By: Steve - June 30, 2016 - 11:00am
What's really stunning is that more than half the Republican voters would rather have someone other than Trump.
Donald Trump has had a few bad weeks on the campaign trail, and it shows in the latest Fox News Poll. Just over half of Republicans would rather have someone besides Trump as their nominee, and his support in the presidential ballot test has dropped seven points since May.
Democrat Hillary Clinton is up 44-38 percent over Trump in a head-to-head matchup. Earlier this month, Clinton had a three-point edge (42-39 percent).
The national poll, released Wednesday, finds she has a similar advantage when voters are asked about confidence in the candidates to make the right decisions for the country if they were president: 48 percent are at least somewhat confident Clinton would. It's 42 percent for Trump.
Clinton is the choice among blacks (87-3 percent), women (51-32 percent), voters under age 45 (45-35 percent), and those earning less than $50,000 annually (52-30 percent).
Trump leads among white evangelical Christians (66-18 percent), whites without a college degree (51-33 percent), gun owners (52-30 percent), whites (48-34 percent), men (46-36 percent), and independents (39-31 percent).
John McCain Slams Trump For Waterboarding Statement
By: Steve - June 30, 2016 - 10:00am
Republican Sen. John McCain is hitting back at Donald Trump's renewed calls for torture in the aftermath of the deadly terror attack at the Istanbul airport in Turkey.
"It's not the United States of America. It's not what we are all about. It's not what we are," the Arizona lawmaker and former prisoner of war in North Vietnam said to applause at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington on Wednesday.
At a rally Tuesday in Ohio, Trump reiterated his praise for using waterboarding -- banned by the Obama administration -- as an effective tool to fight terror just hours after the attack that left dozens of people dead.
"I like it a lot. I don't think it's tough enough," said Trump, adding that the tactic was "peanuts compared to many alternatives."
McCain noted at the event that waterboarding is considered a war crime according to the Geneva conventions, "But perhaps more important than that, if you're not into academics and history is it doesn't work. Because if you inflict enough pain on someone they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear."
McCain has long been an outspoken opponent of torture and had spearheaded the fight to prohibit certain so-called enhanced interrogation techniques originally approved by the Bush administration.
The senator has frequently sparred with the real estate mogul over his remarks about prisoners of war but has said he will back Trump if he becomes the nominee. McCain, however, has said he will not attend next month's Republican National Convention.
McCain also joked that those who initially thought Trump would be the nominee were "crazy."
"If you believed that Donald Trump was going to be the nominee and you believed that Bernie Sanders was going to come close, please raise your hand," he said.
"Please don't drive an automobile in the metropolitan area. You're a danger to yourself and others."
And btw folks, I could care less what the crazy Donald Trump says. But if other countries believe him they might waterboard some of our troops, and that is what bothers me. If we waterboard someone, they can use that to say we did it so they can to, and that is a very bad situation that I guarantee you Trump has not thought about. But the worst part is waterboarding is a war crime, so Trump is saying he supports war crimes, and worse, which makes him unqualified to be the President, who is sworn in to uphold the laws.
Trump Hit With FEC Complaint For Illegal Fundraising From Foreign Nationals
By: Steve - June 30, 2016 - 9:00am
The Campaign Legal Center has filed an FEC complaint against Trump over the fundraising letters that his campaign has been sending to foreign nationals.
"Donald Trump should have known better," said Paul S. Ryan, CLC deputy executive director. "It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that's exactly what Trump has done repeatedly.
The FEC's forum last week highlighted how foreign corporate money could infiltrate U.S. elections, but Trump's fundraising antics show that the FEC must also monitor candidates directly soliciting foreign money.
"If the FEC fails to take action on our complaint, it could send a message that Trump and other candidates have the greenlight to fundraise overseas," Ryan added.
"This is a strange and unique development that we have not seen before in campaign fundraising," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. "The FEC needs to investigate how many of these illegal solicitations were sent, to whom they were sent, whether any illegal foreign contributions have been received and, if so, whether the contributions have been returned."
Trump's campaign has claimed that the fundraising letters were accidental, but the email spam asking for cash has gotten so extreme that the UK Parliment has taken action to block Trump's campaign from sending the fundraising emails to lawmakers.
Whether or not anything comes out of the complaint, the problem for Trump is that he has been rslamming Hillary Clinton, claiming she has taken money from foreign nationals via the Clinton Foundation. While he is trying to raise money from foreign nationals for his campaign.
The complaint won't be resolved before the General Election, but Trump just lost one of his key arguments against Hillary Clinton.
Nate Silver: 79 Percent Chance Clinton Wins In November
By: Steve - June 29, 2016 - 11:00am
UPDATE -- 6-29-16 -- 9:30pm: O'Reilly totally ignored this story, because he does not want to report that Trump is going to get killed. He has to pretend Trump will do good so his viewers will vote for him, if they know he is going to get crushed by Hillary they will probably stay home on election day.
Here is another poll you will not see O'Reilly report, because it shows his friend Donald Trump getting killed in November.
Hillary Clinton has a nearly 80 percent chance of winning the White House in November, FiveThirtyEight polling guru Nate Silver predicted Wednesday.
FiveThirtyEight projected Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning the general election against Donald Trump, who has just a 20 percent chance of succeeding President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
"Here's how to think about it: We're kind of at halftime of the election right now, and she's taking a seven-point, maybe a 10-point lead into halftime," Silver told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America."
"There's a lot of football left to be played, but she's ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll."
Indeed, a Ballotpedia survey of seven swing states released Wednesday shows the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee sweeping Trump in Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia by margins ranging from 4 to 17 percentage points. Leaving Trump with virtually no chance to beat her.
New Electoral College Projection Has Clinton Crushing Trump
By: Steve - June 29, 2016 - 10:00am
An updated Electoral College projection from Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball predicts that Hillary Clinton will demolish Donald Trump in the general election this fall.
And O'Reilly never reports this, he never says a word about the electoral college projections, for that matter the rest of the media rarely ever mention it. They all focus on the popular vote polls, when it is the electoral college vote that decides the election.
They ignore the electoral college projections because they want to make it a horse race for ratings, if they report that Clinton is crushing Trump in the electoral college vote people will see it's pretty much over and stop watching them.
They did the same thing when Romney ran against Obama, they had it close in the polls, while it was not close at all in the electoral college vote. Then Obama crushed Romney 330 to 205, it was not even close. The media wants everyone to think it's a close race, so you watch their shows, but it's not and Clinton is going to crush Trump.
The website, which is run by University of Virginia's Center for Politics, has the presumptive Democratic nominee beating Trump by a 347-191 electoral vote margin.
And btw, Sabato is pretty much non-partisan, he has no bias. Bill O'Reilly even has him on the Factor once in a while as a political expert, and O'Reilly has praised him as an honest political analyst.
What's more telling is that all of the normal toss-up states - Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, etc. - have been moved into the "Lean Democratic" column, leaving Trump no mathematical way to make up the difference.
Crystal Ball's prediction comes as Trump's national poll numbers continue to collapse. Two polls out on Sunday gave the former secretary of state leads of between five and 12 points nationally over the presumptive Republican nominee.
According to RealClearPolitics, Clinton now leads Trump by an average of almost seven points nationally - her largest lead over Trump since he clinched the GOP nomination.
On this day in the 2012 campaign, Barack Obama led Mitt Romney by three points in the popular vote, very close to his eventual margin of victory.
Another troubling sign for Trump is two red-state polls that came out today showing him beating Clinton by much smaller margins than the previous GOP nominee.
In Texas, for example, Trump only leads Clinton by single digits, according to a new survey. Romney clobbered Obama there by 16 points in 2012. In Arkansas, where the 2012 GOP nominee beat the current president by 24 points, Trump only leads Clinton by 11.
These states are likely to remain in the red column, but the dwindling margins may be a sign that Trump will also underperform previous Republican nominees both nationally and in the all-important battleground states.
If this is the case, the eventual Electoral College map could closely resemble Larry Sabato's latest projection - a thought that has the Trump campaign, Fox News, the GOP, and Bill O'Reilly panicking.
Obama Approval Ratings Skyrocket & O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - June 29, 2016 - 9:00am
As the Republican Party nears a state of Trump led collapse, President Obama's approval has reached its highest level since 2011.
And Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about it, but when the Obama approval numbers were down below 50% O'Reilly reported it almost every night and said it shows Obama is not doing a good job, even though it was just a temporary drop below 50%, and no President will ever get much over 50% because the country is equally divided with Republicans and Democrats.
For a President now (or in the future) to get over 55% approval is almost a miracle. O'Reilly ignores all that, to spin out Republican propaganda that Obama is a terrible President, even after his approval went up to 56% O'Reilly still spews out the same old right-wing lies, and he acts as if the numbers are still under 50%.
As the Republican Party nears a state of Trump led collapse, President Obama's approval rating has reached its highest level since 2011.
The Washington Post reported on President Obama's new approval rating high via the ABC News/Washington Post Poll:
The poll, conducted in the immediate aftermath of a massacre in Orlando, showed Obama's approval rating at 56 percent -- its highest level in Post polling since May 2011, after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Obama is more popular now than Republicans George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush in the last months of their presidencies. Although Obama's approval rating has not reached the level of former Democratic president Bill Clinton's in 2000, his standing suggests that he could be a relatively effective surrogate for Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.
After the Orlando terror attacks, President Obama's approval ratings went up while Donald Trump's poll numbers dropped. The voters are paying attention, and they are appreciating the job that Obama is doing for the country more by the day.
Republicans had already given away the qualifications argument to Hillary Clinton by nominating Donald Trump, but they are also watching the change argument quickly evaporate as voters are showing no signs of Obama fatigue.
If Republicans can't argue that they have the more qualified candidate, and the change argument falls on deaf ears, what exactly are Republicans planning on running on this fall?
But if you watch the O'Reilly Factor and Fox News, you would think Obama has been a disaster, when in fact he has been one of our best President ever. Look at what he did, when Bush left in January of 2009, the country was in chaos, we were losing almost a million jobs a month, the housing market had crashed, the stock market had crashed, and the banks were all broke.
The economy was on the edge of a 2nd great depression, and Bush had a 22% approval rating. Then Obama took office and in less than 4 years he fixed almost everything, and got Obamacare passed at the same time. If Obama was a Republican and did what he did, O'Reilly and the GOP would call him a hero and better than Ronald Reagan.
It just shows how corrupt and dishonest O'Reilly and the GOP are, because if Obama was a Republican they would praise him and love him, simply because he is a Democrat they slam everything he does, lie about him, and hate him, simply for being a black Democrat.
It not only shows they are dishonest, it shows they are mostly racist about him.
O'Reilly Totally Ignored The Supreme Court Texas Abortion Ruling
By: Steve - June 28, 2016 - 11:00am
UPDATE - Wednesday 9:40pm -- Bill O'Reilly still did not say a word about the Supreme Court striking down the Texas abortion law 5-3 on the Wednesday show. Because he is a biased pro-life right-wing coward, plain and simple. If the pro-life crowd had won 5-3 he would have been all over it and done half the show on it Monday or Tuesday. The biggest news of the week, and O'Reilly never said a word about it.
UPDATE - Tuesday 9:00pm -- Bill O'Reilly did not say a word about the Supreme Court striking down the Texas abortion law 5-3 on the Tuesday show. Because he is a biased pro-life right-wing coward, plain and simple. If the pro-life crowd had won 5-3 he would have been all over it and done half the show on it Monday and Tuesday.
There was a 5-3 vote Monday morning by the Supreme Court that struck as unconstitutional part of a restrictive Texas statute that threatened to shutter half of the state's remaining abortion clinics and deny millions of women the right to a safe abortion.
And Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it on his Monday show. Nothing, zero.
The question now is does he have the guts to discuss it on his Tuesday show, or will he ignore it again tonight.
Some CNN Staffers Are Revolting Over Corey Lewandowski Hire
By: Steve - June 28, 2016 - 10:00am
CNN's "facing a near internal revolt" over Jeff Zucker's hiring of Lewandowski as an exclusive correspondent for the news network days after he was fired as Donald Trump's campaign manager.
"CNN is facing a near internal revolt over the Corey hiring," said a TV insider, who described many in the newsroom as "livid."
"Female reporters and producers especially. They are organizing and considering publicly demanding" that Lewandowski be let go.
The Post reported on Monday that the Donald's daughter Ivanka gave her dad an ultimatum to cut Corey loose after she was distressed by news he'd grabbed reporter Michelle Fields by the arm at a Florida event, and by a Page Six report that he recently got into a shouting match on a Midtown street with campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks.
At CNN, the hiring of the former Trump campaign manager on Thursday didn't only alienate women on staff. A source further said that "Latinos and others in the newsroom feel betrayed by an homage to Trump," so "they may do a public letter" objecting to the move.
A different source said, "Everyone at CNN, and even people who used to work there, are pissed about Trump's former campaign manager being hired on salary."
A source previously told Page Six that Lewandowski's getting as much as $500,000 for the new gig, but a CNN spokesperson told us on Thursday, "I can assure you we are paying him nowhere near $500,000."
Meanwhile, CNN's newest correspondent is apparently under a strict nondisclosure agreement as a former Trump staffer. Trump's NDAs are reportedly binding "at all times thereafter" employment with the candidate has ended.
GOP Delegate Sues To Get Out Of Supporting Trump At Convention
By: Steve - June 28, 2016 - 9:00am
A Virginia delegate to the Republican National Convention filed a class action lawsuit in federal court Friday challenging a state law that binds delegates to support the primary winner at the nominating convention.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for Donald Trump's nomination, as it will be a test case of a key argument being pushed by some Trump opponents who want to see him stopped at a contested convention.
They argue that state laws requiring delegates to vote for a specific candidate are unconstitutional, on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment's protection of the right to assemble -- and that delegates to the national convention should be allowed to vote for whomever they please.
Beau Correll, a Republican National Convention delegate who served as one of Cruz's campaign co-chairs in Virginia's 10th district, is the only named plaintiff in the suit, but he's filed it on behalf of Virginia's 49 Republican and 110 Democratic delegates.
It challenges a Virginia law that states: "Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary unless that candidate releases those delegates and alternates from such vote."
The complaint reads: "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees delegates to the Republican Party's and Democratic Party's national conventions the right to vote their conscience, free from government compulsion, when participating in the selection of their party's presidential nominee.
Nonetheless, Virginia law acts to strip them of that right, imposing criminal penalties on delegates who vote for anyone other than the primary winner on the first ballot at a national convention. That law cannot be sustained under the First Amendment or as a legitimate exercise of Virginia's authority under the United States Constitution."
Even if this case makes clear state laws binding delegates are unconstitutional, party rules -- with their own penalties -- still remain. The movement to oust Trump has yet to find a viable alternative, and RNC leadership has panned their effort.
And the Trump campaign is taking the possibility seriously, building a 150-person whip team to keep delegates in line at the convention.
