Clinton
By: Steve - July 8, 2016 - 10:00am

Yes, you heard me right. The Republicans called for thousands of people to protest the FBI ruling not to charge Hillary Clinton. And one woman showed up with a sign that said Comey Resign, and that was it.

The public doesn't care about Hillary Clinton's emails. Voters never cared about Hillary Clinton's emails. Judging from the turnout to protest the FBI's decision to not charge Clinton, most Republicans don't really care about Hillary Clinton's emails.

The only people who care are a few far-right stooges in Congress, Bill O'Reilly, and most of Fox News. NOBODY ELSE CARES!

Some in the Beltway media care because they can't get enough Clinton gossip, but the rest of the country hasn't given much of a damn since Republicans first started beating their scandal drum about Clinton's email server.

The once feared Republican smear machine is broken. Republicans can't mount enough public opinion to make Hillary Clinton's emails a story that voters care about. During the Obama years, Republicans deepened the partisan divide, and in the process cut off their ability to message outside of their party.

The takeaway from the Republican attempt to manufacture a scandal that could sway the presidential election is that Republicans aren't very good at this anymore. A Republican political machine that as recently as 2004 was able to smear John Kerry's military service has completely lost the ability to make their attacks stick.

A corporate media establishment that has a financial investment in pretending that the Republican Party is credible and viable can still be counted on to prop the GOP up, but the GOP is a toothless tiger which is why it is so fitting that they are being led down the path to defeat by a racist right-wing fool.

Fox News Gretchen Carlson Sues Roger Ailes For Sexual Harassment
By: Steve - July 8, 2016 - 9:00am

Gretchen Carlson, the longtime Fox News anchor, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday saying that Roger Ailes, the powerful chairman of Fox News, fired her from the network last month after she refused his sexual advances and complained to him about discriminatory treatment in the newsroom.

The nature of Ms. Carlson's allegations immediately transfixed the world of television news, where Mr. Ailes is a hugely influential figure known for demanding absolute loyalty from his employees.

A spokeswoman for Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit -- filed in Superior Court in New Jersey, where Mr. Ailes maintains a residence -- portrays the Fox chairman as a serial sexual harasser, charging that he ogled Ms. Carlson in his office, called her sexy and frequently made sexually charged comments about her physical appearance.

Ms. Carlson, who joined Fox in 2005, charges that during a meeting last fall to discuss her concerns about what she considered ill treatment, Mr. Ailes told her: "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better."

When she refused, the lawsuit claims, Mr. Ailes retaliated by reducing Ms. Carlson's salary, curtailing her on-air appearances and, ultimately, declining to renew her contract last month.

The suit, filed by the law firm Smith Mullin in Montclair, N.J., seeks a variety of compensatory damages. Its allegations are sure to roil the ranks of Fox News, with Ms. Carlson describing a boys club environment that goes beyond Mr. Ailes.

Ms. Carlson contends that in 2009 she complained to the network that her co-host on the popular Fox & Friends morning show, Steve Doocy, had engaged in what she describes as "severe and pervasive sexual harassment," including mocking her during commercial breaks and pulling down her arm so the viewers could see her breasts during a live broadcast.

Mr. Ailes, the lawsuit states, responded by calling Ms. Carlson a "man hater" and saying "she needed to learn to 'get along with the boys.'"

Ms. Carlson claims that Mr. Ailes eventually reassigned her from "Fox & Friends," in 2013, because of her complaints.

Until last month, Ms. Carlson was hosting a 2 p.m. news program, "The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson," on the network. The show consistently won its time slot, averaging 1.1 million viewers in recent months.

From April to June, Ms. Carlson's show was even the 24th-highest-rated cable news show in the closely tracked demographic of viewers 25 to 54 years old.

O'Reilly Ends Interview With Guest For Disagreeing With Him On Kate's Law
By: Steve - July 8, 2016 - 8:00am

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So, Mr. Ring, I read a column that you wrote. You don't support Kate's Law. I'll give you a chance to tell me why.

KEVIN RING: Well, thanks Bill. I just want to say at the outset that I do not support open borders. I don't want to defend Harry Reid. And I think, you know, I worked for Pat Buchanan in 1992, the original Trump. I worked for Attorney General John Ashcroft. I believe borders security is important. I think borders define our country and our culture. And as a father of young children, if what happened to Mr. Steinle happened to my family I would be mortified.

So if I were in Congress I would have done anything I could to prevent this senseless tragedy. But for that reason I would have opposed Kate's law because of all the options out there -- defunding sanctuary cities, building a wall, enforcing our treaty with Mexico to keep returned prisoners -- I think Kate's law is the worst idea. I think it's dumb. I think it's counterproductive. And I think it would make us less safe.

O'REILLY: Okay. Let me read what you said in your column. Quote, "do we really need to lock up even those who re-enter here illegally in an effort to flee religious persecution by ISIS or to donate a kidney to a blood relative? No one even thought to ask." But that's what the mandatory minimum would do. But that's not what the mandatory minimum would do. It's only about aggravated felons. So you mislead everyone in your column.

RING: No. No. The bill was changed.

O'REILLY: No. The law was not changed.

RING: Yes it was.

O'REILLY: No it wasn't. When this proposed, and Ted Cruz and I worked together on it, it was always about aggravated felons and it is now. And you just said on this program that even though it's about aggravated felons, you would not support them getting a mandatory federal prison sentence. First of all, you mislead everybody, and second of all, your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

RING: No, you mislead everybody because when you originally proposed this idea you said for anybody who re-enters the country they should get a mandatory minimum five years.

O'REILLY: We were very explicit that it was violent criminal aliens.

RING: No. No. that wasn't workable. So Congress originally proposed--

O'REILLY: Wasn"t workable? What does that mean?

RING: Well Congressman Sam and another took your idea. They crowed about how they introduced your idea and it didn't any exception. It didn't require that they keep it violent felonies.

O'REILLY: Well we're not talking about that. Because from the very beginning it was aggravated felons, which it was yesterday.


O'REILLY: And you're still opposed. Look, Mr. Ring, cut through the bull. You still oppose aggravated felons?

RING: Right.

O'REILLY: You still do.

RING: Because you know what an aggravated felony is? It is not just a violent crime. That could be failure to appear in court. That could be a fraud offense.

O'REILLY: No it's not.

RING: Yes, it can be.

O'REILLY: Aggravated means there is some kind of violence attached to it. It could be drug dealing, hard drug dealing is aggravated.

RING: No. That just means you don't know what's in the statute because the immigration law defines what's an aggravated felony, and so it could be failure to appear. And all --

O'REILLY: This all defined it would be a violent offender and it'd have to be a conviction of such, a felony conviction. Look, Mr. Ring, I have got to tell you and I'm not going to say it with all due respect. You lied in your original column and you're lying tonight. And I'm going to leave you now because you are not an honest man and we don't like that on The Factor. All right? Thanks for coming on.

O'Reilly Getting Slammed On Facebook For Obama Muslim Segment
By: Steve - July 7, 2016 - 11:00am

Wednesday night O'Reilly shared the photos of President Obama dressed in Muslim clothing at his half brother's wedding 25 years ago. He said they were taken at Obama's half brother Malik's wedding. He also said Obama's "emotional attachment to the Muslim world has hurt the USA."

And he is getting slammed on Facebook for it, here are just a few comments, I would say 99% of them are just like these, but of course a few right-wing loons agree with O'Reilly.

Bennett Burke: Mr. O'Reilly, there are so many things wrong with your statement about this that I hardly know where to start.

Rebekah Seeger: Why should he not go to a family wedding? My cousin is married to a Muslim, was my family supposed to not go to that wedding, too? It's not about geopolitics, it's about being a decent person and loving your family.

"Why would he go to his half-brother's wedding!?" If you have to ask, there's something wrong with YOU.