Breaking: Bill O'Reilly Wrong Once Again
By: Steve - June 27, 2016 - 11:50am
O'Reilly said the vote to leave the EU by the British was all about immigration and open borders. Here is what he said Friday:
O'REILLY: "It's about immigration, open borders. British tradition is very strong. And what has happened over the past 30 years is that the British system has allowed so many people in. And those folks generally speaking have not assimilated. So that if you go to parts of London, you're not really in England, you're in Pakistan or you're in the Middle East or you're in the West Indies.
And everybody knows this. And I think that with 'the open border, EU policy, anybody can go anywhere, anytime,' that the English people said you know what, enough."
Now the political and economic experts from England, who are living and working there say that is wrong. They do admit the immigration issue was a small part of it, but the majority of it was people voting to stop Belgium from making their laws and deciding how to enforce them.
The British experts on the Charlie Rose show said it was a vote to get away from Belgium, their judges, and their laws. They said the people of England and the UK want their own judges and their own laws, and they are tired of the EU telling them how to run their country.
They also said immigration was a very small part of the vote, from a minority of the far-right who are opposed to all immigration, similar to the far-right in America who only want whites in the country.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law
By: Steve - June 27, 2016 - 11:30am
More bad news for O'Reilly and all his crazy pro-life friends. Earth to right-wing nuts, abortion is legal, get over it.
In a 5-3 vote the Supreme Court struck as unconstitutional part of a restrictive Texas statute that threatened to shutter half of the state's remaining abortion clinics and deny millions of women the right to a safe abortion.
The ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt represents the most significant victory for abortion rights at the high court since the turn of the century, as states have scrambled to pass and defend similar laws across the country, seeking to chip away at the landmark Roe v. Wade.
That 1973 decision, refined by a conservative compromise in a 1992 case, established that the Constitution protects a woman's right to end her pregnancy, but later rulings and conservative lobbying have given states leeway to craft abortion laws and regulations targeting not so much the right but those who facilitate it.
When the Supreme Court heard the Whole Woman's Health case in March, Texas insisted that "abortion is legal and accessible" in the state, but was badgered by the liberal wing of the court, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to explain how its law, the controversial HB 2, protects women's health - an interest the court has in the past recognized as a valid justification for abortion-related legislation.
Avowing a concern for women's health, Texas lawmakers passed the sweeping HB 2, which, among other requirements, mandated that abortion clinics undergo costly structural upgrades so as to resemble mini hospitals, and that abortion doctors obtain so-called admitting privileges at nearby hospitals - all in the name of reducing health risks and increasing safety.
And you can bet O'Reilly will lose his mind tonight and spend half the show (or more) crying about it, because he is also a pro-life right-wing nut who thinks he can tell a woman he does not know, and is not related to, what to do with her body.
Trump's Clinton Benghazi Lies Came Right From Fox News & Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 27, 2016 - 11:00am
And btw, O'Reilly never said a word about all the lies Trump put out in the speech, because he has put out the same lies himself.
Donald Trump used his June 22nd campaign speech to parrot Fox News lies about presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's response to the 2012 attack on diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
In his speech, Trump claimed Ambassador Chris Stevens was a victim of Clinton's actions while she served as secretary of state, claiming that she was asleep throughout the September 11, 2012, attack at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. He later claimed that "to cover her tracks," she lied about whether an anti-Islam YouTube video -- which led to widespread protests throughout the Middle East at the time -- inspired the attack.
Even though both of those claims are proven lies, she was not asleep and she was not the one who said the anti-Islam YouTube video inspired the attack, the intelligence community did.
TRUMP: Among the victims of our late Ambassador Chris Stevens, I mean, she, what she did with him was absolutely horrible. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed. That's right. When the phone rang, as per the commercial, at three o’clock in the morning, Hillary Clinton was sleeping.
Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds and hundreds of requests for security. They were desperate. They needed help. Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all. She started the war that put them in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die. To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about the video being the cause of death, the famous video, all a lie, another Hillary lie.
On top of those lies Trump failed to mention that those requests for more security were not to Hillary Clinton, when they ask for more security it does not go to the actual Secretary of State, it goes to a lower office that is in charge of security, Hillary Clinton had no idea they were asking for more security, and had nothing to do with giving them more, or not.
Trump lied as if she got a direct phone call or email to give them more security, when she did not, and had nothing to do with security for anyone. The secretary of state does not decide who gets what security, someone else in the Government does, and Trump knows it, but he lied about it anyway.
And btw, Trump also never mentioned that embassy security is part of the overall Government budget, and that when the Democrats asked for more money to provide more security for Government employees, the Republicans all voted no and blocked it, funny how O'Reilly and Trump never mention any of that.
Fox News and Bill O'Reilly have long pushed the lie that both Clinton and President Obama were not responsive during the attack. But the fact is, congressional testimony has confirmed that Clinton was in close contact with military officials and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon throughout the night of the attacks, proving she was not asleep.
The former deputy chief of mission in Libya testified in 2013 that Clinton called him during the attack to be briefed on developments. Clinton also testified in 2013 that she spoke with administration officials and President Obama from her office at the State Department throughout the night.
Fox and O'Reilly have spent years dishonestly denying the role the inflammatory anti-Islam YouTube video had in inspiring the attack and suggesting that administrations drawing such a link were politically motivated.
But the intelligence community initially indicated that the video played a role in the attack, and interviews with some of the attackers revealed that the attack was "fueled in part by anger" over the video.
Fox News itself even reported -- the night that the attack occurred -- that the attack was partly "triggered by a movie produced in the United States that is anti-Muslim."
Conservative Joe Scarborough Slams Trump & Calls His Campaign An Embarrassment
By: Steve - June 27, 2016 - 10:00am
Joe Scarborough, a Trump cheerleader for most of the 2016 campaign, has had some sharp words for Donald Trump in recent days.
Last week, he suggested that the presumptive GOP nominee was "throwing the election" and said it was time for Republican leaders to stand up to him. On Monday's "Morning Joe," he went even further by calling Trump's campaign an "embarrassment."
SCARBOROUGH: Trump could be doing so much better. It is an embarrassment, every day, the embarrassment deepens because he just simply refuses to stop playing to the lowest common denominator. That lowest common denominator over the weekend got Donald Trump saying that people drinking alcohol in a nightclub at 2:00 a.m., should have guns strapped to their waists and firing those weapons.
He said it, bullets, gunfight at the O.K. Corral gunfight at an Orlando nightclub at 2:00 a.m. when bullets are flying across -- not just there, he's suggesting that people take guns, strapped to their waists, to nightclubs. Something that even the NRA will not follow him down that dark rabbit hole.
But when asked if guns should be allowed at his campaign speeches or the RNC convention, Trump says no and has banned all guns.
SCARBOROUGH: "Does Donald Trump want to actually win? And all of the evidence, if you look at all of the objective evidence on what is required to win a presidential race, he is going to turn the White House over to Hillary Clinton. He's going to turn the United States Supreme Court over to Hillary Clinton.
And we're making a warning today, or at least I am, because it's going to be too late, soon. We were talking about this six weeks ago, before we skidded into the ditch adds badly as he has. He doesn't have that much time to clean things up. And it just keeps getting worse every day."
Trump Is So Bad GOP Delegates Are Filing Lawsuits To Avoid Voting For Him
By: Steve - June 27, 2016 - 9:00am
You know you are a terrible person and a terrible candidate for President when your own delegates file lawsuits to try and get out of voting for you at the convention. These are Republican party delegates, and they say they can not vote for Trump. Now that is bad, and of course O'Reilly does not say a word about it, or have any of them on his show to discuss it, because he is a Trump stooge.
"I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Donald Trump at the Convention."
Beau Correll, a delegate to the Republican National Convention from Virginia's Tenth Congressional District, today asked a federal court in Richmond to block the state's delegate-binding law. That law requires convention delegates under penalty of imprisonment and fines to vote for the state's primary winner, in this instance, Donald Trump, who won just 35 percent of the primary vote.
The lawsuit seeks expedited relief from the Virginia statute for all Virginia delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions.
"I am proud to call the Commonwealth of Virginia my home, but I feel strongly that the state has no right to tell any delegate of any political party how to vote, my vote is a matter of conscience that is protected by the First Amendment."
Correll is represented by attorneys David B. Rivkin, Jr., Andrew M. Grossman, and Mark W. DeLaquil of the law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP.
"We believe Virginia's delegate-binding law is a clear violation of the speech and associational rights protected by the First Amendment," said Rivkin. "As the complaint points out, the Virginia statute violates decades worth of Supreme Court decisions, including one striking down a nearly identical Wisconsin law. We believe that no state has legal authority to regulate political party national conventions or to tell delegates how to cast their convention ballots."
The case was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. And don't look for news about it on the O'Reilly Factor, because it has been and will be totally ignored, even though he does a legal segment every week and he has done thousands of legal segments over the last 15 years.
First Trump Fundraising Email Flops After Being Reported As Spam
By: Steve - June 26, 2016 - 11:00am
Donald Trump's first fundraising email wasn't the hit that he claimed it was because nearly 60% of the emails he sent were automatically listed as spam.
Ad Age reported this:
Nearly 60% of those first-ever fundraiser emails, however, never reached inboxes. Instead, they were automatically relegated to recipients spam folders, according to Return Path, which evaluates email campaigns using estimates based on its panel of 2.5 million active email users.
The email tracker also reported that just 12% of recipients opened the email, and 6% deleted it without reading it.
In May, 7.9% of the emails sent by the Trump camp were caught up in spam filters, according to Return Path. Even that nearly 8% spam rate is considered very high by industry standards.
The Trump fundraising email was only sent to people who signed up to be on Trump's mailing list. The fact that only 12% of the recipients opened the email casts doubt on the campaign's claims that they raised $3.3 million from a single email.
One of the reasons for Trump's emails being listed as spam could be that Donald Trump's sales pitch style of campaigning reads more like an ad for an online payday lender than a message from a candidate for president.
Trump is using sales techniques to run for president, which is why the spam filters are so confused. The filters can't tell the difference between the Nigerian prince offering to send you $2 million and the Republican Party's nominee for president.
Both the prince and Trump are running scams, and only a sucker would open an email from either of them.
And of course you never hear a word about any of this from the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, because he is a friend of Trump and a Trump stooge who is helping to cover for him.
Hillary Clinton's Lead Grows To 13 Points As Trump Campaign Falls Apart
By: Steve - June 26, 2016 - 10:00am
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton regained a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.
The June 20-24 poll showed that 46.6 percent of likely American voters supported Clinton while 33.3 percent supported Trump.
Trump had enjoyed a brief boost in support following the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, as he doubled down on his pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country, cutting Clinton's lead to nine points.
But Trump's rise in popularity appeared to be only temporary, unlike his lasting surge among the Republican field last year after the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, California.
Clinton's 13.3 percentage point lead is about the same as she had before the Orlando attack.
Trump's slip this week came as he struggled to show that he can keep up with a Clinton campaign apparatus that has dwarfed his in size and funding.
Conservative George Will Leaves The GOP Because Of Donald Trump
By: Steve - June 26, 2016 - 9:00am
WASHINGTON - Conservative columnist George Will has left the Republican Party, and he is urging others to make sure the GOP's presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, doesn't win.
"Make sure he loses," Will told PJ Media, an online news company, in an interview Friday. "Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House."
Will, a long-time columnist and commentator, spoke Friday at the Federalist Society luncheon. "This is not my party," he said during the speech.
According to PJ Media, Will said he has changed his GOP registration in Maryland to "unaffiliated."
Will, a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist, has long been critical of Trump. The Washington Post columnist warned in a column in April that Trump's damage to the party had only just begun.
Trump, he said, would be the "most unpopular nominee ever" and unable to get support from women, minorities and young voters.
In a column earlier this week, Will urged Republican donors not to contribute to Trump's campaign.
David Gergen Calls Trump's Speech Slanderous
By: Steve - June 25, 2016 - 10:00am
DAVID GERGEN: But you can't ignore the truth of what he says or the lack of truth of what he says. And I do think in coming days we're going to hear an awful lot about a string of lies and exaggerations.
I mean let's go to something fundamental. And that is, I was really surprised he leaned as heavily as he did upon the Schweizer book, called the Clinton Cash, that book has been basically discredited.
Other news organizations have looked at it and said he has no evidence, he has no evidence, that shows that money given to the -- by donors to the Clinton Foundation then resulted in actions by the State Department that favored those donors.
And what Schweizer himself has said is, well I think there's a pattern here and we ought to investigate. I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody -- and this was a slanderous speech, without more proof.
Even his friend Bill O'Reilly, who defends everything Trump says and does, said he looked into it and he can not confirm what Trump said is true.
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Trump's speech lasted about 40 minutes and featured something new.
Now, the Factor checked out that allegation, and it is based solely, solely on a book unfavorable to the Clintons. Fox News cannot confirm the data Mr. Trump used. We cannot confirm that independently.
Another Negative Trump Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - June 25, 2016 - 9:00am
Even half the Republicans want someone other than Trump, the polls show, but you will never see that from O'Reilly, because he ignored the entire poll.
A new poll shows that 48% of Republicans want someone else to be their presidential nominee besides Donald Trump.
It turns out that nearly half of REPUBLICANS would rather have someone else not named Donald Trump as their nominee. There has been a great deal of scoffing at the idea that the Republican Party might replace Trump at the convention with a different nominee, but there is a definite segment of the party that would support dumping Trump.
When half of a political party would rather have someone else, that is an omen that the party is in complete chaos. Trump has done nothing to reassure Republicans that he can lead their party. In fact, he continues to provide proof on a nearly daily basis that he is not capable of effective leadership.
Trump is getting crushed in the money race. He is getting out organized on the ground. Republicans have managed to hand their presidential nomination to a man who doesn't have a real presidential campaign.
Almost half of the Republican Party wants Trump gone, and they will go into November as a hopelessly divided party that will be ripe for the Democratic picking.
The Media Is So Dishonest It's Pathetic
By: Steve - June 24, 2016 - 11:50am
They keep saying the 4 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court over the Obama Immigration order is a devastating loss for Obama. When it was not a loss, it was a tie, the vote was 4 to 4, so he never lost.
A loss would have been 5 to 3 against him, a tie is not a loss, it's a tie.
The split decision means a lower court ruling that effectively blocked the program will stand, and no national precedent will be set as to whether the president acted within the law when he announced it in November 2014.
Obama expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court's "inability to reach a decision" and stressed that its failure to decide was also partly to blame on Senate Republicans unwillingness to consider the person he chose to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
"This is part of the consequence of a Republican failure so far to give a fair hearing to Merrick Garland, my nominee to the Supreme Court," Obama said at a White House briefing, adding that their recalcitrance is "not a sustainable strategy" and that it stalls progress on issues that need definite answers.
On that note, Obama made clear that the ruling is only nominal and doesn't carry any legal weight -- let alone stand for a value judgment on his presidency.