Frank Palmer: Well, according to Bill O'Reilly, since I've been to an Islamic wedding myself, I must be a terrorist sympathizer. And hey, all those Jewish weddings must mean that I want to kill all the Palestinians. Not to mention every heterosexual wedding I've attended must mean that I'm not gay anymore.

Gwendolyn Crouch: Really please stop blaming everything on my President. This has been going on way before my President was voted in. Hey Bill are you upset because you weren't invited to any ones wedding. The fox news station has never said anything positive about anyone.

Kelly Patricia: Bill O'Reilly claims that Barack Obama's "emotional attachment to the Muslim world has hurt the USA", citing Obama's attendance at his half brother's Muslim wedding as evidence. I can't even begin to understand how you can put a whole faith under one umbrella.

Muslim men and women that commit terrorist acts are in a minority. They are *radical* Muslims. It does more HARM than good to blanket a whole group of people under one stereotype. This attitude and stance worries me terribly.

Galen Gregory: Oh, please. This is an obvious ploy by O'Reilly to deflect attention away from the news that Gretchen Carlson is suing Roger Ailes for sexual harassment. That would be a touchy subject for Bill, since he's been in the same boat as Ailes.

Kathie B. Morris: Bill O'Reilly needs a brain transplant. Did he really not expect Obama to go to his brother's wedding? I have been to many wedding that were held in churches other than mine. Does that make me wrong? Get a grip! O'Reilly is a shock jock not a journalist.

And there are many more comments just like that, those are just a few examples. Think about this too, the wedding was 25 years ago, when people bring up how bad a President Bush was O'Reilly says he will not talk about the past. But he sure has no problem going back 25 years to dig up photos of Obama in Muslim clothing at his brother's fricking wedding.

One last thing, I think O'Reilly mostly did it for ratings, his ratings have been flat or down a little lately, so he knew this would get a lot of media attention and I bet his ratings spike over it. O'Reilly does stuff like this every once in a while for 2 reasons, he is a right-wing hack, and he is a jerk who will do anything for ratings, and it always involves smearing a Democrat.

O'Reilly Dishonestly Blamed Obama For The Rise Of ISIS
By: Steve - July 7, 2016 - 10:00am

The biased and insane far-right liar Bill O'Reilly said this Wednesday night:
O'REILLY: President Obama's sympathetic treatment of Muslims put the country in danger because he has not elevated the risks that we have to the level it should be. And he allowed ISIS to be created because of his foolish decision to withdraw troops in Iraq and to pretty much run wild for five years. So another president, angry about the jihad, would not have done that.
And that is all lies, it's right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly to make Obama look bad and to cover for the Republican George W. Bush, who is really to blame for the mess in Iraq and ISIS. Here are the facts, that O'Reilly never mentions, funny how he ignores all the facts that say Bush is to blame, it's ridiculous.

First, it was President George W. Bush, not Obama, who negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement that set the timetable for a 2011 withdrawal of U.S. soldiers. As for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's belief that Obama "refused" a plan to leave 10,000 Americans in Iraq, that is rated "mostly false" according to

O'Reilly says the same thing as Jeb Bush, which has been proven to be false by

While Obama has been accused of not taking negotiations for a new agreement seriously, the leader of Nouri al-Maliki's bloc in the Iraqi parliament believed that American demands were "a nonstarter for most of the parties and MPs [members of parliament]" and that a new status of forces agreement would be "very difficult, if not impossible," as quoted in The Atlantic.

A TIME magazine article headlined "Iraq's Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence" notes that "ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis" and that "it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal."

Second, it was never in U.S. interests to remain in a country that refused the presence of U.S. troops. This fact is also ignored by Republicans like Jeb Bush and Bill O'Reilly who blame Obama for Iraq's demise. A 2011 Atlantic article headlined "U.S. Troops are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There" quotes former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi as saying, "Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn't the answer to the problems of Iraq."

Allawi also stated that a prolonged U.S. presence was "definitely not the solution to the problems of my country."

In terms of a post-American Iraq that O'Reilly and some Republicans believe could have been saved by thousands of American soldiers, Foreign Affairs paints a picture of a corrupt political system where peace and tranquility could never have resulted simply from the presence of 10,000 U.S. soldiers.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki presides over a system rife with corruption and brutality, in which political leaders use security forces and militias to repress enemies and intimidate the general population. The law exists as a weapon to be wielded against rivals and to hide the misdeeds of allies.

The Iraqi state cannot provide basic services, including regular electricity in summer, clean water, and decent health care; meanwhile, unemployment among young men hovers close to 30 percent, making them easy recruits for criminal gangs and militant factions.

Would 10,000 U.S. soldiers have prevented the "corruption and brutality" of the Maliki regime in Iraq, provide "basic services to Iraqis" or fix the 30 percent unemployment?

Of course not, and once Americans left, Iraq's Shiite-dominated government arrested its Sunni vice president. Shiite leaders immediately consolidated power at the expense of Sunni rivals.

As a result of Sunnis reacting to being marginalized after decades of dominance (Saddam Hussein was Sunni), a PBS Frontline article headlined "How Saddam's Former Soldiers are Fueling the Rise of ISIS" explains that "As the Islamic State [in Iraq and Syria] continues its march through Syria and Iraq, the jihadist group is quietly utilizing a network of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to help militarize a fighting force that has effectively erased the border between both nations and left roughly 6 million people under its rule."

As for Obama's culpability in the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and Iraq's demise, Thomas Ricks blames Iraq's Shiite leaders. In a recent Foreign Policy article by Ricks headlined "Who Lost Iraq? I Don't Think It Was Obama, I Think It Was Iraq's Shiite Leaders," Ricks states that keeping U.S. forces longer in Iraq "might have made the U.S. government a hostage to the Baghdad government."

In terms of American forces possibly stemming the tide of sectarian violence, Ricks states "I don't see evidence that additional American pressure might have made the Shiite leaders act any more generously."

Finally, there was never a time, from 2003 until the present day, where Iraq was "won," and there has never been a year in Iraq since 2003 where the words "Mission Accomplished" could be uttered without hearing the sounds of suicide bombs or ambulance sirens.

Even with 10,000 American soldiers, which the Iraqis refused to allow in 2011, there would still have been rampant political corruption, suicide bombings, Iranian backed-Shiite militias and Saudi-backed Sunni tribes, and also the emergence of ISIS (a rebranding of al Qaeda, since ISIS used to be al Qaeda in Iraq) in Syria.

Obama is not perfect, but the demise of Iraq began the moment Bush decided upon regime change, not in 2011 with Obama's decision to bring our soldiers home. The fact that Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces showed "no will to fight" -- in the words of Secretary Ash Carter -- a Sunni terror group named ISIS in Ramadi highlights the reality that Iraq's ethnic divisions always doomed a functioning state.

O'Reilly Ignoring The Facts & Why Clinton Was Not Charged
By: Steve - July 7, 2016 - 9:00am

Here are the facts in the Clinton e-mail story, the facts that O'Reilly ignored and did not report in his biased full show with nothing but Republicans guests that was neither fair or balanced in a so-called no spin zone.

Tuesday morning, FBI Director James Comey announced that his agency's investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's handling of a private email server while she was Secretary of State has come to a close. He also added that the FBI will recommend against criminal charges for Secretary Clinton, stating that no reasonable prosecutor could determine that charges were warranted here.

It's an announcement that will surprise no one who is familiar with the underlying law and ordinary Justice Department practices in a case such as this one.

Nevertheless, in part because calls for a Clinton indictment were amplified by Republicans at the highest levels, and in part because of what Josh Marshall described as the media-industrial complex's quest for "wingnut page views," the idea that Clinton may face criminal charges has lingered for months.

Here's what you need to know about why such charges were never a realistic possibility.

Clinton, like her two most recent predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, maintained at least two email accounts: one specifically set up to receive classified information and the other for other communications. Clinton's non-classified email was hosted on a private server (as opposed to Powell's non-classified email address, which was an AOL account), while the classified email could only be accessed if Clinton complied with an array of security rules.