"If we have a full court issuing a full opinion on anything, then we take it seriously," he said. "This we have to abide by, but it wasn't any kind of value statement or a decision on the merits on these issues."
Fox News is calling it a big loss for Obama, when it was not a loss, it was a tie. They even put some of their stooges on the air to say the Supreme Court ruled against Obama and said he made the order without the proper authority, even though they made no such ruling, and he had the authority to make the order.
Now there are millions of undocumented immigrants who are here and working, who had kids here who are American citizens, and they do not know what to do now. They simply come here to work and raise their family because we have such a great country, they are not in gangs or out breaking laws, they are just trying to work and support their family.
Republicans even claim to be the party of family values, then they block laws that would help million of families who are already here, with kids who by law are American citizens. What do they want to do, send their parents back to Mexico, what do the kids do?
It's Official: CNN Is A Joke & No Longer A Valid News Network
By: Steve - June 24, 2016 - 11:30am
I barely watch CNN as it is, because they have moved so far to the right in the last 2 years it is almost Fox News. But now they have gone too far, and I will never watch CNN again, I have even blocked it on my cable tv box.
They hired the dishonest and disgraced Corey Lweandowski, the former Donald Trump campaign manager. To begin with, it is wrong for any so-called objective news network to hire a former campaign manager 5 minutes after he was fired, while the guy who fired him is still running for office, they should have waited until at least after the election is over.
And the worst part is that Lewandowski is not only a Trump loyalist, he is legally prohibited from criticizing Trump, his family, or any of his businesses.
So how in the hell can he be a political analyst, when he can not say one bad word about one of the candidates for President. It's ridiculous, and CNN should be ashamed for what they did.
Even Howard Kurtz from Fox News slammed CNN for it:
HOWARD KURTZ: Well, this is no knock on Corey, who I thought handled his firing with class, but for CNN to hire him 12 minutes after he was fired is to use, one of Trump's famous words, sad.
It's really sad because Lewandowski made clear both in the first interview he did with CNN before he was on the payroll, and in an interview he did just tonight as a CNN contributor, that he doesn't intend to utter a negative syllable about Donald Trump, and even if he wanted to he signed a confidentiality agreement with Trump, so he's limited in what he can say.
So I don't see how this helps CNN provide anything approaching independent analysis, and watching Corey tonight, it almost seems like he was still on Trump's payroll because he was defending him at every possible turn.
Many other media figures across the political spectrum are slamming CNN after the network hired former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to be a political commentator on the network.
Good job CNN, you have hit rock bottom in your ridiculous attempt to get ratings, and I predict your ratings will go down even more, the cable news network that used to be #1, is now #3 and getting worse. You just lost me as a viewer forever, I will never watch any CNN show again for the rest of my life.
Paul Ryan Cuts Off C-SPAN Cameras To Blackout Democratic Gun Protest
By: Steve - June 24, 2016 - 11:00am
Republican Speaker Paul Ryan responded to Democrats shutting down the House with a protest to demand a vote on gun control by shutting off C-SPAN's cameras and blacking out the sit-in. This is the same man who cries about free speech when Democrats do something he does not like, and due process for all, while not allowing a vote on the gun bills, and shutting off the cameras the people have a right to look at.
Speaker Paul Ryan responded to Democrats shutting down the House with a protest to demand a vote on gun control by shutting off C-SPAN's cameras and blacking out the sit-in.
As another Democrat began to speak, the Republican lawmaker sitting in the chair gaveled the House into a temporary recess until noon. The House cut off the C-SPAN cameras that normally broadcast the floor. Later, when lawmakers reconvened, Democratic members still refused to budge, forming a circle in the well of the floor while chanting. Republicans were forced to gavel into recess once more.
The C-SPAN cameras are controlled by the office of the Speaker of the House. C-SPAN even reminded viewers on twitter that they have no control over the cameras on the House floor.
Speaker Ryan responded to the Democratic protest demanding a vote on gun control legislation in the most undemocratic way possible. Ryan cut off the cameras so that the world could not see what House Democrats are doing. The cutting off of cameras is something that happens in authoritarian regimes. It should not happen in the United States of America.
Ryan pulled the move of a cowardly dictator. Speaker Ryan supports Donald Trump, because, at heart, they have so much in common. Paul Ryan had a chance to live up to his principled rhetoric, but when push came to shove, Speaker Ryan cut off the cameras and got on his knees for the NRA.
Republicans can black out the video, but they can't hide from the demand of the American people for Congressional action on gun violence.
O'Reilly Ignores The Real News About Trump's Troubling FEC Filing
By: Steve - June 24, 2016 - 10:00am
It looks like Trump is just one big con-man who is using his run for President to make all his own companies richer, while not really doing much to win the election, in fact, the way he is running his campaign you could argue he does not even care about winning, just making more money.
Bill O'Reilly ignored the fact that Donald Trump's May financial report showed the campaign paid his own businesses and family for campaign events, instead choosing to debunk a controversy regarding a payment to what some initially believed to be a fictitious advertising firm.
During a June 22nd discussion with Fox contributor Martha MacCallum, O'Reilly focused on a $35,000 advertising payment to New Hampshire ad firm Draper Sterling. The payment drew scrutiny because the company's name was similar to lead characters in a fictitious television series about an ad agency, Mad Men.
Media outlets have confirmed that Draper Sterling appears to be a real ad firm, although it remains unclear what work the company actually did for the Trump campaign.
But O'Reilly ignored the most scandalous aspects of Trump's May FEC report.
New York Magazine explained that the "embarrassingly bad" report showed that Trump raised just $3.1 million in May but paid out $6.7 million.
Furthermore, roughly 20 percent of the money spent by the Trump campaign in May went to either companies owned by Trump and his family, or to travel reimbursements for his children. The Trump campaign also spent more than $900,000 on T-shirts, hats, mugs and signs.
CNBC reported this:
About 20 percent of May spending went to Trump companies or reimbursements for his children. That includes a roughly $423,000 payment to the Trump Organization's Mar-a-Lago club.
Trump's campaign also spent a solid portion of its May haul on "collateral," like T-shirts, hats, mugs and signs. It spent more than $900,000 on those categories, more than 13 percent of its total spending.
"Trump's failure to develop an effective fundraising operation has his campaign at this point without the resources to scale up its staffing, build a field organization, or begin advertising in crucial states," said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College and campaign finance expert.
"His campaign spending is largely devoted to the costs of personal paraphernalia, such as hats and mugs, which can be sold or distributed by the campaign as a means of raising small sums of money."
These 23 GOP Senators Voted Against The New Gun Control Laws
By: Steve - June 24, 2016 - 9:00am
And every single one of them should be voted out of office for representing the NRA above the will of the American people. Polls show that 80% of the people support the new gun control laws, but the Republicans do not care, all they care about is doing what the NRA wants them to, and taking millions from them for their elections and their re-election.
Here is the list:
1) Kelly Ayotte (NH)
2) Roy Blunt (MO)
3) John Boozman (AR)
4) Richard Burr (NC)
5) Mike Crapo (ID)
6) Chuck Grassley (IO)
7) Richard Shelby (AL)
8) David Vitter (LA)
9) John Hoeven (ND)
10) Johnny Isakson (GA)
11) Ron Johnson (WI)
12) James Lankford (OK)
13) Mike Lee (UT)
14) John McCain (AZ)
15) John Thune (SD)
16) Dan Coats (ID)
17) Jerry Moran (KS)
18) Lisa Murkowski (AK)
19) Rand Paul (KY)
20) Marco Rubio (FL)
21) Tim Scott (SC)
22) Rob Portman (OH)
23) Pat Toomey (PA)
On Monday night, one week after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, the Senate rejected four gun-related measures. One proposal would have made it harder for suspected terrorists to purchase firearms and another would have expanded background checks to all gun sales.
Similar measures also failed after 26 people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 14 people were killed at a San Bernardino office party.
The votes are not surprising given that the 56 senators who voted against expanding background checks (and 53 who voted against allowing the attorney general to stop the sale of a firearm to a suspected terrorist) have received a combined total of roughly $36 million from the National Rifle Association.
"What am I going to tell 49 grieving families?" Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said after the votes. "I am going to tell them the NRA won again."
But roughly 90 percent of Americans -- including 80 percent of gun owners -- support these measures. Immediately after the vote, voters and gun control advocates vowed to make the upcoming election a referendum on Republican politicians who are beholden to the NRA. On Twitter, people expressed their disapproval at Congress with the hashtag #RememberinNovember.
A total of 24 Republican Senate seats are up for election in November -- 22 face reelection and two are retiring. Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, the most vulnerable Republican senator running for re-election, bucked his party and voted in favor of closing the current loophole that allows people to purchase firearms online and at gun shows without a background check. The other 23, meanwhile, voted against that measure.
The Republican senators who both voted against background checks and who could leave office in January have received a net total of $16 million dollars over their careers from the NRA.
That number accounts for all of the money they've received from the NRA, both directly and indirectly. It also includes all of the money the NRA has spent against their opponents (payments the NRA has made in favor of their opponents are subtracted).
"A lot of these people are up for re-election this year and I will dedicate the next several months of my life to making sure we remember that," Everytown for Gun Safety survivor engagement manager Erica Lafferty Smegielski said Monday.
Smegielski's mother, Dawn Hochsprung, was the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School and was killed in the shooting there in 2012.
"We're going to take it to the polls," she continued. "And if Congress again, now after the worst mass shooting on U.S. soil in modern history, if they're not going to act now then when? Clearly it's not going to happen with the people who are holding office and we're going to hold them accountable for that and vote them out in November."
Only On Fox: Three White Guys Debate & Deny White Privilege
By: Steve - June 23, 2016 - 11:00am
Not only did they debate and deny white privilege, they made jokes about it. It was three white Republicans who have the benefit of white privilege sitting there denying there is white privilege.
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Now, I really didn't understand too much of that, Gutfeld, but I know you were locked in. It's like Garth and what's his other name?
GREG GUTFELD: You're talking about Wayne's World.
GUTFELD: I do believe white privilege exists but so does black privilege, Asian privilege, Arab privilege. But the biggest privilege of all is hot privilege. That no matter what race you are, if you're hot, you always win. David Duke would give his left arm to sleep with Beyonce. The homely have no Gandhi, Bill. They have no Gandhi.
O'REILLY: Those guys made more sense than you just did.
GUTFELD: I do my best, Bill.
O'REILLY: You have any idea at what the message was from those guys?
BERNARD MCGUIRK: Of course, white privilege. They're saying that it doesn't exist. But I say it does.
O'REILLY: You do.
MCGUIRK: We have the Congressional White Caucus. We have the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
O'REILLY: No, we don't.
MCGUIRK: White Lives Matter. Just go down to Appalachia and ask any person how they're doing, they'll tell you they're doing just fine. Anybody at a trailer park in the South, or out on Long Island, they're doing wonderful. Listen Bill, if you wake up in the country, delay gratification, work hard, lose the chip on your shoulder, that's all it takes. In this country more than any other country in the history of civilization.
O'REILLY: Isn't it boring, this is a serious point, this white privilege and black lives matter. Isn't this boring? I hate to be a kumbaya guy, but it's just boring now.
MCGUIRK: You hit the lottery so big time when you're born in this country, no matter what class, what strata, if you work hard.
O'REILLY: Just because you're here, you get a shot. I know it's harder for people with bad fathers and fathers who leave.
Mark Cuban Trashes Donald Trump And Mocks His Business Competence
By: Steve - June 23, 2016 - 10:00am
During a recent interview with Extra, Cuban had some rather harsh (and hilarious) words to say about Donald Trump.
"You know what? It's rare that you see someone get stupider before your eyes, but he's really working at it," Cuban said. "You have to give him credit. It's a difficult thing to do, but he's accomplished it."
He was also asked whether or not he's had any contact with the presumptive GOP presidential candidate.
"He sent me an email when I started picking on him," Cuban answered. "What happened was I really didn't like Ted Cruz, so I started helping Donald, tried to encourage him, because I thought he'd be, and to this day thought he'd be a better candidate than Ted Cruz. But at some point, you've got to start learning and understanding the issues, you know? Donald has been at this a year but you don't look at him and say, 'Wow, he's gotten so much smarter on this topic or that topic.' In fact, you look at him and say, 'What the hell are you talking about?' That's not good for America."
After mockingly saying that he can't name one "good deal" Trump has actually done, Cuban went on to say that Trump would be "kicked out of Shark Tank so fast, it would make your head spin."
While I agree with most of what Cuban said, I'm not seeing much difference in the Donald Trump we see today and the same man who called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals when he launched his campaign last year.
But I do find his comments about Trump's business record rather telling. As a verified and legitimate billionaire and businessman, for Cuban to take direct shots at Trump's business acumen is a pretty big statement. Trump sells himself as some sort of genius in the business world, but when you get right down to it, he seems to be more of a con man who's done a fantastic job selling his last name as a brand more than anything else.
That's basically what Trump has done throughout his entire campaign. He's sold a brand full of bold promises aimed at pandering to certain groups of ignorant people, while not really offering rational, substantive or tangible solutions to anything.
I think Mark Cuban summed up Trump's campaign best when he said that "The Donald" has managed to somehow "get stupider" before our very eyes.
As Expected O'Reilly Did Not Say He Was Sorry For Slap Remark
By: Steve - June 23, 2016 - 9:00am
The Congressional Black Caucus demanded a public apology from Bill O'Reilly, after O'Reilly stated he wanted to slap the African-American Congressman Jim Clyburn for his push to strengthen gun safety laws.
The Congressional Black Caucus call for an apology comes after O'Reilly's June 16 appearance on Fox News Fox & Friends, where O'Reilly attacked Clyburn's call for stronger gun legislation, saying "I just want to slap him, with all due respect."
O'Reilly continued, asking "What is it going to take? Do the ISIS people have to come to your backyard, do they have to put you in a cage?"
Politico reported that the Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield said: "The Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely outraged" at O'Reilly, calling on O'Reilly to "disavow the statement and apologize" to Clyburn:
"The Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely outraged," Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told POLITICO, adding that the caucus is calling "upon [O'Reilly] to disavow the statement and apologize" to Clyburn.
So what did O'Reilly do, he attacked them some more, refused to say he was sorry, invited them on his lame cable news show, then slammed them once again for not coming on his racist and biased fake news show.
Notice how O'Reilly spins the issue, which is what he does best, spin things in the so-called no spin zone. O'Reilly said the crazy liberal websites were misleading their readers, when all they/we did was quote him directly (word for word) from his own transcript, and post the actual video of what he said, so how in the hell is that misleading anyone?
Partial transcript for the June 20th O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I want to spotlight something that happened last week. Congressman Jim Clyburn, very liberal guy from South Carolina, put forth an amazing analysis of the Orlando terror attack to which I replied.
Now, I used a slap line as a rhetorical device to show my displeasure. That was obvious unless you are a complete moron. But the crazy left websites who routinely mislead their readers played it up as an actual physical threat. A few hours later, the Congressional Black Caucus demanded an apology. I very politely said to them "Come on the Factor, we'll talk about it."