Clinton says that the emails she received at her non-classified address "were not marked classified," although she acknowledges that "there are disagreements among agencies on what should have been perhaps classified retroactively."

Government officials also confirm that "none of the emails the State Department redacted, or any other emails made public, contained classification markings at the time they were sent."

This matters because of a legal concept called mens rea. As a general rule, most crimes require prosecutors to prove that an individual acted with a particular state of mind before they can be convicted of a specific crime. Most federal laws dealing with classified information require someone to "knowingly" violate that law in order to sustain a conviction.

So Clinton cannot be charged with transmitting or receiving classified information based on that fact alone. She had to have acted with knowledge that specific information was classified when it was transmitted. There is little, if any, evidence that Clinton possessed this state of mind.

As ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase "relating to the national defense" to require "'intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.' This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith."

That's a high bar -- there's no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States.

Additionally, the phrase "gross negligence" also requires prosecutors to clear a high bar -- "a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety."

Indeed, as Comey noted in his announcement, the FBI could not "find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts as all the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice."

Setting aside the language of the law, there's also a very important practical reason why officials in Clinton's position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd.

For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Post's David Ignatius, "'it's common that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information. It's inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.' People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn't, but they do."

Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.

Basically, if they applied the same standards to everyone in the Government half of them could be charged, and the Government would be shut down causing a massive problem. What Clinton did was wrong, but hundreds, if not thousands of Government employees do the exact same thing.

In her case it was made into a big story by the Republicans because she is Hillary Clinton, and because they wanted to use it to try and keep her from becoming the next President. Hundreds of other people have done the same thing, including Republicans, but the GOP says nothing about them doing it, because they are not running for President and they are not Hillary Clinton.

O'Reilly Dishonestly Used 25 Year Old Photos Of Obama In Muslim Clothing
By: Steve - July 7, 2016 - 8:00am

Now I have seen everything, O'Reilly and Fox were wrong about Benghazi and the Clinton e-mails, so now they are going back to the 1990's to claim Obama is a secret Muslim because 25 years ago he went to his half-brother's wedding in Muslim clothing.

My God O'Reilly is a joke, and he should just retire from doing whatever it is he does, because it sure is not journalism. He should just quit Fox News and go work for the RNC, he already does their propaganda work.

O'Reilly Used Images Of Obama At Muslim Wedding To Claim His "Emotional Attachment To The Muslim World Has Hurt The USA"

And btw, O'Reilly keeps saying Obama is the reason ISIS was formed because he took the troops out of Iraq. Which is a flat out lie, Bush caused ISIS, because he is the one who signed the SOFA agreement to remove all the troops from Iraq by a specific date. Obama had nothing to do with it, Bush signed the agreement, not Obama.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY: Many Americans, including this one, believe Barack Obama's emotional attachment to the Muslim world has hurt the USA. There is no question the Obama administration's greatest failure is allowing the Islamic terror group ISIS to run wild, murdering thousands of innocent people all over the world, including many Muslims.

Mr. Obama has never, never acknowledged that mistake, nor does he define the ISIS threat accurately. That group is killing innocent people in order to impose a radical version of Islam on the world. The jihad is solely based on theology, perverted as it may be.

President Obama, as we all know, will not even use the words Islamic terrorism. Again today when telling the nation that America will maintain eight-thousand troops in Afghanistan, the president did not accurately describe the situation there, putting forth that it was more about politics than Islamic terror.

But they are not just militants and terrorists. They are Islamic-driven killers who protected al Qaeda before the 9/11 attack. Yet the President of the United States does not define the terror issue clearly.

Here's why. Barack Obama's father, who abandoned his family, was a Muslim who eventually turned atheist. Then his mother married another Muslim, moving young Barry to Indonesia, where he was exposed to the Islamic world even though he did attend a Catholic school in first grade.

According to his half-sister, Barack Obama attended his half-brother's wedding in the early 1990s. Malik Obama was a Muslim. The Factor has obtained pictures allegedly from that wedding, which we believe was held in Maryland.

Details on the ceremony, the exact location, whether the reports that Barack Obama was the best man are very difficult to verify at this point. What we can tell you with certainty is that Barack Obama has deep emotional ties to Islam.

After the dishonest O'Reilly talking points, David Mendell (who wrote a book about Obama) was on to basically tell O'Reilly he is full of it.

Here is a partial transcript:

DAVID MENDELL: Just because President Obama attended the wedding of a relative who was a Muslim doesn't necessarily mean he has deep ties to Islam.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): You wouldn't say that if your father and your stepfather, both Islamists, and then your half brother and half sister, both Muslims, you wouldn't call those deep ties?

MENDELL: Well, they are ties. President Obama is a very unique cultural figure. He has ties to various worlds. He has ties in the African-American world. He has ties to Kansas where his mother was born. He himself is a devout Christian. I would follow him around on the campaign trail back here in Illinois --

O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, devout Christian? He doesn't go to church on a regular basis. How did you arrive at that assessment? Why would he be -- he's a Christian. I believe he's a Christian. I'm not one of these guys who says he's a Muslim. But I don't think he's a devout Christian.

MENDELL: Well, he would go along the campaign trail here in Illinois, he would have the Holy Bible sitting in the door compartment of his vehicle, and he would refer to it consistently. He and Michelle would attend services of, you can go back to Jeremiah Wright if you want but --

O'REILLY: I don't know if that's devout in Jeremiah Wright's church is a little political.

MENDELL: But he's given expansive interviews about his beliefs in Christianity.

O'REILLY: Yeah but what you say and what you do are not necessarily the same thing. I base my analysis on the fact that in my opinion -- and I could be wrong, but I'm not -- President Obama's sympathetic treatment of Muslims put the country in danger because he has not elevated the risks that we have to the level it should be. And he allowed ISIS to be created because of his foolish decision to withdraw troops in Iraq and to pretty much run wild for five years. So another president, angry about the jihad, would not have done that. Am I wrong?

MENDELL: Well, I think President Obama is very sympathetic to all cultures, all religions. He grew up in a multiplicity --

O'REILLY: Is that good for a commander in chief to be very sympathetic to all cultures and all beliefs when thousands of people are being murdered?

MENDELL: Obviously you think it's a bad quality.

O'REILLY: You don't?

MENDELL: Well, I think he is a unique figure in that he can see various viewpoints. I'm not here necessarily to argue --

O'REILLY: He's the commander in chief of the country -- wait, wait, wait, Mr. Mendell. Mr. Mendell, he's the commander in chief of the United States, and his main charge is to protect us. It's not main charge as to be touchy-feely to all different cultures.

Bill O'Reilly Is A Dishonest & Biased Republican Fraud
By: Steve - July 6, 2016 - 11:30am

As I predicted yesterday afternoon, Bill O'Reilly devoted almost his entire show to the FBI not charging Clinton story. And it was all Republican guests, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to give the other side of the story.

Other than one segment on Kate's law, the entire show was nothing but right-wing spin and propaganda from O'Reilly, Krauthammer, Trump, and other partisan guests who not only slammed the FBI they slammed Hillary Clinton.

That is not journalism folks, journalism is when you do an unbiased report on a story with guests from both sides to have a balanced debate on the issue.

Bill O'Reilly proved to the whole world just what a biased piece of right-wing propaganda garbage he is. He could have done a fair and balanced debate on the issue with one guest in each segment who represented each side, that is what the real journalists on the tv news shows did.

O'Reilly did the exact opposite, he had nothing but far-right Republicans and even Donald Trump himself on to discuss it. And on top of that he let Trump do a phone interview with him, which is something he said he would never do, breaking his own rules.

O'Reilly did that because he hates Hillary so much he will do anything to smear her and try to cause her to lose to his friend Donald Trump in November. If you had any doubt Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, the show last night removed that doubt.