I also invited Congressman Clyburn on as well. Guess what? They are hiding under their desks. I guess they are afraid I would slap them. So, here's the deal. We researched the congressman, and we can find no mention of gun control in connection with the Chicago violence. None. This weekend, 13 more people shot to death in the windy city. At least 43 others wounded, including a 3-year-old boy.
That brings the total to about 1,800 human beings shot so far this year in Chicago. Paging Congressman Clyburn. Come on. If he were truly concerned about guns in America, he would have to say at least something about his fellow African-Americans being shot down in Chicago every single day, and it's been going on for years. He would have to say something, would he not?
And for the record, that O'Reilly got wrong, Congressman Clyburn has spoken out about gun violence in Chicago, many times, O'Reilly just never reports it. All he did was speak out about fixing some gun laws, that 80% to 90% of the American people agree with, and O'Reilly said he wanted to slap him for it.
Then after getting slammed for the comment by just about everyone, O'Reilly attacked him again and called him a coward for not coming on his fake news show. And that's the fair and balanced no spin zone, haha, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too.
It Looks Like Trump Is Running One Big Scam
By: Steve - June 22, 2016 - 11:00am
And of course, you never hear O'Reilly report any of this, so much for journalism.
Corporations & Some GOP Party Delegates Are Opposed To Trump
By: Steve - June 22, 2016 - 10:00am
Trump even said the media is making it all up, even though some of those GOP delegates have been on tv talking about how they can dump Trump at the convention by changing the party rules, and one of them is on the rules committee. It just shows what a liar Trump is, and how he is living in fantasy land, in his world everyone loves him and he is doing great, even though reality is the opposite.
Even while Donald Trump moves forward as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, establishment figures in both politics and business have stepped away from the candidate. Some delegates are withdrawing support from Trump and major corporations have decided to bow out in their sponsorship or offer less to the Republican convention this year.
A small but reportedly increasing coalition of delegates say there may be enough Republicans to unite against Trump and make changes to party rules. If they change those rules, then delegates have the ability to vote for anyone at the convention. They would be allowed to vote for someone besides Trump if it violates their moral or religious beliefs.
On Thursday, at least 30 delegates from 15 states participated in a conference call on the subject. The convention's rules committee meets July 14 and 15. Even if the rules committee supported the proposal, a majority of convention delegates would still have to agree. The effort is being led by a Colorado delegate who supported Ted Cruz and is a member of the party rules committee, Kendal Unruh.
At a rally in Las Vegas on Saturday, Trump acknowledged the news about delegates organizing against him and said, "So now I hear after beating them fair and square. So how would you like to have someone who wins not only 37 states and no one else was remotely close, sets an all-time record gets 14 million votes over period of nine months and gets 37 states. How would you like to be in a party where Trump wins? Where Trump keeps winning? Where Trump gets the highest ratings in history of television?" Trump said.
"I mean forget about the fact that Republican National Committee put out a statement saying it's all made up by the press, by these people right here," Trump said as he pointed to the press as the audience booed. "These are the most dishonest people, not all of them, but I watched CNN yesterday knowing it can't happen and then, 'Breaking news there will be this and that at the convention!' I beat the hell out of them," Trump said.
Which is not what CNN reported, all they did was report that some GOP delegates are trying to get the rules changed so they can dump Trump at the convention, and that one of them is on the rules committee, so Trump was also lying about what they reported.
When asked whether House Republican conference members should follow their conscience on deciding to support Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, "Oh, absolutely. The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that's contrary to their conscience. Of course I wouldn't do that. Look, believe me, Chuck. I get that this a very strange situation. Trump is a very unique nominee."
Which is a nice way of saying Trump is crazy and you can vote for him or not, and I wish we had a different nominee. That is what Ryan really meant.
The Republican National Committee has even dismissed the reports about delegates organizing against Trump. Its spokesman, Sean Spicer made this statement to the press, "There is no organized effort, strategy or leader of this so-called movement. It is nothing more than a media creation and a series of tweets."
They also refuse to admit reality, one of the people on the GOP convention rules committee is on tv saying it is all true, so the RNC is as big of a liar as Trump is.
A number of large companies have decided to stop or reduce their participation in or sponsorship of the Republican National Convention. The list of companies that aren't sponsoring at all includes JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, United Parcel Service, Motorola, and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc, which all sponsored the last convention, Bloomberg reported. Although the tech giants Google, Microsoft, and Facebook will all be present at the convention, Apple decided to sit this one out, specifically citing Trump's controversial rhetoric.
Although Trump and Apple have had their issues for a while now -- he called for a boycott of the company's products back in February, referring to the company's refusal to break into the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters on behalf of the FBI -- Apple specifically referred to his statements about immigrants, people of color, and women as the reason for not sponsoring the convention.
O'Reilly Can't Remember The Last Time An Abortion Clinic Was Attacked
By: Steve - June 22, 2016 - 9:00am
Fox Host Bill O'Reilly downplayed the dangers of anti-abortion attacks claiming he was unable to remember the last time an abortion clinic was attacked by right-wing extremists, ignoring the long history of attacks against abortion clinics.
On the June 21 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly argued with contributor Kirsten Powers over remarks made by CNN's Van Jones claiming that "young white" right-wing extremists are seven times more likely to kill an American citizen than Muslim terrorists. During his discussion with Powers, O'Reilly dismissed the prevalence of right-wing Christian attacks by asking, "When is the last time a Christian blew up an abortion clinic?"
The National Abortion Federation reports there have been 42 documented cases of bombing or attempted bombings of abortion clinics since 1977. Most recently, in 2005 a man confessed to two deadly bombings at women's clinics in Georgia and Alabama. After pleading guilty to the crimes, he told the court "abortion is murder."
And that does not include abortion doctors who have been shot and killed by far-right pro-life nuts, O'Reilly also can't remember them, and never mentions them.
From 1977-2014, 6,948 incidents of violence have been reported at abortion clinics, including the Nov. 27 deadly shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic that was inspired by false claims that alleged the network of clinics illegally sold "baby parts."
Reproductive health clinics have faced a surge of violent threats following conservative media's wave of anti-abortion attacks that tailed the release of the deceptive video that inspired the Colorado shooter.
Donald Trump Is Hated By Everyone But A Few Republicans
By: Steve - June 21, 2016 - 10:00am
Here is something Bill O'Reilly never reports on, the actual approve/disapprove numbers for his friend Donald Trump. Yes O'Reilly mentions in passing that a lot of people do not like Trump, but he never does a detailed in-depth segment on the numbers, putting them ALL on the screen for everyone to see, because when you look at them it is stunning just how many people hate Donald Trump.
He is hated by everyone, out of 22 categories the ABC/Washington Post poll sampled, Trump is negative in all of them but one, the Republicans overall give him a 65% favorable rating to 34% unfavorable. The other 21 categories have Trump more negative than positive, and that included conservatives and white men, who have Trump at 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable.
He is just about the most hated man in America, except for maybe Bill O'Reilly. And when you look at the numbers it is stunning, what's more stunning is that Trump knows what these numbers are and yet he does not change the way he is campaigning. It's as if he is trying to lose, because he could not be doing a worse job of running for President, it's as if he is trying to destroy the Republican party, because he is.
Just look at these numbers For Donald Trump, the first one is unfavorable and the 2nd is favorable:
1) All - 29% - 70%
2) Registered Voters - 31% - 69%
3) Independents - 31% - 68%
4) Democrats - 5% - 95%
5) Conservatives - 46% - 52%
6) Moderates - 26% - 73%
7) Liberals - 11% - 89%
8) Men - 36% - 62%
9) Women - 23% - 77%
10) Whites - 39% - 59%
11) Blacks - 4% - 94%
12) Hispanics - 11% - 89%
13) Non-Whites - 12% - 88%
14) White Men - 46% - 52%
15) White Women - 33% - 67%
16) Non-White Men - 17% - 82%
17) Non-White Women - 7% - 93%
18) College Grads. - 25% - 74%
19) Non-Grad. - 31% - 68%
20) Under 50 - 23% - 76%
21) Over 50 - 37% - 62%
And now (Drumroll) the one category Trump has a higher favorable than unfavorable:
22) Republicans - 65% - 34%
Which shows just how out of touch most Republicans are with the rest of America, because Trump is hated by everyone but a few Republicans who love him no matter what he says or does.
They are the brainwashed robots who vote for the party nominee no matter how bad he is, how much of a racist he is, or how crazy he is. They are what I call party fools that just vote Republican no matter what. Hitler could be their nominee and they would still vote for him.
I have some bad news for them, and Bill O'Reilly. Donald Trump is going to lose to Hillary Clinton in a landslide. And not only will it be a historic win (the first woman President) it will destroy the Republican party, and most likely give control of the Senate and the House back to the Democrats.
So not only will another Clinton be in the White House, she will have the Senate and the House behind her, and she will appoint one (if not two) Supreme court justices, and the Republicans will have their voters, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and Donald Trump to thank for it.
Trump Campaign Only Has 30 Paid Staff Members
By: Steve - June 21, 2016 - 9:00am
This shows just how unprepared Donald Trump is to run for President, in the entire country he only has 30 paid staffers. That is not even one for each state, which is just laughable, and it proves that Trump had no idea he would get this far, because anyone else would have at least 200, if not more at this point.
Much has been made about how unprepared Donald Trump is for a general election -- and then his campaign revealed Friday that it estimates there are only about 30 paid Trump staffers on the ground nationwide.
Taylor West, who worked on the campaign for failed Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd in 2008, said that 30 paid operatives was how many her candidate had in Iowa alone:
Thirty! We literally had that many staffers in Iowa alone on Chris Dodd's presidential campaign.
Trump is counting on Republican Party-led state-based efforts to win the general election, despite the fact that many in the Republican establishment are fairly skeptical about Trump as their nominee.
Nevertheless, one aide defended Trump's decision to The Associated Press by saying, "We are creating the playbook."
Hillary Clinton began putting state-level directors in swing states back in April.
Trump Fires Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski
By: Steve - June 20, 2016 - 11:50am
The guy that Trump said he would never fire, was fired today.
Falling in the polls and watching Republican delegates mount a campaign to dump him, Donald Trump cut ties with his controversial campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
Trump announced the change in a statement from spokeswoman Hope Hicks, which was first reported by The New York Times.
Lewandowski had been with Trump since January 2015, when most political observers believed the reality TV star was never going to actually run for president, and guided him to securing the nomination in May when his final opponents dropped out.
The New Hampshire native had no experience on national campaigns, and had jealousy protected his access to and influence with Trump, arguing that letting "Trump be Trump" was the strategy that would win the White House just as it won the nomination.
Even though it worked for the crazy Republican primary, that is clearly not working now with the rest of America, the people who are not crazy far-right loons that are dumb enough to support the lying Donald Trump.
Lewandowski faced increasing pressure from both inside the campaign and from Republican Party leaders to broaden his approach and conduct a more traditional campaign to go up against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
For weeks Lewandowski had been competing with longtime GOP lobbyist and consultant Paul Manafort, who was originally brought in to manage the campaign's delegate tracking operation for the nominating convention in Cleveland.
It's Time To Vote Some People Out Of Office
By: Steve - June 20, 2016 - 11:30am
After they have the gun votes find out who voted against banning people on the terror watch list from having guns, and vote them out of office. If you can not vote to keep people on the terror watch list from legally buying guns, you do not deserve to be an elected official.
The Senators and Congressman who vote against it are not representing the people, they are representing the NRA. All the polls have shown that 80% of ALL Americans are in favor of banning people on the terror watch list from buying guns. So that means if they vote against it, they are going against the will of the people, which is the opposite of what they were elected to do.
O'Reilly & Miller Attack Samantha Bee For Her Opinion Of Prayer
By: Steve - June 20, 2016 - 11:00am
To begin with, it's a free country and it's her show, so she can give her opinion if she wants to. And 2nd, she is pretty much right, prayer does nothing to save lives or prevent future lives from being lost in more mass shootings.
But of course O'Reilly and Miller do not see it that way, they see it as another liberal attacking their religion. Even though she was not attacking religion, she was simply saying prayer will not bring those dead victims back, or keep more people from being killed in the future, while banning people who are on the terror watch list from buying an assault rifle would.
O'Reilly and Miller claim to represent the majority of Americans, and they call for common sense, but in this case they are in the minority and do not represent the majority of Americans, or common sense. Because 80% of the people want a law that says if you are on the terror watch list you can not legally buy a gun, and it is the opposite of common sense to be against blocking people on the terror watch list from buying guns, especially assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and massive amounts of bullets.
O'Reilly and Miller ignored all that to make it a religious issue, when it's a gun law issue. We should pass a new assault weapons ban, and make it illegal for people on the terror watch list to buys guns and ammo. It may not stop all of them, but it will stop some, and make it much harder to get the guns they need to mass kill people. Nobody needs a 50 or a 100 shot clip for hunting or self defense, only the police and the military should have those high capacity magazines.
And it will never happen, because the Republicans are in the back pocket of the NRA, and they do whatever the NRA tells them to. I predict the gun law bills will not get the 60 votes they need in the Senate, because of the Republicans and the NRA, even though 80% of the people support the new gun bills.
And that is why I am glad Donald Trump won the Republican primary, so everyone can see what the Real Republican party looks like, and the people can see how scary they are, so they can clean house and get rid of as many Republicans as possible, to send a message to these far-right loons that if they do not move to the middle they are going to destroy their own party.
Last week on The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and guest Dennis Miller were mad as hell that Samantha Bee had the audacity to mock the efficacy of prayer after the Orlando shooting -- even though she didn't actually mock prayer, only prayer unaccompanied by the action the Bible implores the faithful to pair with it.
Miller said that 'I know a lot of people mock prayer, but I'm a believer, so I don't have any wisdom. I'm kind of laid low by this, I don't have any idea other than God bless the people who passed and the people who survived them -- I'll say my prayers for you."
Proving that O'Reilly and Miller just do not get it, or they do, and they spin what she said for political reasons, because she is not saying you can not be a believer or say prayers, she is saying prayers will not bring 49 people who were shot and killed back to life.
She was also saying we can not pray the problem away, we need to do something to make it harder for some people to buy assault weapons, not ban guns, just keep them away from crazy people and suspected terrorists.
Crazy O'Reilly replied that "we deal with this from a policy and historical vantage point, and we hope our politicians wise up and mobilize and protect us better."
"I think that everyone is going to have give up a little," Miller said, his reference altogether unclear. "But it looks like no one is going to give a little, that everybody's dug in."
"The one commentator," O'Reilly replied, "I guess it was Samantha Bee, who mocked people who were praying for the victims -- I mean, look, it's a secular world we live in, but it was offensive to me."
"You know, Billy, when they talk about -- when they come out and say someone's 'Hitler-like' after something like this, the only person who's Hitler-like to me is that shooter," Miller said, apparently referring to Bee. "Taking a group of people he hates and gunning them down -- that's Hitler-like."
Miller then placed Bee in league with President Barack Obama, who is "attuned to the needs of the entire world except for 48 or 49 percent of this country, which he seems to treat scornfully."
Miller later attempted to use some of his so-called "wit," claiming that "political correctness is becoming to Obama what the fiddle was to Nero."
Obama Slams Trump & O'Reilly For Bogus Radical Islamic Terror Words
By: Steve - June 20, 2016 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly agreed with the crazy Donald Trump about Obama not using the words radical Islamic Terrorism, and Obama took them both to school over it, saying it is not a strategy it's a political talking point that does no good for anyone.
At a campaign rally Wednesday in Atlanta Donald Trump said it is important to use the term radical Islamic terror because if you don't name the problem you're never going to solve the problem.
O'Reilly: Perception That Obama's Refusal To Say "Radical Islamic Terrorism" Show's He's Not Tough On "The Jihad"
Last week President Obama lashed out at Republicans, and particularly Donald Trump, who have called him soft on terrorism, warning that loose talk about Muslims has harmed the United States campaign against militant groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Obama challenged the demand by his critics that he characterize acts of terrorism, including the mass shooting in Orlando, as the work of radical Islam -- a phrase the president has refused to use because he believes it unfairly implicates an entire religious group for the acts of militant extremists.
A day earlier, Trump used the phrase to question Obama's commitment to stopping terrorist acts, including the Orlando shooting, by saying the president refuses to define the enemy.
"That's the key, they tell us. We can't get ISIL unless we call them 'radical Islamists,'" Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group after meeting with his National Security Council at the Treasury Department to discuss the administration's counterterrorism strategy.
"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction."
Bingo, Obama nailed it. It's a political talking point by O'Reilly, Trump, and the far-right to make Obama look soft on terrorism, even though he got Bin Laden and has been more tough on terrorism than Bush was, minus the waterboarding of course.
The president added this: "There's no magic to the phrase, 'radical Islam.' It's a political talking point; it's not a strategy."
Insane Dana Loesch Claims Banning AR-15 Is A War On Women
By: Steve - June 20, 2016 - 9:00am
This is the kind of loons Fox and Megyn Kelly put on tv to have a discussion about guns.
On The Kelly File, Dana Loesch Claims Banning The AR-15 "Is A War On Women"
Loesch: "This Is A War On Women, Because The AR-15 Is The Most Popular Rifle With Women. You're Talking About Disarming Women"
MEGYN KELLY (HOST): We are short on time today, but Dana, why does the AR-15 and guns like that, why do those need to be out there?
DANA LOESCH: Well, the AR-15 is -- it's a .22. I mean, if you are actually going to do -- If fact, if I was actually going to go, and go after a bad guy in my house, I'm not gonna grab my AR-15. I'm gonna grab my shotgun, or I'm gonna grab my Glock, I'm gonna grab something a little bit, you know, little bit more serious.
NOMIKI KONST: So why have the killing machines?
LOESCH: Women, this is a war on women, because the AR-15 is the most popular rifle with women.
You're talking about disarming women.
KONST: Oh, come on, Dana. These talking points are ridiculous.
What she says does not even make sense, first she says she would not even grab the AR-15, she would grab her shotgun or her Glock, so that kills her argument to begin with. Then she says if you ban the AR-15 you are disarming women, which is ridiculous, because they can still have a shotgun, a Glock, or any of the other million different guns that are out there for home defense.
A small 9mm handgun or a shotgun is better than anything, an AR-15 is not even made for home defense. Loesch is insane, and Megyn Kelly is a fool for even putting that loon on the air to spew out that insanity. But that is what passes for a gun debate on Fox News.
Some GOP Delegates Have A New Plan To Stop Donald Trump
By: Steve - June 19, 2016 - 10:00am
Dozens of Republican convention delegates are hatching a new plan to block Donald Trump at this summer's party meetings, in what has become the most organized effort so far to stop the businessman from becoming the GOP nominee.
The delegates are angered by Trump's recent comments on gun control, his racial attacks on a federal judge and his sinking poll numbers. They are convinced that Trump is an insufficiently conservative candidate and believe they will find enough like-minded Republicans within the next month to change party rules and allow delegates to vote for whomever they want, regardless of who won their state caucus or primary.
The new campaign is being run by the only people who can actually make changes to party rules, rather than by pundits and media figures who have been pining for a Trump alternative.
"This literally is an 'Anybody but Trump' movement," said Kendal Unruh, a Republican delegate from Colorado who is leading the campaign. "Nobody has any idea who is going to step in and be the nominee, but we're not worried about that. We're just doing that job to make sure that he's not the face of our party."
The fresh wave of anti-Trump organizing comes as a growing number of Republicans have signaled that they will not support Trump for president. In addition, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who is slated to chair the Republican National Convention next month in Cleveland, said in remarks released Friday that House Republicans should "follow their conscience" on whether to support Trump.
Ryan has endorsed Trump. But his use of the word "conscience" could prove helpful to delegates organizing the anti-Trump campaign because they are pushing to pass a "conscience clause" that would unbind delegates and allow them to vote for whoever they want.
Other top Republicans, including Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Rep. Fred Upton, said this week that they will not back Trump. Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state in George W. Bush's administration who is close with other members of the party's national security establishment, announced plans to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton if Trump is nominated by Republicans.
Eric Minor, a GOP delegate from Washington state, said he felt compelled to join Unruh's group because "I hear a lot of people saying, 'Why doesn't somebody do something about this?' Well you know what, I'm one of the people who can. There's only 2,400 of us. I'm going to reach out and see if there seems to be momentum for this. And if there is, we'll see where it goes."
"This isn't going to go away," warned Cecil Stinemetz, a delegate from Iowa participating in the new campaign. "Trump or others might say that these are just little groups who won't do anything and it'll fizz out -- that's not going to happen. Trump just continues to embarrass himself and his party and this is not going to let up."
NYPD Commissioner Slams Trump Praises Obama On Terrorism & Guns
By: Steve - June 19, 2016 - 9:00am
Even NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton sees through the empty tough talk of Donald Trump.
In a press conference at the NYPD headquarters on Tuesday, Bratton praised President Obama's record on combatting the threat of terrorism and questioned whether Trump could ever match it.
"Actions speak louder than words," Bratton said. "Obama's been doing one hell of a job, I think, basically trying to kill those bastards before they kill us. So, let's see what Mr. Trump does in terms of matching actions to rhetoric."
Bratton is referring to the extensive list of senior-level terrorists taken out during Obama's presidency, including Osama bin Laden. The president has also authorized thousands of airstrikes against ISIS, more than all U.S. allies combined, resulting in the terror group's loss of almost half their territory in Iraq and 20 percent in Syria.
The commissioner's comments come in the midst of Trump's erratic and irresponsible response to the tragedy in Orlando. Trump, of course, responded by first congratulating himself for being right on terrorism and then accused the president of siding with extremist groups like ISIS.
Bratton also expressed his concern at the alarming number of mass shootings that take place in the United States.
"We have a mass shooting every day in the United States involving four or more victims. Every day in the United States, a mass shooting," the commissioner said. "It's become almost a fact of life here."
On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Bratton was even tougher on Trump and Republicans, saying they "prostitute themselves in front of the NRA."
"They put the interest of their own political careers and that of the NRA ahead of the American people," he said.
At his press conference later in the day, Bratton also responded to critics of Obama - namely Trump and Rudy Giuliani - who have accused the president of making it harder for police to do their job and prevent terrorism.
"This is an old warhorse that he and the presidential candidates continue to bring up," New York's top cop said. "I knocked it down with Sen. Ted Cruz, I'll knock it down with Trump and I'll knock it down with the former mayor."
Crazy O'Reilly Agrees With Trump Over Obama Not Saying Radical Islamic Terrorism
By: Steve - June 18, 2016 - 10:00am
Once again O'Reilly shows his bias for Trump, and his support, by defending the insane statement from Trump that Obama is soft on terrorists simply because he did not say the words radical Islamic terrorism in his press conference after the Orlando shooting, even though he did call it terrorism.
O'Reilly even says Obama and Hillary will not be tough on terrorism, when it is the Republicans and the NRA who did not renew the assault weapons ban, and the Republicans who will not vote to keep people on the terrorism watch list from legally buying guns. If anyone is soft on terrorism, it's the Republicans and the NRA who think it's ok for people on the terror watch list to buy assault rifles.
O'Reilly: Perception That Obama's Refusal To Say "Radical Islamic Terrorism" Show's He's Not Tough On "The Jihad"
Bill O'Reilly: "That Gives A Big Advantage To Donald Trump And His Quest To Become President"
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): If President Obama and by extension Hillary Clinton continue to hold power there will not be, not be drastic action taken by the U.S.A. against ISIS or anybody else. It's just the way it is. Donald Trump has capitalized on that. His two big issues are the economy and terrorism. He says the U.S.A. must ban Muslims, at least in the short-term from coming to America if they live in areas that have terrorism.
Talking Points does not believe that kind of ban would make us safer. We need the Jordanians. We need the Gulf states. We need Morocco to help us fight the savages, especially in the intelligence area. However, as I told Mr. Trump earlier this week, every refugee seeking asylum in this country has to be vetted extensively.
No one from a terror area can just take up residence here without ICE knowing exactly what they have done in their lives. By the way, even with extensive vetting, doesn't mean terrorists will not get in. They will, they have, they're here. And in European countries some of the refugees have already committed terrorist acts.
So this is one big mess. And there are no easy solutions as everybody knows. But with President Obama hesitating to use the words radical Islamic terrorism, the perception in some quarters is, he is not as tough as he could be on the jihad. And that gives a big advantage to Donald Trump and his quest to become president.
Seth Meyers: Trump's Anti-Muslim Smears Are Bigotry
By: Steve - June 18, 2016 - 9:00am
Meyers: "Trump's Vague Innuendo Is No Accident. This Is A Strategy He Uses To Try To Appeal To The Outer-Fringes While Also Avoiding Accountability"
SETH MEYERS: Yesterday in the wake of the shooting in Orlando, Donald Trump gave a speech on terrorism in which he continued his Cal Ripken-esque streak of making inflammatory statements without any evidence whatsoever. For more on this, it's time for a closer look. Man, I've got to say, when it comes to bigotry, Trump keeps upping his game.
MEYERS: Even for Trump, Monday was a new low. For one thing, Trump banned a major newspaper from reporting on his campaign. And it's not even the first time he's done that.
MEYERS: Trump complained that The Washington Post has reported inaccurately on comments he made in which he seemed to suggest that President Obama sympathized with terrorists, comments Trump made in an interview Monday morning.
DONALD TRUMP: He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands. It's one or the other... We're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can't believe it.
MEYERS: Sure, Trump didn't explicitly say it, he implied it with all the subtlety of an eighth-grader's cologne.
MEYERS: In fact, later in a radio interview, Trump was given a chance to clear all this up by stating unequivocally that he was not trying to imply that President Obama somehow sympathizes with terrorists. But instead, Trump said, quote, "I'll let people figure that out for themselves."
MEYERS: But Trump's vague innuendo is no accident. This is a strategy he uses to try to appeal to the outer-fringes while also avoiding accountability.
MEYERS: As for The Washington Post, we here at Late Night believe in freedom of the press and therefore have decided to stand in solidarity with them. So as long as The Washington Post is banned from Donald Trump's campaign, Donald Trump will be banned from ever coming on this show.
MEYERS: Trump's comments on Monday were especially jarring when you consider that just last week, the Republican officials supporting him had expressed hope that he would soften his incendiary rhetoric and stick to the GOP message. So how is Trump doing?
MEYERS: To be clear, this is bigotry, plain and simple, to claim that any group of people, immigrants or anyone else, has anything in common with a terrorist-murderer based simply on their ethnic background or their religion or where they're from is dangerous and wrong.
And that wasn't the only patently false statement Trump made on Monday. He also claimed without a shred of evidence that there are Muslims in this country who are knowingly protecting terrorists.
MEYERS: Trump's claim is a bigoted lie. First, Muslim communities across the country have countless times worked with law enforcement to help identify terrorist suspects. One state found that Muslim community members provided critical information in two out of every five disrupted plots between 2001 and 2011.
Second, this hateful, dangerous rhetoric has the potential to make Muslims Americans feel threatened and unwelcome. Trump also cynically attempted on Monday to cast himself as the champion LGBT rights, telling Fox News, quote, "I'm far better for the gay community than Hillary Clinton is."
That's right, Trump is great for the gay community, as long as you ignore all the times Trump has repeatedly expressed his opposition to marriage equality and promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn it.
MEYERS: Trump is stoking fear and spreading hate. And this is important. We can't become immune to it. We cannot allow it to become normalized, which is why we need a robust, independent press, like the newspapers Trump banned from his campaign, to challenge the fearmongering and provide us with sober, clear-eyed reporting.
Congressional Black Caucus Demands O'Reilly Apologize To Rep. Clyburn
By: Steve - June 17, 2016 - 11:00am
The Congressional Black Caucus has demanded a public apology from Bill O'Reilly, after O'Reilly stated he wanted to slap the African-American Congressman Jim Clyburn for his push to strengthen gun safety laws.
The Congressional Black Caucus call for an apology comes after O'Reilly's June 16 appearance on Fox News Fox & Friends, where O'Reilly attacked Clyburn's call for stronger gun legislation, saying "I just want to slap him, with all due respect."
O'Reilly continued, asking "What is it going to take? Do the ISIS people have to come to your backyard, do they have to put you in a cage?"
Politico reported that the Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield said: "The Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely outraged" at O'Reilly, calling on O'Reilly to "disavow the statement and apologize" to Clyburn:
"The Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely outraged," Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told POLITICO, adding that the caucus is calling "upon [O'Reilly] to disavow the statement and apologize" to Clyburn.
"It's reminiscent of the reckless statements that are being made by the Republican nominee," Butterfield said.
This is not the first time has O'Reilly has faced backlash from congressional lawmakers for his attacks. O'Reilly has previously drawn criticism for his racial attacks on minority members of Congress, including Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Rep. Yvette Clarke (C-NY).
Lee has previously condemned O'Reilly's description of her as a race hustler, describing his attacks as "disgusting and divisive, and a thinly veiled racial attack," concluding comments similar to O'Reilly "should never be accepted in our national discourse."
Rep. Hanabusa has called for O'Reilly's public apology after insulting comments on Asian-Americans, after O'Reilly claimed "Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They're usually more industrious and hard-working."
O'Reilly has additionally accused CBC members Rep. Charles Rangel and Rep. Yvette Clarke of wanting to "divide the country along racial lines, because that's good for business.
O'Reilly Ignores New Poll Showing Clinton 12 Point Lead Over Trump
By: Steve - June 17, 2016 - 10:00am
This poll came out Tuesday, and O'Reilly ignored it Tuesday and Wednesday night. He totally ignored the new poll that shows Trump getting crushed by Hillary, while at the same time defending Trump and attacking Obama for not using the words radical Islamic terrorists.