Here is a partial transcript of O'Reilly (From May 5th, 2016) telling Bernie Goldberg why he does not allow phone interviews from Presidential candidates:
GOLDBERG: No, and It's bizarre only if you don't accept that with Donald Trump running, everything is going to be a little bizarre, and if you can get ratings out of it, a lot of people will do things that they wouldn't normally do.

O'REILLY: Like take phone calls from the candidate, and that's unprecedented. Can you can ever remember anybody -- any other presidential candidate calling in to news shows?


O'REILLY: Maybe I'm wrong for not allowing call-ins to The Factor, I'll have to rethink it. But my rationale, so you know, was that if you're doing a phoner in here, you could have two or three guys whispering or writing you notes on what to say.

GOLDBERG: No. That's a good point.

O'REILLY: Right, and so I want, like you, you know you're facing me now. You can't, you know -- when you get in trouble, there is nobody to help you. The audience enjoys me flaying you. But if you were on the phone, you might have your wife telling you tell him this. So, that's why I don't do it.
I used to get hate mail almost every day from brainwashed O'Reilly lovers, but not much these days, and as of today even none of his brainwashed viewers has dared to dispute what I am saying about O'Reilly, because they know I am right and even they can not defend it.

That show is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is not only a biased partisan right-wing stooge, it also proves he is 100% in the tank for Trump, even breaking his no phone in interview rule. It was the most biased show I have ever seen anyone in the tv news business do, and O'Reilly should be sued for saying he is a journalist, he should be sued for saying he is an Independent, and he should be sued for saying he has a no spin zone.

Because it was 100% bias and spin that looked more like the GOP and the Trump campaign ran it, than a so-called Independent journalist who claims to be fair to both sides in a no spin zone.

Trump Could Be Facing Federal Investigation For Suspicious Payments
By: Steve - July 6, 2016 - 11:00am

For a candidate who brags about his lack of campaign operation, Donald Trump is funneling a great deal of tax-free money to insiders of his presidential campaign. His campaign disclosure forms should raise red flags and cause federal authorities to take a closer look at Trump's methods.

CNBC reported this:

These "red flags," as one expert deemed them, include a total lack of disclosure on which vendors staffers for the presumptive Republican nominee are paying, an "unusual" six-figure payout to campaign staff for nontaxable expenses and what appeared to be double reimbursements for some employees expenses.

Frenkel said that "red flags," such as those potentially identified in Trump's filings are considered smoke for investigators, and it's up to the agencies to see if it is smoldering or there is fire.

"It is much too early to tell if this may lead to a criminal investigation, but (the information detailed in this report) justifies the FEC and possibly the IRS trying to determine what is behind these findings in the campaign's public disclosure documents," Frenkel said.

The Trump campaign's disclosures contain suspicious double reimbursements to campaign staffers and unusually high expense reimbursements to people associated with the campaign.

With Trump's history of dodging taxes, and his refusal to release his own personal tax returns, the odds are that Donald Trump is trying to pull a fast one by playing fast and loose with both campaign finance and tax laws.

From Trump's perspective, he can commit the crime and worry about doing the time later. It will take months to sort out whether or not Trump is definitively engaging in criminal activity. The process could take as long as years to sort itself out, but as the scandal surrounding the Bachmann 2012 presidential campaign demonstrated, the law will eventually catch up to those who engage in criminal activity.

Trump is a ticking time bomb who can't seem to go more than a day or two without a new scandal. And I predict the Trump campaign will turn out to be the most corrupt in modern American political history.

There is a whole lot of smoke surrounding Donald Trump's campaign, which is why federal authorities need to immediately investigate the Republican nominee for potential criminal activity.

Crazy Trump Now Says Clinton Bribed Attorney General Lynch
By: Steve - July 6, 2016 - 10:00am

And where is his evidence, he does not have any. It's just another insane statement from Trump that proves even more that he should never get anywhere near the White House, even as a guest.

Taking the stage in North Carolina just hours after Hillary Clinton and President Obama left the state, Donald Trump slammed the duo's joint campaign appearance and accused Clinton of bribing Attorney General Loretta Lynch for favorable treatment in her email investigation.

"It's a bribe," Trump said of Clinton reportedly being open to keeping Lynch on as attorney general. "I mean the attorney general is sitting there saying, if I get Hillary off the hook, I'm going to have four more years or eight more years. But if she loses, I'm out of a job. It's a bribe. It's a disgrace."

Lynch said Friday that she would accept the FBI and prosecutors recommendation on charges related to the investigation of Clinton's private email server. On Tuesday, FBI director James Comey recommended that there be no criminal charges against Clinton, despite finding her conduct to be "extremely careless."

And that's not all, he had more crazy talk, Trump also accused President Obama of being in on the conspiracy. "He's campaigning and this was set up a long time ago, and he knew that the FBI was going to do this because it would have been very uncomfortable for him to campaign with her actually if they didn't take a pass on crooked Hillary," Trump said.

"So they take a pass, they announce they're not going to press charges, lo and behold, a few hours later, let's have a press conference, let's do a speech together."

Donald Trump's Racism Is No Accident
By: Steve - July 6, 2016 - 9:00am

An analysis of Trump's Twitter account revealed that his racism is no accident. Donald Trump has retweeted white supremacists 75 times since his campaign began.

Since the start of his campaign, Donald Trump has retweeted at least 75 users who follow at least three of the top 50 #WhiteGenocide influencers. Moreover, a majority of these retweeted accounts are themselves followed by more than 100 #WhiteGenocide influencers.

Donald Trump's campaign is courting racists, and members of the Republican Party who think that they are being good party loyalists by supporting Trump are enabling his racist campaign.

Trump's retweets of white supremacists are no accident. There have been too many retweets for the pattern to be a mistake. This is a strategy by Trump to mobilize the racists to vote for him.

And the excuses are wearing thin from Trump's media enablers. Grumbling about political correctness can't obscure the fact that the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican Party loves to retweet postings made by white supremacists, or people who support white supremacists.

The truth is Republicans have selected a racist to lead their party, and those who support Trump are linked to his racism.

Crazy Trump Says Only He Gives People Chairs To Sit On
By: Steve - July 6, 2016 - 8:00am

And this nut is running for President as the Republican nominee, my God they must be secretly thinking how did we nominate this lunatic. He said nobody else supplies chairs at their campaign events but him, and he was proud that he has chairs for people to sit on, which is just laughable.

Donald Trump interrupted his campaign speech in Denver to go on a crazy rant about chairs, and how providing chairs to the audience makes him great.

Trump said this: "Oh, you can sit. Oh, that's good. See, we supply chairs. How many people do that? Nobody else supplies chairs. Nobody else. Only Trump."

Donald Trump may not have a campaign, or staff, or policies, or ideas. Trump won't release his tax returns, or provide proof that he forgave the loans that he made to his campaign. Donald Trump has refused to tell voters what he will do if he wins the White House, but he has plenty of chairs.

Not to burst Trump's insane bubble, but most events that are held indoors provide chairs. Donald Trump is not doing anything special by giving people a place to sit down while he rambles for hours on an end about the greatness of Donald J. Trump.

In fact, his campaign events are more like an infomercial for Trump, than it is a campaign rally. All he does is tell people how great he is and how everyone loves him. When the reality is he is just a con-man and 70 to 90 percent of the people hate him, only a small minority of Republican stooges support him. Which is why he is going to get crushed by Clinton in November.

The fact that Trump would see furniture as a major selling point for what a great candidate he is indicates just how screwed up his priorities are. Trump isn't trying to win the White House. He is trying to sell himself to America.

He doesn't care about governing, or how he will run the country. Trump thinks that he can be elected president if he gives voters a place to sit.

Trump's insane chair comments show that the man has no idea what's going on, and in no way should be leading a major political party.