And that is what biased hacks do, they ignore all bad news for the candidate they support and use distraction tactics to report on other news. Which is exactly what O'Reilly does for Donald Trump. This new poll is devastating for Trump, and O'Reilly ignores it, and acts like Trump can still beat Hillary, which is just laughable.
New polls released this week show widespread public disapproval of Trump and his candidacy, considerable unease over his response to gunman Omar Mateen's killing of 49 people in the Florida nightclub, and a 12-point voter preference for Hillary Clinton.
"Trump never had Teflon with anybody but his 35-40 percent slice of the GOP," University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato said on Wednesday. "That's more than enough to win a Republican primary with 17 candidates in the field, but it doesn't translate to a much larger, diverse electorate in November."
The new polls also point to a less than enthusiastic reception for many of Trump's attacks. Among the polls findings:
A record seven in 10 Americans view Trump unfavorably, up 10 percentage points in just the past month and the highest level of voter animosity since he formally announced for president a year ago, according to a Washington Post-ABC News national poll. Just 29 percent of Americans view the presumptive GOP nominee in a favorable light.
Those are record numbers folks, 70% of the American people hate Donald Trump, and O'Reilly says nothing about it, zero. O'Reilly spent the whole show talking about Orlando with a Fox News reporter, Republican Paul Ryan, and the insane Dennis Miller. He also talked about the alligator attack and for some crazy reason, sexy ads in the London subway.
While ignoring the biggest news of the day, the polls that show Trump 12 points down to Clinton, with a 70% disapproval rating. But a few weeks ago when the polls showed Trump tied with Hillary, O'Reilly was all over those polls and reported it for at least two days.
That is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is biased for Trump, it's clear he is trying to cover for Trump. And he did the same thing for Mitt Romney, who got crushed by Obama 330 to 205 in the electoral vote. The same thing is going to happen to Trump, if not worse. But O'Reilly and almost everyone at Fox will continue to cover for Trump, even though all the polls show him losing badly.
You can not win a Presidential election with the numbers Trump has, it is impossible. Trump's approval rating among racial and ethnic minorities is at a stunning low, with 94 percent of blacks and 89 percent of Hispanics rating the New York billionaire unfavorably.
Even a majority of Americans disagree with Trump on the Orlando shooting and his Muslim ban. The polls show that 51 percent of Americans surveyed disapprove of Trump's response to the weekend shootings, while only 25 percent said they approved of his conduct.
Trump's proposal for barring Muslims other than U.S. citizens from entering the country enjoys little support nationwide. Sixty-two percent of Americans say the government should not ban Muslims from entering the country while 31 percent support the idea.
And btw, Trump is not only going to lose the election by a mile, he is going to take other GOP candidates down with him. The Republican party now has a record low approval rating, and many races for the House and the Senate have Democrats leading Republicans. So Trump is taking the whole party down with him, and the winners will be the Democrats.
Poll Shows 80% Of Republicans Are Ok With Trump Being A Racist
By: Steve - June 17, 2016 - 9:00am
Notice that Mr. (I Love Polls) Bill O'Reilly does not say a word about this poll, even though he loves to report on polls, but only the polls he cherry picks that agree with him.
Like their hero Donald Trump, a majority of GOP voters "are ok with Donald Trump being a racist."
According to a recent YouGov survey, 81 percent of Democratic voters and 44 percent of independents believe Trump's comments about Judge Curiel’s Hispanic heritage makes him biased toward Trump are racially motivated; something that is just common sense, right?
However, only 22 percent of the Republican rank and file agree with Democrats and Independents and believe those comments are racist but not enough to withhold their votes.
What that means is that in addition to 56 percent of independent voters, a clear and overwhelming majority of Republican voters, 78 percent, believe that not only are Trump's remarks not racist, they are just founded on common sense. It also means that nearly 8 out of ten Republican voters are of the same belief as the Donald and "are tired of the political correctness when things are said that are totally fine."
The survey is clearly accurate because over the past week no fewer than 8 out of 10 local Trump supporters the author surveyed said that Trump questioning the integrity of a judge of Hispanic descent is just good old common sense and totally fine by them.
All but one of the 8 Trump supporters said that Trump's doubts about an Hispanic Judge's ability to adjudicate his case fairly is no different than an African American questioning whether they can get a fair hearing or trial with a white conservative judge from the former Confederacy (Deep South), or with an all-white jury.
To anyone with a working brain Donald Trump is a racist bigot. But to the Republican base he is just telling it like it really is and anyone who can't see it from his perspective is a loser.
Republicans should not expect to see Donald Trump get his act together or prove he's not a bigot to anyone; and why should he? It is not what the majority of Republican voters want him to do. They love his racism, because a lot of them are also racists and they agree with him.
Republican Congressman To Give Away AR-15 At Fundraiser
By: Steve - June 16, 2016 - 10:00am
One day after the worst mass shooting in American history, Republican Congressman Andy Holt, is firmly standing behind his decision to give away a semi-automatic rifle just like the one used in the Orlando shooting.
While announcing his plans last week to hold his first annual "Hog Fest and Turkey Shoot," Holt, R-Dresden, said he will give away an AR-15 as a door prize to an attendee of his June 25 fundraiser.
The event is also scheduled to include a turkey shoot -- where participants are encouraged to bring their own rifle and ammo.
Holt said despite Sunday's massacre in Orlando that left 50 people dead and 53 wounded, he remains stalwart in his belief that the weapon used in the mass shooting is not to blame.
Ken Burns Slams Trump For Being A Proto-Fascist
By: Steve - June 16, 2016 - 9:00am
From Stanford University's June 12 commencement ceremony:
KEN BURNS: For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and characters of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year.
One is glaringly not qualified. So before you do anything with your well-earned degree, you must do everything you can to defeat the retrograde forces that have invaded our democratic process, divided our house, to fight against, no matter your political persuasion, the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn't seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn't seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans, threatens a free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants, and all Muslims; a man who took more than a day to remember to disavow a supporter who advocates white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan; an infantile, bullying man who, depending on his mood, is willing to discard old and established alliances, treaties, and longstanding relationships.
I feel genuine sorrow for the understandably scared and -- they feel -- powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that -- as often happens on TV -- a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can't.
It is a political Ponzi scheme. And asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747. As a student of history, I recognize this type. He emerges everywhere and in all eras.
We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient proto-fascism, a nativist anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary, the prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African-Americans again 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.
These are all virulent strains that have at times infected us in the past. But they now loom in front of us again -- all happening at once. We know from our history books that these are the diseases of ancient and now fallen empires. We know from our history books that these are the diseases of ancient and now fallen empires. The sense of commonwealth, of shared sacrifice, of trust, so much a part of American life, is eroding fast, spurred along and amplified by an amoral internet that permits a lie to circle the globe three times before the truth can get started.
We no longer have the luxury of neutrality or "balance," or even of bemused disdain. Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan, torn between a nagging responsibility to good journalism and the big ratings a media circus always delivers. In fact, they have given him the abundant airtime he so desperately craves, so much so that it has actually worn down our natural human revulsion to this kind of behavior.
"Hey, he's rich, he must be doing something right." He's not. Edward R. Murrow would have exposed this naked emperor months ago. He is an insult to our history. And do not be deceived by his momentary "good behavior." It's only a spoiled, misbehaving child hoping somehow to still have dessert. And do not think that the tragedy in Orlando underscores his points. It does not.
We must "disenthrall ourselves," as Abraham Lincoln said, from the culture of violence and guns. And then "we shall save our country."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is not a liberal or conservative issue, a red state-blue state divide. This is an American issue. Many honorable people, including the last two Republican presidents, members of the party of Abraham Lincoln, have declined to support him.
And I implore those "Vichy Republicans" who have endorsed him to please, please reconsider. We must remain committed to the kindness and community that are the hallmarks of civilization and reject the troubling, unfiltered Tourette's of his tribalism.
Scarborough: Trump Claim Obama Complicit In Orlando Shooting Beyond Breathtaking
By: Steve - June 15, 2016 - 10:00am
Mike Barnicle: Trump's Suggestion "Is Basically A Disqualifier To Be President"
JOE SCARBOROUGH (HOST): It gets worse by the day on the campaign trail. Yesterday a suggestion, a suggestion on several channels that Barack Obama was somehow implicated in these terror attacks and then saying, "Well, I'll let people just try to figure out what I said."
It reminds me when a lot of scumbags said that George W. Bush had something to do with 9/11. But to have, those on the internet, to have the standard bearer, Paul Ryan's candidate, Mitch McConnell's candidate, the Republican Party's candidate saying that Barack Obama may have been complicit in the killings of Americans is beyond breathtaking.
MIKE BARNICLE: Joe, yesterday what he said on TV early in the morning is basically a disqualifier to be president of the United States because he accused the sitting president of the United States, Barack Obama of a treasonous act.
SCARBOROUGH: And then when asked to clarify later in the day, he does what he always does. He refuses to clarify. So the conspiracy theorists hear the dog-whistle and go to it.
Republican CEO Compares Trump To Hitler At Romney Summit
By: Steve - June 15, 2016 - 9:00am
PARK CITY, Utah -- House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) faced tough questioning here Friday for his decision to endorse Donald Trump, and he tried to explain to an audience hostile to the New York mogul the factors that led him to back the presumptive GOP nominee.
Ryan's appearance briefly brought into the open the issue that has shadowed the annual ideas summit hosted by 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney -- the alarm with which many establishment Republicans view Trump's pending nomination and the potential damage it could do to the party in November and beyond.
Ryan's closed-door session -- attended by about 300 elite Republican donors and business executives -- also highlighted his differences with his friend and ally, Romney, who tapped him as his vice-presidential running mate and is now an avowed leader of the Never Trump movement.
Campbell Brown, a former CNN anchor and founder of the education news site the74.org, moderated the session with Ryan and grilled him about his decision. She told him that her young son, who knows and admires Ryan, came into the bedroom the morning after he had announced his support for Trump dismayed by the news.
How would you explain this to a child? Brown asked Ryan. The speaker appeared uncomfortable.
Reporters were excluded from the off-the-record session, but the exchanges were described later by three people in the room spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to share what had happened.
One of the toughest questions for Ryan came from Meg Whitman, the chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and a longtime friend of Romney's who helped bankroll a Republican anti-Trump super PAC this spring. Whitman asked Ryan how he could endorse someone with, in her judgment, such poor character and whose campaign has been based on personal attacks and division.
According to two people present, Whitman said Trump is the latest in a long line of historic demagogues, explicitly comparing him to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
And as expected, Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of this, and never will. Because he is a friend of Trump and a stooge for him who does noting but defend all his crazy and racist statements.
Ryan explained the difficult political situation he was in, as the leader of House Republicans. While spending a couple of weeks last month deliberating about an endorsement, many of his members increased pressure on him to back Trump. Many of them represent districts where Republican voters are strongly supportive of Trump, Ryan explained.
Ryan spent part of his appearance promoting his agenda for House Republicans, including a robust discussion of national security and efforts to eliminate poverty.
The audience was described as largely anti-Trump yet sympathetic to Ryan's predicament. Many are supportive of Ryan and have been for years.
One attendee stood up to plead with Ryan, "Will you please run for president in 2020?" The room erupted in applause.
Trump Caught Lying That Orlando Shooter Born In Afghan
By: Steve - June 14, 2016 - 11:50am
The shooter was an American citizen who was born in the very same place Donald Trump was, Queens New York, he was not born in Afghan. So once again Donald Trump is a proven liar who can not even get simple facts right.
During a counterterrorism speech on Monday, Donald Trump claimed that Orlando shooting suspect Omar Mateen was born in someplace called "Afghan." He then transitioned to discussing how his proposed ban on Muslim immigration would help prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future.
A ban on Muslims would not have stopped the shooting, because he was an American who was born in New York.
During Monday's speech, Trump later turned his focus to the alleged dangers of letting Syrian refugees into the country. His fear-mongering about refugees is belied by the fact that not a single one has been found to be involved in planning a credible terrorist attack against the United States.
In fact, a recent analysis found that Americans are seven times more likely to be killed by a right-wing extremist than they are to be killed by a Muslim terrorist.
Trump's Reaction To Orlando Shooting Is A New Low
By: Steve - June 14, 2016 - 11:30am
I am going to say this clearly, Donald Trump is an Un-American scumbag jerk. And if you vote for this total moron you are a clueless fool that should be kicked out of the country.
Donald Trump descended to a new low of bigotry this week, fear-mongering and conspiracy-peddling. Republican leaders who said last week that they expected a change in tone after Trump's racist attacks on a California judge quickly received their answer. What can House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) possibly say now?
As the country mourned the murder of 50 people early Sunday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee took a victory lap, hinted that President Obama is an enemy of the nation, libeled American Muslims and, in grotesque punctuation, finished up with a vindictive attack on the media.
"Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism," he tweeted. "I don't want congrats," he continued, as though that were not exactly what he wanted, "I want toughness & vigilance." Trump may have calculated that a suddenly anxious electorate would be more receptive to his campaign of fear and prejudice, emotions he immediately attempted to inflame.R
In a Monday speech, Trump painted a false picture of a nation infiltrated by waves of unscreened Muslim refugees and immigrants, who, abetted by Democrats, are destroying American values and threatening the public.
Among other things, he chillingly accused Muslim Americans of complicity with terrorists: "The Muslims have to work with us," he said. "They know what's going on. They know that [the Orlando shooter] was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn't turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction."
Most American Muslims are as patriotic and law-abiding as most American Christians, Jews and Hindus. Many have fought for and are fighting for the United States in dangerous theaters far away. To generalize as Mr. Trump does about the Muslims is to set the nation down a dangerous road, to its eventual regret, in the past: banning Chinese immigrants a century ago, rounding up U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent in the 1940s, expelling wetbacks a decade later.
Trump also raised suspicion in television interviews that President Obama wants terrorists to strike the United States, or at least looks the other way as they scheme. "We're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart or has something else in mind. And the something else in mind -- people can't believe it. People cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.'"
"There's something going on.” He invited poisonous speculations about his Democratic opponent's motives, as well: Hillary Clinton "wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country," he said. Informal Trump adviser Roger Stone, meanwhile, claimed that Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide, might be "a terrorist agent."
Trump capped a day of assaulting fundamental liberal democratic values by announcing he would ban Washington Post reporters from covering his campaign events. If this is his inclination now, imagine how he might wield the powers of the presidency.
Before the Orlando shooting, Beltway analysts speculated about how a terrorist attack might affect the presidential election. Now we know at least part of the answer: Trump would reveal himself more clearly than ever as a man unfit to lead this country.
Republicans should be ashamed this fool won their primary, and they should either not vote in November, or vote for Hillary Clinton as a protest vote, and to a send a message to the Republican party not to elect racist fools like Trump ever again.
Insane Donald Trump Revokes Washington Post's Press Credentials
By: Steve - June 14, 2016 - 11:00am
Donald Trump announced on his Facebook page that he's "revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post" after the publication wrote an article highlighting comments Trump made linking President Obama to the deadly terror attack on an Orlando gay nightclub.
Trump complained on his Facebook page that the Post wrote a headline stating, "Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting." The Post published a June 13 article noting that "Trump seemed to repeatedly accuse President Obama on Monday of identifying with radicalized Muslims who have carried out terrorist attacks in the United States and being complicit in the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando over the weekend, the worst the country has ever seen."
The Trump campaign has repeatedly banned reporters from across the political spectrum from attending Trump events. The campaign has, however, provided credentials to disreputable media like Alex Jones Infowars.com and white nationalist radio host James Edwards.
Trump has waged a war against the media that has gone far beyond the bounds of normal media criticism. Trump has pushed a plan to "open up our libel laws" that's been criticized by First Amendment advocates, threatened to retaliate against media outlets with the power of government agencies, issued scathing personal insults against journalists, and repeatedly sued or threatened to sue media figures over trivialities.
In a statement, Washington Post executive editor Marty Barron called Trump's decision "nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn't correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished."
Facts That Show O'Reilly & The GOP Wrong About Obama
By: Steve - June 14, 2016 - 10:00am
O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends claim Obama has been a terrible President and everyone hates him, which is just laughable, because the facts show the opposite.
Obama is more popular than Ronald Reagan: But the press refuses to give Obama his due.
For a President who has been regularly written off by O'Reilly and the right-wing media as a failed lame duck, President Obama has tallied some major wins during his second term, and voters have taken notice. He's normalized relations with Cuba, implemented a historic Iranian nuclear deal, signed a global climate pact with nearly 200 nations, overseen the continued success of Obamacare, all while the economy has recorded 73 straight months of job growth.
Not to mention unemployment at record lows, and the stock market setting record highs, which O'Reilly never mentions.
No wonder that all the polls point toward a Democrat succeeding him in the White House.
So why isn't there more media credit directed his way? Is the press making the mistake of reading off the Republican campaign script this year, which insists America is teetering on collapse? (Obama joked at the White House Correspondents Dinner: "The end of the Republic has never looked better.")
Obama's strong showing has remained steady since March: Gallup on Monday pegged his approval rating at 52 percent.
The president averaged a nearly 50 percent approval rating from January 20 through April 19, his 29th quarter in office, according to Gallup. That 29th quarter represents "one of the higher quarterly averages in his presidency to date." That's especially remarkable considering second terms are not traditionally kind to presidential approval ratings.
Recall that our previous two-term president, George W. Bush, left office with a 22 percent approval rating, while his vice president Dick Cheney, left with a thumbs-up from a whopping 13 percent of voters.
What's also impressive is that in today's hyper-partisan environment, Obama has been able to boost his standing while getting almost no support from Republican voters.
"Obama is the first president since polls existed to have never gone above 25 percent approval from the other side," noted Paul Waldman at the American Prospect. Obama's approval among Republicans currently stands at just 14 percent, according to Gallup. Given today's rugged political terrain, "If a president can stay at 50 percent, he should be counted a remarkable success," Waldman argued.
But don't look for lots of media tributes. The truth is, during his two terms the right-wing media has repeatedly worked to depict Obama's standing as being on the decline, and often downplaying his success.
Obama's Gallup approval rating slightly exceeds Reagan's from the same point in the Republican's eighth year in office.
Obama's Gallup rating May 1, 2016: 51 percent.
Reagan's Gallup rating May 8, 1988: 50 percent.
So in O'Reillyworld Obama is a total failure, even though his hero Ronald Reagan had a lower approval rating than Obama at the same time of his 8th year in office. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge that can not admit to reality, that Obama has been a great President.
To date, Obama's second term has been a broad success, and most voters agree.
Donald Trump Lied About Giving Money To Charity
By: Steve - June 14, 2016 - 9:00am
And of course Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, nothing. Remember when Obama ran for President, O'Reilly did a 10 segment investigation of Obama. O'Reilly spent a month reporting on everything Obama ever did in almost his whole life. So what kind of investigation has O'Reilly done on Trump, none, not 10 segments or any segments. O'Reilly does not investigate Trump, he only defends him.
WASHINGTON -- "I am acting as an agent of charities," Donald Trump boasted to a group of reporters watching him unveil his newest venture, a board game, in February 1989. "From the Trump perspective, all the profits we make will go towards charities," Trump said, rolling gold-plated dice across the pink marble atrium floor of Trump Tower.
"Trump: The Game" allows players to compete in a Monopoly-style quest to accumulate wealth and property. At the time, Trump was at the pinnacle of his career, with a half-dozen high-rise developments in Manhattan that bore his name, and a mini-empire of casinos in Atlantic City.
Standing in front of a huge replica of his board game, and flanked by executives from game publisher Milton Bradley, Trump raised the stakes, saying all the profits will go to charity.
The Milton Bradley executives were shocked. During more than a year of planning, Trump had never mentioned giving the proceeds from "Trump: The Game" to charity, Blair wrote in The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate. "I hope the game makes many millions of dollars," Trump told reporters, adding that the real beneficiaries would be groups that funded research into AIDS, cerebral palsy care, and multiple sclerosis.
By August 1990, about 18 months after the game was unveiled, Trump said it had sold more than 800,000 copies. His donations to charity from the game, Trump said, had been around $1 million.
But as far as sales the game was a disappointment. Milton Bradley had planned to produce 2 million copies, but slow sales forced a reconsideration.
So 800,000 games at $25 each is about $20 million in sales. So where did Trump's profits go?
The Huffington Post on Friday put this question to Trump's lawyers, to an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, and to his presidential campaign spokeswoman. No one responded.
The Huffington Post also contacted Hasbro, the parent company of Milton Bradley, attempting to confirm Trump's claim of 800,000 games sold. There was no response. They will not even confirm or deny that 800,000 games were sold, and most likely Trump was also lying about that.
"Trump: The Game" adds to a growing list of charitable donations that Trump claims to have made, but haven't been substantiated by evidence from Trump, his staff, or charities.
Earlier this week, The Huffington Post also reported on Trump's claim that the proceeds from his latest book, Crippled America, would be donated to charity. There was no record of donations, but Trump appears to have pocketed more than $1 million in royalties from the sales, which he reported as income last month to the Federal Election Commission.
Trump also promised to donate the proceeds of his Trump Vodka to charity in 2005. Trump does not drink, and said his donation would honor his late brother, Freddy Trump, who died from complications of alcoholism. But it doesn't appear that Trump gave away any of the money he made from licensing his name to the vodka company. Trump and his staff refused to answer questions about the deal.
Maybe this is one of the reasons he will not release his tax records, because it might show that he has not given any money to charity, as he claims, or very little.
Scrutiny of Trump's claims of charitable giving has intensified in recent weeks, sparked by evidence that Trump lied about giving $1 million to veterans groups earlier this year in a political rally and fundraiser ahead of the Iowa Republican caucus. It wasn't until The Washington Post demanded to see evidence of his gift that Trump finally wrote a check, in late May.
On its face, Trump's pledge involving "Trump: The Game" bears a strong resemblance to Crippled America, and to Trump Vodka. In each case, Trump promised large sums of money to charity as part of a pitch to help sell a product.
While it's impossible to calculate how much Trump's promises influenced the people who eventually bought Trump's licensed goods, press coverage of his promises made Trump look like a selfless millionaire, only interested in helping good causes.
When "Trump: the Game" went on sale, Trump was a businessman not involved in politics, and there was no particular reason to question what he said he gave to charity.
But now, he's the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, resisting pressure to publicly release his tax returns. Each new discrepancy between what Trump said and what he actually did chips away at voter trust in the candidate.
Fox Assigns Benghazi-Obsessed Liar As Clinton Campaign Reporter
By: Steve - June 13, 2016 - 9:00am
If you needed more proof Fox News is biased, here it is, they put a lying stooge on the Hillary Clinton campaign, she is a proven liar who reports rumors and just makes things up.
Fox News tapped national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin as its embed reporter for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Griffin is a frequent Clinton misinformer and has consistently pushed falsehoods about Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
Griffin Is One Of Fox's Leading Benghazi Misinformers
Griffin Pushed The "Stand Down" Order Lie To Attack Clinton. In October 2012 Griffin was one of the first to report that CIA personnel were told by their leaders twice to stand down and not send help to a U.S. diplomatic facility that was under attack in Benghazi, Libya. The claim was denied by CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, and many others.
"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."
Griffin Repeatedly Claimed Clinton, Obama Ignored Requests For Help During Attacks In Benghazi. In May 2014, Griffin cited an anonymous source to claim the State Department sent "no outside US military assets" to the compound. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's testimony showed that help was indeed sent to the Benghazi consulate.
This whole Benghazi non-scandal was made up by Republicans to try and hurt Hillary in her run for President, and it has been a massive failure.They even admitted the whole thing was a sham to get Hillary, but the stooges at Fox keep pushing the lies.
There was never a stand down order given, it was all a lie put out by Republicans that do not like her. They make it up and cite anonymous sources, and then they report it so often they hope someone will believe it. Including Bill O'Reilly, who also reported the lies over and over, even though he claims to only deal in the facts.
Politifact.com even gave the claim a false rating, and said it was a lie. But Fox still kept reporting it, even after everyone knew they were lying, that is how dishonest they are.
Bill O'Reilly Is Clearly Biased For His Good Friend Donald Trump
By: Steve - June 12, 2016 - 11:00am
And every time he talks about Trump he should make the disclosure that he is friends with Trump so he has a bias for him.
At a time when the roof seemed to be collapsing in on his campaign, Donald Trump found some recent refuge in the form of Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program.
Stumbling through a self-inflicted crisis that was sparked when Trump suggested that an American-born judge could not be impartial presiding over lawsuits pending against Trump University, the presumptive Republican nominee found himself under constant attack. The denunciations came even from within the conservative media and from members of the Republican Party.
But amid the hailstorm of contempt, O'Reilly provided temporary shelter this week when he told Fox viewers that the federal judge in question ought to recuse himself from the Trump U. lawsuit as Trump had insisted. O'Reilly didn't sign off on the idea that the judge's heritage made him untrustworthy.
But the Fox talker did suggest Trump had created such a controversy with his comments that it would just be better for the judge to step aside.
In other words, O'Reilly wanted to reward Trump for his bullying tactics. He wanted to reward Trump's novel strategy of trying to create conditions for a judge's recusal by manufacturing a controversy about the judge. Or as The Washington Post's Erik Wemple put it, "In Bill O'Reilly's world, friends excuse friends for being racist."
O'Reilly also recently laid down a marker when he announced it was completely out of bounds to discuss whether Trump's a racist. "You don't use the 'R word' unless you are David Duke," O'Reilly told Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX). "Unless you have got a history of trying to denigrate minorities or other people."
O'Reilly insists he knows Trump is not a racist because O'Reilly's known him a long time. But of course, the Republican has a very clear "history of trying to denigrate minorities or other people." (Including suggesting that Mexican immigrants are "rapists" and proposing that Muslims be banned from entering America.)
In a campaign season that's featured an unusual amount of squabbling between the GOP nominee and Fox personalities -- two forces normally united in their partisan pursuits -- O'Reilly's willingness to stand beside Trump and his bizarre attack on a judge shows O'Reilly might be picking his lane for the general election within Fox News by cozying up -- even more than he already was -- to the unpopular GOP nominee.
Sean Hannity has largely served as the poster boy for Fox News willingness to embrace Trump's candidacy. Hannity's fawning Trump coverage has led to widespread ridicule, including heated arguments with Trump's former chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
But O'Reilly's handling of Trump has been just as embarrassing. O'Reilly has given Trump the kid gloves treatment over any number of scandals during the course of the campaign, and as the calendar shifts to the general election, things only seem to be getting friendlier between the two.
There's little doubt that Hannity sycophantic programming has produced ratings dividends. In May, his show enjoyed the largest year-to-year ratings boost among viewers 25-54 at the network. Hannity's 35 percent bump helped him pass Megyn Kelly and become Fox's second-highest rated show.
Hannity still trails O'Reilly, who's in no danger of losing his 16-year streak as Fox's best-rated host. And it's possible O'Reilly was always going to end up serving as Trump's television consigliere. (The two have been friends for decades.) But O'Reilly also sees the Nielsen needle moving and understands what produces good ratings at Fox: being nice to Donald Trump.
New York recently reported that, "According to one Fox News producer, the channel's ratings dip whenever an anti-Trump segment airs."
In general, you don't get the feeling O'Reilly has posters of Trump hanging in his basement the way viewers might assume Sean Hannity does at home. But there's little doubt that O'Reilly now functions as a de facto Trump campaign advocate.
Even though O'Reilly gets defensive about that claim. There is little doubt that O'Reilly wants to cash in on that Trump champion role between now and November and make sure nobody else at Fox News passes him while cornering the Trump cheerleading market.
There's no question within Fox News, ratings envy fuels rivalries between program hosts. When Megyn Kelly enjoyed a star turn last year in the wake of being publicly attacked by Trump, CNN reported that O'Reilly resented her success. In fact, O'Reilly even lobbied internally that a post-debate special Kelly hosted which garnered huge audiences shouldn't be counted toward her regular ratings tally.
Amidst hostilities between Fox News and Trump in February, O'Reilly hosted the GOP politician for an interview where he unloaded more criticism on Kelly. Noticeably, O'Reilly did nothing to defend his Fox colleague during the interview.
Kelly later told More magazine, "I do wish that O'Reilly had defended me more in his interview with Trump. I would have defended him more."
And increasingly, that has become O'Reilly's permanent role, to serve as a Trump protector. "Trump appears on the O'Reilly Factor almost weekly, engaging in pointless blather with its host--they joke about their friendship, while O'Reilly lobs softball questions (before spending the rest of the show telling his other guests how tough an interview he just conducted)," noted Isaac Chotiner at Slate recently.
Added Erik Wemple at the Post, "Three decades of sharing ballgames and vanilla milkshakes have turned 'The O'Reilly Factor' into a laundry room for Trump. His messes come in, and O'Reilly, OxiClean in hand, cleans them up for him."
O'Reilly's so-called No Spin Zone has been turned into a Softball interview Zone for Trump. But he will never admit it, and even claims he is tough on Trump, which is just laughable.
Hannity & Ingraham Call Republican Refusal To Support Trump Sabotage
By: Steve - June 12, 2016 - 10:00am
And I would just say they are good people who do not want to support a racist far-right loon that is going to destroy the party and hand the election to Hillary Clinton.
And btw, Ingraham has Trump winning in November. Which is never going to happen, they said the very same thing about Mitt Romney, they all said Romney would beat Obama, and he got crushed 330 to 190, it was not even close. And Hillary is going to do the same to Trump, she will crush him about 320 to 200.
SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Considering, if you look at the exit polls and the different primaries and caucuses that we have gone through, the now finished as of Tuesday, 60 some odd percent of the Republicans feel betrayed by the Republican Party. They feel they're timid, they're weak, they're ineffective, that the Obama agenda got passed.
And I understand Paul Ryan didn't like the comments about Donald Trump and Trump and the Trump University judge case etcetera, but again he's going out in harsher terms than I have ever heard him. On Face the Nation this weekend, going back to the "r" word, when did he ever say about Barack Obama, I have a typical white grandmother, white folks greed runs the world in need. Black liberation theology.
Why is he harder on Trump than he's ever been on Obama? Why are a lot of them doing that?
LAURA INGRAHAM: Well because they see Trump as an existential threat to their agendas. On the critical issues that we've hammered on this show, trade and immigration. I mean Paul Ryan is a guy who thinks most of these trade deals are good deals and I know he's kind of reexamining TPP but that's only because of the rise of Donald Trump.
Trump's victory in November, if Trump wins, that's the re-orientation of the Republican Party away from Bushism and toward a more populist view of policy. That is what threatens these guys. And so right now many of these Republicans, I'm not saying Ryan, a lot of Republicans have more in common with Hillary than they do with Trump. And I think that’s OK because now we know where everybody stands.
HANNITY: Isn't this open sabotage at this point?
INGRAHAM: Yes, it is.
Fox News Downplays Clinton Historic Win & Even Call It Boring
By: Steve - June 12, 2016 - 9:00am
O'Reilly said nothing, he just ignored it like it never happened. For the 1st time in the history of the country a woman is the party nominee for President, and Fox calls it boring, or just ignores it totally.
Pretty much everybody in the world recognizes the historical importance of Barack Obama becoming the first black president of the United States. The same is true for Hillary Clinton shattering the glass ceiling by becoming the first woman to become the presumptive nominee of a major political party in the United States.
It's a big deal. The mainstream media even recognized it.
The Associated Press said Hillary Clinton had seized "her place in history," and CNN called it a "historic night." And love or hate Hillary Clinton, it was a historic night.
Fox News had a different view, of course. For Greg Gutfeld, "It comes off to me as really drab." Sort of a "meh" moment for Greg, who said that Tuesday on Fox News The Five.
Gutfeld said this: "Can I question the historical value of this? It comes off to me as really drab. When you think back to 2007, with Barack Obama and you know, this was the historic event, but with Hillary, it doesn't feel that great. It doesn't have the glory. It's like you won a trip on Wheel of Fortune and it's to Venezuela.
"It's funny, there isn't the joy of this moment because she's -- if you took away that one thing, the historical, you don't have anything."
He was probably just mad that it wasn't a Republican woman. Of course, it will never be a Republican woman because the GOP is all about electing white men. And being white. And calling yourself a Christian no matter how much you ignore Jesus actual teachings.
Hope you didn't miss how he managed to disparage Venezuela while he was at it. I'd say better Venezuela than any state in which Gutfeld happens to be living.
Eric Bolling, not to be outdone, said this: "Yeah, you take away Barack Obama being the first African-American and you still had a really exciting candidate. You take the first woman nominee away and you still have Hillary Clinton, who you're like, eh, it's kind of boring."
Remember this, they are the very same people who loved it and reported it every day when Sarah Palin was picked by John McCain to be his Vice President. Even though he only did it to try and get the women's vote, and she was as dumb as a rock. They promoted it as a historic moment, even though they lost and Palin was exposed as a moron.
Steve Doocy called it "anti-climactic" on Fox & Friends: "Last night certainly historic for Hillary Clinton, and yet I guess because she was pretty much coronated by the DNC half a year ago, it seemed a little anti-climactic. Also she's been running for president for over a decade."
Brian Kilmeade agreed with Doocy and said this: "The drama wasn't there" and "we knew this day was inevitable."
So yeah, that's why you guys have spent the past few years doing everything in your power to destroy Hillary Clinton's reputation.
It was also a sure bet that Fox News would do its best to downplay any accomplishment of Clinton's. After all, they have a lot of experience with doing that.
Look at Barack Obama's two terms as president. They don't even consider him to be the president, especially not during the eighth and final year of his administration.
History was made, but Fox News lets history pass it by. And O'Reilly was the worst, by saying nothing at all about it, at least the other stooges mentioned it.
David Letterman Calls Donald Trump Repugnant & Despicable
By: Steve - June 11, 2016 - 11:00am
Former CBS late night host David Letterman minces no words talking about Donald Trump in an interview to air on NBC this weekend, calling the presumptive Republican presidential nominee "repugnant" and "despicable."
NBC's Tom Brokaw interviewed Letterman for the limited run series On Assignment and asked Letterman if he didn't miss having his perch on The Late Show to take on the 2016 election:
TOM BROKAW: Listen, you're not on the air during one of the wackiest, potentially dislocating election years of our lifetime. Donald Trump, Hillary, Bernie Sanders. Are there times when you just say, "God, I'd like to be on tonight. I'd like to be talking about this-"
DAVID LETTERMAN: Well- I understand that he's repugnant to people. But, you tell me, the men putting together the Constitution, witnessing this election, wouldn't they have just said, "That's part of the way we set it up. Good luck"?
BROKAW: You're absolutely right. He didn't cheat by getting the nomination-
LETTERMAN: Right. There's nothing illegal going on. It's just he's despicable. And in this very school and everybody's school, you hear "the great thing about America is anybody can grow up to be president." Ooh, jeez. I guess that might be true.
O'Reilly Defends Trump Racism With Insane Argument
By: Steve - June 11, 2016 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly is so far in the tank for his friend Donald Trump he can not see straight. Now he says Trump can not possibly be a racist because he is not like David Duke.
Huh? So let me get this right, only people like David Duke are racists, who have a history of making racist statements.
Are you kidding me? That is what Trump has done, he has a history of making racist statements, which is the same thing David Duke has done. Bill O'Reilly is simply a Trump stooge, he defends every crazy and racist thing Trump says and does, because he is his friend, and he has a bias for Trump.
Everyone agrees Trump is a racist, except for O'Reilly and a few of his supporters. And if you want to know who the honest people are, they are the people who admit Trump is a racist, only his stooge supporters say he is not a racist, and that includes O'Reilly. Trump is his friend and he can not be impartial when talking about him.
And this Congressman Flores is as crazy as O'Reilly, he says Trump is not a racist, but admits he has made statements that can be interpreted as racist. Hello! That's what a racist is, they make racist statements, because they are a racist.
In closing, O'Reilly should recuse himself from even talking about Trump, or make a disclaimer every time he does that says he is friends with Trump so you should know that.
Here is what the stooge said about Trump being a racist:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): This racism thing has been thrown around. Do you believe that Donald Trump gets up in the morning and says, you know what? I don't like Mexicans, I'm going to go out and try to make them look back. Do you believe that?
REP. BILL FLORES (R-TX): No, sir, I don't. I don't believe Donald Trump is a racist but he has made statements that can be interpreted as racist. And we don't need that today, we want him to talk about a vision.
O'REILLY: Alright, so you don't believe that he wakes up and wants to denigrate Mexicans?
FLORES: No, sir, not at all.
O'REILLY: But in your opinion, he did that to the judge, right?
FLORES: Absolutely, he listened to his own words, he did.
O'REILLY: Don't you think it was more about Trump being angry with the judge's decision in a civil litigation rather than the judge's ethnicity?
FLORES: It doesn't make any difference because that's not what the American people hear. The American people heard racism. The American people want to hear about a positive vision for the country, and get away from the Obama/Hillary regime.
O'REILLY: Okay, I get your point, but I think you understand mine as well. That you don't use the "R word" unless you are David Duke. Unless you have got a history of trying to denigrate minorities or other people. I mean, you need to have a perspective. That's all I'm saying. I don't think it was wise that Mr. Trump said that about the judge. It wasn't wise.
Lindsey Graham Wants Republicans To Unendorse Donald Trump
By: Steve - June 11, 2016 - 9:00am
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is calling on Republicans who have endorsed the party's presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, to take it all back.
Graham said Trump's recent racist comments about a federal judge with Mexican-American heritage were "the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy."
"If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it," Graham told The New York Times. "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary."
The senator expanded on this idea Tuesday during an interview with NBC News Hallie Jackson.
"There are a lot of people who want to be loyal to the Republican Party, including me," he said. "But there'll come a point in time where we're gonna have to understand that it's not just about the 2016 race, it's about the future of the party and I would like to support our nominee. I just can't."
"Every person in the Republican Party's got to make their own decision," Graham added. "I am going to focus on the House and Senate. I am going to focus on helping my colleagues in the House and Senate because I can do that enthusiastically."
Republicans have criticized Trump's claim that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has been biased while presiding over a case against Trump University because he is Latino.
"I couldn't disagree more with a statement like that," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Sunday.
Speaking to Trump's rhetoric regarding Curiel, Graham told Jackson: "I don't think that Donald Trump personally is a racist person, but he is playing the race card."
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Newsradio WGAN that Trump's comments made supporting the candidate "very difficult."
"Those kinds of comments are very serious to me," she said. "They are completely unacceptable, and what they indicate -- which is why I think this is so serious -- is a lack of respect for our judicial system and for the separation of powers doctrine that is enshrined in the Constitution."
But while many have condemned Trump's remarks, some -- including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) -- are still supporting the candidate.
"Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable," Ryan said before noting he would still vote for Trump.
O'Reilly Says NY Times Best Seller List Biased Because His Book Not #1
By: Steve - June 10, 2016 - 10:00am
Now get this folks, O'Reilly himself says he has had 11 books hit #1 on the NY Times best seller list, ok, 11 of them, and he had no problem with them on those books. But now that he has a book that is not #1, somehow the list is suddenly biased against him. When they had 11 of his other books at #1, it's ridiculous, and O'Reilly is a fool.
If the NY Times best seller list was biased against him, as he claims, none of his books would ever get to #1, none, let alone 11 of them. His argument is insane, and he is a nut.
BILL O'REILLY: Personal story segment tonight, honesty in journalism, especially when millions of dollars are at stake. I have been fortunate enough to have 20 books on the New York Times best seller list. 11 of them hit number one. So, an argument can be made that I should not even be mentioning this next story, because I have had so much success in the publishing industry.
But others have not been as fortunate as me, and the aforementioned New York Times best seller list is now under suspicion. If a book makes that list, that comes out Sundays, it generates more sales, sometimes big money is involved. So this is no small thing. My latest project Legends & Lies: The Patriots, written by David Fisher, debuted last Saturday on the Wall Street Journal best seller list at number one.
It's also number one on the Publisher's Weekly best seller list. That's the magazine that covers the book industry. But on the New York Times best seller list, Legends & Lies: The Patriots, number 6. So how is that possible? According to the Nielsen organization which tracks every book in America, Patriots sold 24,348 copies the week the Times put it at number six. The number one book on the Times list, The Gene, sold just 9,781.
A colossal difference. So, we asked the editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, to appear this evening and explain his best seller list, but he refused. That's too bad, because Mr. Baquet should know his list is not accurate. It's impossible for The Gene to have sold more copies than Legends & Lies: The Patriots. Impossible. Therefore, the New York Times best seller list is not an honest barometer of book sales.
Now think about this too, O'Reilly does not mention bulk buys, where he himself buys his own books and signs them to give away with memberships to his website, or bulk buys from conservative book clubs who give his books away when they sign up for their book club, as the conservativebookclub.com does.
As usual, O'Reilly only gives you part of the truth, not the whole truth. If they were actually biased against O'Reilly none of his books would ever make the list, let alone 20 of them, and 11 of them getting to #1. It's laughable for O'Reilly to suddenly claim they are dishonest because one of his lame books did not go to #1, especially when 11 of them already have, out of 20 that made the list.
If they were dishonest, as O'Reilly claims, none of his books would even make the list, let alone get to #1.
This is one reason why it is not #1, from the NY Times website:
Institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases, if and when they are included, are at the discretion of The New York Times Best-Seller List desk editors based on standards for inclusion that encompass proprietary vetting and audit protocols, corroborative reporting and other statistical determinations.
Your "bulk sales" and "buybacks" (the stock and trade of the Right Wing) aren't included. Funny, I hear about all these millions of books being sold but I never see anyone actually reading them.
Here is something else O'Reilly never mentions.
When is a bestseller not a bestseller? A lot of best selling conservative authors have found a way to turn horse manure into gold.
The sales of books by right-wing authors like Bill O'Reilly and Jonah Goldberg are boosted by an entire industry dedicated to boosting the sales of books by right-wing authors. Conservative book clubs purchase tens of thousands of copies and right-wing think tanks order right-wing books in bulk.
In 2007, the scam was partially exposed by a group of contrary conservative authors. Five writers decided to take their publisher, Regnery Publishing, to court because they felt that they were being cheated out of their royalties.
At issue was the company's practice of "selling their books at a steep discount to book clubs and other organizations owned by the same parent company."
Said one of the writers:
"They've structured their business essentially as a scam and are defrauding their writers."
As one source explained:
The authors also say in the lawsuit that Regnery donates books to nonprofit groups affiliated with Eagle Publishing and gives the books as incentives to subscribers to newsletters published by Eagle. The authors say they do not receive royalties for these books.
Regnery has published books by the likes of Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, Haley Barbour and other conservatives.
In the view of publishers looking at the bottom line, they have discovered a successful business model. Success, even when it is achieved through fraudulent (or at least questionable means) is all that matters.
And that makes sense, It's the kind of "winning above all else" mentality that has become the hallmark of conservative politics.
For example, three of Sarah Palin's books were published by HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp. That made for a neat little arrangement.
Fox News- a subsidiary of News Corps- in effect provided Palin with a platform to advertise her book to increase sales. Everybody was happy with the deception and conservative viewers- who won't even bother to read the Bible- got a warm and cozy feeling that the rest of America was getting the message.
As Iadarola pointed out, that wasn't all there was too it. There was yet another twist. Bulk sales of her books played an important role in her making the New York Times best sellers list, as Politico reported in 2010.
Palin's sales were boosted by $64,000 in bulk purchases made by her political action group, SarahPAC. According to a Federal Election Commission filing, "America By Heart" was offered to donors with a $100 contribution. The book retails for $25.99 and bulk purchases are generally deeply discounted.
O'Reilly also never mentioned that the conservativebookclub.com buys his books in bulk and gives them away for free when you join their book club for a fee. I have seen their ads that promote a free O'Reilly book when you join, I have even wrote two or three other blog posting about it over the years. O'Reilly never mentions any of that, so he is being dishonest.
So, in effect, Palin found a way to scam her fans twice. Once, when they donated to her SarahPAC- thinking they were contributing to her non-existent campaign- and secondly, when they bought her book.
In the third class of victim-hood, there were the chumps that got her book "free" when they donated $100. A con game really doesn