Trump can have his chairs, but the one important chair in the Oval Office will be for somebody who is competent enough to sit in it, and that is not him.

Want Proof Bill O'Reilly Is A Biased Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - July 5, 2016 - 11:00am

UPDATE -- 9:00PM Tuesday Night -- Just as I predicted, Bill O'Reilly used his Talking Points Memo to slam Hillary Clinton and the FBI, for not charging her. Then he had 2 Republicans, Charles Krauthammer and Donald Trump on to discuss it. With no Democratic guests for balance, none, zero. It was a biased one sided right-wing propaganda attack by 3 Republicans, O'Reilly, Krauthammer, and Trump.

O'Reilly and Krauthammer even gave Trump tips on how to use the FBI video statement to run ads against Hillary, which is unheard of for real journalists to do. They basically slammed Hillary and the FBI, and showed Trump how to use it against Hillary. Which is about as biased as you can be, no Democratic guests, and they gave Trump campaign advice. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if someone at MSNBC did that for Hillary.

Then on top of all that, in the past O'Reilly said he would never do a phone interview with Trump, so guess what he did. Yes, he did a phone interview with Trump, breaking his own rules. He said because it was breaking news he would break his own rules and let Trump do a phone interview on his show. What a joke, why even have rules if you do not plan to follow them, O'Reilly is so biased for Trump it's pathetic.


Just watch his show tonight, he plans to do his entire show on the FBI not charging Hillary Clinton. Now just imagine what he would have done if they had charged her, most likely he would have spent the whole week on it, and probably the rest of the year covering it.

Not only does O'Reilly plan to do his entire show on it, he is going to have Donald Trump on as a guest to discuss it, with no Democratic guest on for balance.

In fact, I will bet there are no Democrats on the show to defend her or the FBI decision. I will bet the entire show will be nothing but Republicans and stooges that work for Fox.

A real journalist would have an equal number of Democratic guests to Republican guests so it is a balanced debate. But O'Reilly is not a real journalist, he is a biased right-wing hack, so he will load the entire show with nothing but Republicans to slam the FBI and Hillary Clinton.

Now think about this, when the Supreme Court abortion ruling came down 5-3 against the pro-life right-wing crowd O'Reilly supports, it was the #1 story at Google News, and O'Reilly never said a word about it, not a word, ever.

Now the FBI not charging Hillary is the #1 story at Google News and O'Reilly is going to not only report it, he is going to do the entire show on it. Talk about bias, here it is.

Bill O'Reilly is a joke, his no spin zone is a fraud, and he is a fraud of a journalist who is so biased for Trump and the Republicans it is laughable. And in the end it will do him no good at all, because Hilalry is going to crush Trump in November, just like Obama crushed Romney in 2012.

O'Reilly and the biased stooges at Fox have no power, because all they do is preach to the 1 to 3 million right-wingers who watch their shows every day, and those people are already going to vote Republican. The rest of America does not watch them, and does not even know what they are lying about.

O'Reilly & Fox Wrong Again: No Charges For Clinton
By: Steve - July 5, 2016 - 10:00am

Once again Bill O'Reilly and all the biased idiots at Fox News were wrong again, the FBI said no charges will be filed against Hillary Clinton. And what this also proves is that O'Reilly and the stooges at Fox do not give an analysis based on the facts, they give them based on bias and what they want to happen.

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that the agency was recommending against charging Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Comey said the investigation "was done competently, honestly, and independently," and that "No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."

Many right-wing media figures are of course now claiming that the coverup is on following FBI Director James Comey's announcement that the bureau will not recommend criminal charges to the Department of Justice in the investigation relating to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

Those same right-wingers have previously praised Comey for his "impeccable integrity" and ability to impartially conduct the investigation, noting that Comey "is a man of principle" and "seems sincerely dedicated to keeping [the investigation] above politics."

While objective and impartial legal experts and media figures have predicted that no criminal charges would be brought forward in the case.

Legal Analysts, Law Experts, And Media Figures Have Previously Noted There Is No "Legal Culpability" With Clinton's Use Of A Private Server.

Several legal analysts have previously explained that "there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charges against Clinton, and that it would be a stretch to say that criminal charges were warranted."

But O'Reilly and Fox spent years going on and on about this case anyway, and said a million times that Hillary would be charged and prosecuted. And they were all wrong, just like they were wrong about Romney beating Obama.

This is proof that nobody should listen to (or believe) anything these biased hacks say. O'Reilly and the people at Fox do not report the truth, they report made up garbage that Republicans use to smear Democrats, and 99% of what they say is a lie or spin or wrong.

Trump's Star Of David Attack On Clinton Came From Neo-Nazis
By: Steve - July 5, 2016 - 9:00am

The source of Donald Trump's anti-semitic Star of David meme attack on Hillary Clinton has been revealed to be a neo-Nazi message board.

Which he deleted of course, but only after the media reported it, and reported it was from a Neo-Nazi message board.

"It was discovered Sunday that Donald Trump's Twitter posting wasn't the first place the meme appeared. The image was previously featured on /pol/ -- an Internet message board for the alt-right, a digital movement of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white supremacists newly emboldened by the success of Donald Trump's rhetoric -- as early as June 22, 2016, over a week before Donald Trump's team tweeted it."

The Trump campaign is pulling material off of white supremacist message boards for their own use. They are having their candidate tweet racist and bigoted material from white supremacist forums.

The media can no longer deny Trump appeals to bigotry and racism. The KKK love Trump and believe that he is going to lead them back to prominence. What Trump is tapping into goes beyond the politics of a presidential campaign. Donald Trump is openly promoting bigotry and racism as a part of his presidential platform.

Voters deserve to know what Donald Trump is really all about, and Republicans like Paul Ryan and Bill O'Reilly, who intentionally sweep Trump appeals to racism and bigotry under the rug don't deserve to serve the American people.

Trump is just campaigning on bigotry and racism. He is promoting bigoted and racist propaganda as a part of his campaign. And anyone who supports Trump is supporting bigotry and racism.

Trump Is Having Trouble Finding Someone To Be His Vice President
By: Steve - July 5, 2016 - 8:00am

Basically, almost nobody wants to run with him. Trump is so hated, even by most Republicans, he can not find anyone to be his VP. Which of course O'Reilly has not said a word about.

Larry Sabato: Many Potential VP Options "Don't Want To Be Considered" By Trump

Sabato: "It's Pretty Clear That Chris Christie And Newt Gingrich Are Two Of The Few Who Would Jump In Front Of An On-Rushing Train To Get" VP Slot

From the July 1st CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello:

PAMELA BROWN (HOST): And Larry, there's all this speculation about VP picks, possible picks. Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich are rumored to be on the list. They both have a fair amount of political baggage though. Do you think that the campaign should try to balance out the ticket in a different way?

LARRY SABATO: One reason why I think there's a short list of potential candidates for VP for Donald Trump is because most of the candidates who might add a state or add a segment of the electorate don't want to be considered and wouldn't run with Trump.

It's pretty clear that Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich are two of the few who would jump in front of an on-rushing train to get that position. So I'm sure that's one reason why they're on that short list.

Trump Says He Will Indict Hillary Clinton If You Give Him Money
By: Steve - July 4, 2016 - 10:00am

Now of course he has to win the election in November and become the President before he can even think about it. Which will never happen, so if you give him money to indict her you are throwing your money away.

Because the President can not indict anyone, the Attorney General does that, and you need evidence of a crime to indict someone, which they do not have, but those are just pesky facts that Trump does not care about when he makes his crazy statements.

In his fundraising email it actually says this:

Chip in $5.00 to indict
Chip in $10.00 to indict
Chip in $20.00 to indict
Chip in $50.00 to indict
Chip in more to indict

Trump offers nothing but his personal opinions, and some vague promises to do things that everyone knows will never happen. The negative argument is not going to work against Hillary Clinton.

The idea of trying to raise money of off implying that you would indict your opponent if you win is undemocratic and deplorable.

Donald Trump is running the most un-American campaign in modern political history. The fact that his campaign can't fire up voters with their own candidate or agenda is one of the biggest reasons why Donald Trump will end up being a big loser on Election Day.

Mike Ditka Turns Down Trump Convention Speech Offer
By: Steve - July 4, 2016 - 9:00am

Donald Trump asked Mike Ditka to speak at the Republican convention, and the legendary football coach turned the Republican nominee down.

Trump said this: "Coach, if you'd like to speak, it would be my great honor."

Ditka: "I'm not big into doing things like that. I'm not going to change opinions, opinions are like assholes. I believe in the way the constitution was written. But people want to change that. Immigration. Same thing. People want to change things."

A source confirmed that Ditka declined.

In less than 24 hours, Trump's convention of winners has gone from Mike Tyson, Mike Ditka, and Bobby Knight to Bobby Knight, Gary Busey, and someone from The Apprentice season 4.

The Trump campaign has realized that they have four nights worth of television to fill, and they are unable to attract the big names that Trump wanted in an attempt to make his convention more entertaining.

Top Republicans won't be at the convention. Trump can't get the celebrities that he wanted, so it looks America is going to be treated to four nights of Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and a crazy monologue with Donald Trump.

Cleveland is shaping up to be the worst convention in the history of the Republican Party.

My God The Fox News Network Is A Joke
By: Steve - July 3, 2016 - 10:00am

I was watching Fox & Friends this morning about 6am, and I was stunned at what I saw them reporting on. A Peacock attack on a girl. Yes, you heard me right.

A young girl was on vacation with her family in Cancun, Mexico and she provoked a Peacock, so it attacked her. No big deal right? You mess with a Peacock and it is going to attack you.

And the stooges at Fox reported on it, on their website, and on their tv show Fox & Friends. This is what passes as News at Fox, are you kidding me?

Now they were serious, they actually had a full segment on it with an animal expert. One of the insane co-hosts even asked the expert if it was an epidemic and out of control.

I am not kidding. There was ONE Peacock attack at a vacation resort in MEXICO, and these idiots at Fox have an article about it on their website, and do a segment on their so-called news network with an animal expert asking if Peacock attacks are out of control, and it did not even happen in America.

How in the hell is that news? And how can ONE Peacock attack in MEXICO be an epidemic?

I could not believe what I was watching, the three co-hosts showed the video and actually asked serious questions about it to the animal expert. And all he said was the girl deserved to be attacked for provoking the Peacock.

The Father even said I told you so, and they laughed about it. This was not a real news story and it was not an epidemic. My God, one Peacock attack in Mexico is not an epidemic. This is what they call news at Fox, it's ridiculous and it shows that they are not a real news network.

Trump Terrorism Plan: Illegally Torture More People
By: Steve - July 3, 2016 - 9:00am

To begin with, torture is not only illegal, it's a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, that the United States Of America is signed on to. So basically you have a man who is running for President calling for war crimes.

Donald Trump responded to Tuesday's brutal attack in Brussels by doubling down on his call for the torturing of terror suspects.

The GOP presidential front-runner said using grisly interrogation techniques like waterboarding -- or worse -- against ISIS sympathizers such as Salah Abdeslam would have thwarted the attacks in Brussels, even though experts claim otherwise, and he has no evidence to prove what he claims is true.

Belgian authorities should be able to "do whatever they have to do" to get information from suspects, and waterboarding "would be fine," Trump told NBC's Today.

"If they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding," he said. "You have to get the information from these people. And we have to be smart. And we have to be tough. We can't be soft and weak."

Trump said without citing any evidence that Abdeslam -- suspected in helping to organize November's Paris bombings, and arrested Friday in Brussels -- is directly connected to Tuesday's bloodshed.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the series of bombings that ripped through the Belgian capital and left at least 41 people dead.

"These attacks were based on (Abdeslam)," Trump said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Throughout his caustic campaign Trump has talked tough on terror, promised to bar all Muslims from the U.S., and has threatened to kill relatives of terror suspects.

A 2014 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee discredited such views on torture, making clear that the methods are ineffective and often lead to bogus information.

Among the techniques described in the report were waterboarding so severe it produced convulsions, sleep deprivation so prolonged it induced hallucinations, the slamming of detainees into walls, the denial of medical care and unnecessary rectal feeding.

"The use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information," the report said.

Not to be outdone, one of Trump's Republican rivals also came up with a radical idea to curb terrorism.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said he wants officers to "patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods" following Tuesday's attacks.

"We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant Al Qaeda or ISIS presence," Cruz said. "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized."

It was unclear how U.S. forces would patrol Muslim neighborhoods, or if Cruz has identified specific neighborhoods that have become radicalized.

His plan parallels a controversial NYPD Muslim monitoring program that was put in place post-9/11. The city was sued over the program and reached a settlement in January.

"I'd like to remind the senator he lives in the United States of America," said NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton Tuesday, noting that there are more than 900 Muslim cops in the city.

"Before he starts denigrating any population take a close look at who he's denigrating," Bratton said. "I take great offense."

Islamic leaders also slammed the two Republicans.

"The actions and policy recommendations of the two leading GOP presidential candidates send an alarming message to American Muslims who increasingly fear for their future in this nation and to all Americans who value the Constitution and religious liberties," Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, interviewed on "Good Morning America," directly denounced Trump's advocacy of torture.

"Our best and bravest intel and military leaders will tell you torture's not effective," Clinton said. "It puts soldiers and increasingly our own civilians in danger."

Clinton added that torture would be an "open recruitment poster for more terrorists."

Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders were cautious in their responses to the attacks, calling for diplomacy and the help of ally nations.

"We offer our deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones in this barbaric attack and to the people of Brussels," Sanders wrote in a statement.

Kasich called for a united front against ISIS and other terror groups.

"We must also redouble our efforts with our allies to identify, root out and destroy the perpetrators of such acts of evil," Kasich said.

Bill Maher Crushes Republican BS & Proves Liberal Economic Policies Work
By: Steve - July 3, 2016 - 8:00am

When it comes to debating legitimate political issues (not just right-wing conspiracies and propaganda), one of the issues I discuss a lot is the Republican scam known as trickle-down economics. It drives me crazy that I'm still having to debunk this garbage considering we have nearly forty years of concrete data proving that trickle-down economics does nothing but make the rich even richer while everyone else falls further behind.

Even today most Republicans will admit that income inequality is a problem (something they've been denying for years), though their solution to deal with this issue is -- you guessed it -- the exact same economic policies that caused the income inequality in the first place.

Friday night, Bill Maher crushed trickle-down economics by pointing out that California's economy is thriving following raising taxes on the rich, while two red states that had big tax cuts (Louisiana and Kansas) are in massive debt and are both an economic mess.

Hell, a Democrat just became governor in very red Louisiana following eight years of Bobby Jindal running the state into the ground.

Meanwhile, despite conservatives claiming that California raising taxes on the rich would make their economic problems worse, the state's economy is one of the strongest in the country.

"We did all the stuff conservatives warned us would make things even worse," Maher said. "But the sky didn't fall, unemployment did; and growth shot up to over four percent; and a 26 billion dollar deficit became an 11 billion dollar surplus."

Maher also brought up how the state's economic mess from a few years ago followed years of Republican leadership, led by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"After Arnold left office, we eliminated what scientists would call variables, in this case, the Republicans," Maher stated. "Democrats from governor on down control every office and voting body in this state. So we can really study what happens when liberal policies are tried unimpeded. And the only thing I have to say to Republicans about that is: Scoreboard, bitches."

And he is 100% right.

Recently, Gov. Jerry Brown championed his state's economic successes after raising taxes on the rich. Meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is leading a state that's seen nothing but economic turmoil since he passed his Republican-promoted tax cuts.

Sound familiar? It should, because that's basically the same promise George W. Bush made when he passed his tax cuts, and we all know how that turned out.

This notion that tax cuts create jobs is nothing but a scam perpetuated by the rich where, no matter if the economic is doing great or poorly, their answer to improve the economy will always be more tax cuts.

The truth of the matter is, tax cuts have almost nothing to do with economic growth or job creation -- demand does. The only thing tax cuts do is give more money to the wealthy, while 98 percent of Americans pay for it.

And you will never hear any of this from O'Reilly, because he is part of the Republican propaganda machine that will not admit the truth.

Trump Spent Almost $600,000 Trying To Block Unions
By: Steve - July 2, 2016 - 10:00am

Donald Trump says he is a friend of the working man, and that all the people in unions love him. Which is just more lies, he is not a friend of the working man and people in unions mostly hate him.

He has bragged about having good relationships with labor unions. When the AFL-CIO recently endorsed Hillary Clinton, Trump claimed it was he who deserved the labor federation's coveted backing.

TRUMP: "I believe union members will be voting for me in much larger numbers than for her."

Before entering the voting booth, those union members might want to know how much money just one of Trump's businesses has spent in an effort to persuade under-paid workers not to unionize.

The Culinary Workers Union recently organized housekeepers and other service workers at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. The union won the election in December -- but not without a fight from hotel owners Trump Ruffin Commercial LLC. That's a joint venture between Trump and casino magnate Phil Ruffin, himself a major financial backer of Trump's presidential run.

According to Labor Department disclosure forms reviewed, Trump Ruffin shelled out more than half a million dollars last year to a consulting firm that combats union organizing efforts. The money was paid from Trump Ruffin to Cruz & Associates in a series of seven payments between July and December, totaling $560,631.

Nearly $285,000 of that money was paid over the course of two weeks in December, shortly after the hotel held its union election.

Despite the heavy investment from Trump Ruffin, the union won by a vote of 238 to 209. Trump Ruffin argued in a filing with the National Labor Relations Board that the union illegally swayed the vote, but a regional director for the NLRB rejected those claims. And btw, the NLRB is pro-corporation and almost always rules against the working men and women in unions, so you have to be really bad to lose at the NLRB.

Lupe Cruz, the owner of Cruz & Associates was the attorney for Trump. Cruz, himself is known for his consulting work on behalf of employers battling unions. Trump Ruffin's disclosure forms listed the payments to Cruz as being for "consultation services and employee educational meetings."

Which is also dishonest, it should have said services for trying to keep people from forming a union so they can get a living wage and support their family.

Companies often enlist the services of anti-union consultants to deal with an organizing campaign. The consultants goal is to convince enough workers that forming a union would be against their best interests so that the union eventually loses the election. Unions derisively call these consultants union busters. Their tactics can be subtle or not so subtle.

While there's nothing out of the ordinary about the Trump hotel's use of labor consultants, the more than half a million dollars spent by the hotel is significant. (For perspective, another Trump enterprise -- his presidential campaign -- began the month of June with only $1.3 million on hand.) The large sum indicates just how badly hotel management wanted to keep workers from unionizing, despite Trump's public claims that he is an ally of the average working man.

Trump would keep his mother from joining a union if it made him more money, he is a low-life anti-union fool who is not qualified to be the President, and never will be.

The billionaire has spent much of the last week trying to align himself with the working class, particularly by speaking out against U.S. trade deals with other countries. Organized labor groups say that these have been raw deals for the average American worker.

At different points in his campaign, Trump has also boasted that as a business owner, he's gotten along well with unions. "I've worked with unions over the years -- I've done very well with unions," he said at a town hall meeting in February. "And I have tremendous support within unions." Whis is a lie, he also said he does well with blacks, while actual polls show that 89% of blacks hate him.

The Culinary Workers Union accused management at Trump's hotel of violating labor law numerous times by retaliating against pro-union employees during the organizing campaign. The NLRB's general counsel, who acts as a kind of prosecutor, found merit in many of those charges, accusing the hotel of illegally firing one worker and intimidating others.

The bargaining unit at Trump International in Las Vegas includes more than 500 housekeepers, restaurant employees and guest services workers, many of them Latino and Filipino. The union has urged the hotel to accept the election results and start bargaining over a first contract.

"We asked the company to sit down and bargain with us back in December, and they should have," Bethany Khan, a union spokeswoman said. "They're running out of time and options to delay this."

And btw, here is a fun fact, housekeepers at Trump's hotel earn about $3 less per hour than housekeepers at other unionized hotels in Vegas.

GOP Having Trouble Finding Speakers For Trump Led Convention
By: Steve - July 2, 2016 - 9:00am

A slot at the GOP convention used to be a career-maker -- a chance to make your name on the big stage and to catch the eye of the Republican donors and activists who make or break campaigns.

In the year of Trump: Not so much.

With the convention less than a month away, POLITICO contacted more than 50 prominent governors, senators, and House members to gauge their interest in speaking. Only a few said they were open to it -- and everyone else said they either weren't planning on it, didn't want to, weren't going to Cleveland at all, or simply didn't respond.

"I am not attending," said South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is overseeing the high-profile congressional Republican investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of the attacks on Benghazi. Gowdy, who said he was taking his family to the beach instead, said he didn't plan to go.

"I'm not," said South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, a former two-term governor. "But hope you have a good Thursday!"

"Don't know," said Sean Duffy, a reality TV star-turned-Wisconsin congressman, "I haven't thought about it."

Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo: "I won't be there."

The widespread lack of interest, Republicans say, boils down to one thing: the growing consensus that it's best to stay away from Trump.

Dan Rather Criticizes The Media's Trump Coverage
By: Steve - July 2, 2016 - 8:00am

And btw folks, Trump has banned 3 or 4 media outlets from covering his campaign, so the rest of the media should back them and refuse to cover Trump at all. But they are not doing that, because they want ratings from covering the train wreck known as Donald Trump.

If we had an honest media that cared about actual journalism instead of ratings, they would all refuse to report on Trump until he lets ALL the media cover his campaign.

Here is a partial transcript from the Dan Rather interview about the media reporting on Trump:

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): When you look at coverage of Donald Trump back here in the United States, it's been almost exactly a year since he entered this campaign. So many journalists have had to recalibrate their expectations and their understanding of politics. What has disappointed you in the media coverage of this campaign?

DAN RATHER: Again, what's disappointed me most is the lack of tough questions and the tough follow-up questions.

STELTER: You don't think he's been asked tough questions?

RATHER: Well, he handles tough questions by doing the old side shuffle most of the time. And with rare exceptions -- I give Jake Tapper credit here on CNN -- with rare exceptions, nobody bores in and keeps asking the tough question.

The other thing that's disappointed me a bit, and I do think there's been some media complicity in the rise of Trump. It's not the only factor, but it has been a factor of providing him so much airtime, and in some cases being complicit in arranging that airtime. So there's some serious questions. But for the news viewer, for the consumer of news, I think never more has it been necessary to deal with skepticism. Not cynicism, never cynicism but skepticism.

Skepticism, saying OK, Trump is on for an hour and a half on this network. Why is he there? The answer, of course, is because he's very good for ratings and very good for demographics.

STELTER: But also because he's accessible, right? Think about that Friday morning seven a.m., Americans are waking up and Trump’s walking out on his lawn in Scotland. It was almost like he timed it to the morning shows perfectly. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was nowhere to be found.

RATHER: It's not the case that was like he timed it, he did time it. He's very media savvy, I give him credit for that. He's much smarter, and time after time metaphorically, while Hillary Clinton forces have been off swimming, he's stealing their underwear.

STELTER: So should we not take him live? Should we have some sort of blackout? Because I know some people at this point say just don't show him live anymore.

RATHER: No, I don't agree with that at all. Certainly show him. But the control has to stay with the journalistic entity. What I worry about is in a way that the media is a political partner, a business partner of Donald Trump. The media wants the ratings. I don't except myself from this criticism, by the way. Media wants the ratings. Trump delivers the ratings.

So in a way, they're business partners, where the role of the journalist is to be an adversary. So I think the defense is make an editorial judgment, make sure you offer the same to the other side. You guys can have him on live. I'm not sure you want to have him live three times a day for an hour and a half at a time.

Ambassador's Sister Says Clinton Not To Blame For Benghazi
By: Steve - July 1, 2016 - 10:00am

When it comes to who was responsible for the security lapses that resulted in the death of her brother, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, the ambassador's sister and family spokesperson, Anne Stevens, is not pointing the finger at Hillary Clinton.

And it is "inappropriate," she said, to make Benghazi an election issue.

"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta," Stevens said in an interview published Tuesday with The New Yorker's Robin Wright, referring to the former secretaries of State and defense, respectively.

"They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn't a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself."

Instead, Stevens said that if any entity had any culpability, it was Congress for the State Department's budget.

"Maybe if the Republican majority Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted," Stevens told Wright.

Supreme Court's Latest Abortion Ruling A Big Defeat For Republicans
By: Steve - July 1, 2016 - 9:00am

Without a doubt the big news Monday was the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 ruling, striking down Texas highly restrictive anti-abortion laws. This was easily the biggest ruling on abortion in two decades, and it's already being considered a landmark decision for women's rights advocates.

And Bill O'Reilly, the so-called #1 journalist in all of cable news never said a word about any of it on his Monday night show. He ignored the entire story, even though it was the #1 news story in America and all over the news all day long.

To summarize the ruling, Texas Republicans knew that they couldn't place an outright ban on abortion, so they passed legislation that established absurd standards which any clinic performing abortions had to meet.

What Republicans are basically trying to do across the country is make it nearly impossible for a woman to have a safe abortion. They claim these laws are entirely about protecting women, when in reality this is nothing but conservatives trying to find loopholes to limit the access women have to abortion providers.

And Bill O'Reilly supports them, because he is an anti-abortion pro-life nut, just like they are. He is part of a strange group of Americans who claim to believe in freedom, as they tell a woman she does not have the freedom to decide if she wants to keep her unborn child or not. It is none of their business, and yet, they want to tell her what to do with her unborn child, when they have no legal rights to do it.

That's more or less what the Supreme Court said on Monday when it ruled that the restrictions Texas put in place served no actual purpose in regards to protecting women's health, and that they were basically just measures put in place to try make it more difficult for women to have an abortion.

This ruling was humiliating for Republicans. But they do not care, they are pro-life loons so they will continue their fight to stop all abortions, even when it is from incest or rape. Which is insane, but that is their position on the issue.

Here is why it was so important.

It set a precedent that Republicans cannot pass laws that place unreasonable burdens on abortion clinics in an attempt to close these facilities down, which is basically the loophole Republicans have been using for years to attack abortion rights.

With many other states facing similar challenges to similar laws like the one that was struck down in Texas, this ruling provides a lot of optimism that these laws in other states will soon be struck down as well.

It makes it much more difficult for Republicans to pass new laws attempting to restrict abortion access. Now any attempt by Republicans to try to find a way to close abortion clinics is going to have to fall within reasonable measures that have a legitimate focus on protecting women.

Which is incredibly difficult for Republicans to do when this has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with trying to circumvent a woman's Constitutional right to choose.

It showed us how fragile women's rights are in this country, placing a direct focus on the importance of the Supreme Court and the 2016 election. We're already looking at one open seat, with rumors floating around that Clarence Thomas might be retiring soon after the election.

Our next president might get to nominate two Justices, to say nothing about Ginsberg (83), Kennedy (79) and Breyer (77) who are all looking at possible retirement in the next few years. Yes, our next president could very well select five Justices.

If Hillary Clinton wins, it's very possible that a Democratic president will have chosen 7 of the 9 justices on the Court, and we can let Donald Trump possibly make those five selections, which would mean that a Republican president would have chosen 7 of our 9 justices.

It was a flat-out embarrassing loss for the Republican party. The Supreme Court ruling against backwards Republican ideology on women's rights is a huge blow to the party as a whole. Especially considering the ongoing turmoil that's been transpiring over the last few months as Donald Trump has completely hijacked the entire party.

It also exposed the Republican party's true intentions behind these laws they claim are all about protecting women. This is one of those moments where what most rational people knew (that Republicans were passing these laws in an effort to try to find some sort of loophole to block abortion rights for women) was confirmed by the Supreme Court flat-out saying that these laws had nothing to do with protecting women.

They actually put the health of women at risk by closing facilities where women could safely have these procedures done. It's always nice when what you've accused people of doing for years is confirmed by the most powerful court in the country.

Monday's ruling was a great win for women and women's rights advocates and an embarrassing defeat for the Republican party and those who are constantly trying to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of women. Like Bill O'Reilly and the rest of his crazy pro-life friends.

O'Reilly Warns U.S. Senators Who Vote Against Kate's Law
By: Steve - July 1, 2016 - 8:00am

Like he has some kind of power to do something to them, when he does not, he is simply a lame cable news tv host on a biased right-wing fake news network. He has no power to do anything to a United States Senator and they are laughing at his little warning, if they even heard of it, which I doubt most of them have.

Here is what the giant ego said Thursday night:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): 60 votes are needed out of 100 to get the law in place for a full vote on the floor. Again, I simply can't believe that any sitting senator would not support Kate's Law, and we will tell you exactly who steps up and who does not.

By the way, Senators Grassley, McCain, Cruz, Rubio, and Sasse have been heroes on this. Also, standing alone next week in the senate, a new law that would withhold some federal funds from sanctuary cities, places that will not cooperate on federal immigration law.

The bill is sponsored by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and has a lesser chance of success than Kate's law, because so many Democrats are invested in the illegal alien industry. And that's what it is, an industry.

It is assumed that all the Republican senators will support Kate's Law and the punishment of sanctuary cities.

Summing up, simply inconceivable to me that any elected official would vote against harshly punishing violent foreign nationals who defy deportation. I can't fathom any responsible person doing that, and if a senator does vote against Kate's law, we will deal with that person.


Here are some facts about Kate's law that of course O'Reilly never tells you about:

The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that Kate's Law would expand the federal prison population by over 57,000 prisoners, according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonprofit organization that supporters sentencing reform.

If the proposal became law, its impact would be dramatic. "Kate's Law would suck up every dime you saved from criminal-justice reform and negate it," said Molly Gill, a government-affairs counsel at FAMM. Undocumented immigrants typically serve between 15 to 18 months in prison under the current sentencing laws before deportation, Gill said. O'Reilly's proposal would boost that average by 300 percent.

Housing the Kate's Law inmates for longer periods of time would cost the U.S. Bureau of Prisons an estimated $2 billion per year, according to FAMM. The bureau's annual budget request for all of 2015 was $7 billion.

O'Reilly calls for Congress to pass Kate's law, but nowhere does he say how they will pay for it, while at the very same time saying the Government is broke and that we can not afford any new social programs, he calls for something that would cost taxpayers $2 billion a year. So we are broke, but somehow they are going to find the $2 billion to pay for it, but if the Government wants to expand a social program O'Reilly claims we are broke.

O'Reilly's proposal stands out in a political atmosphere that is increasingly critical of mandatory-minimum sentencing, including among conservatives. For this reason, some legislators who embraced sentencing reform are wary of the new proposal. Republican Senators Mike Lee and Jeff Flake publicly opposed the mandatory-minimum bill in August.

Despite the public rancor, immigrants are generally less likely to commit crimes than the native population, according to the The Wall Street Journal. Mandatory minimums are generally ineffective at reducing crime or recidivism.

Anti-illegal-immigration advocates who complain about the burden on the American taxpayer might find a 28 percent increase in the federal prison budget counterproductive.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: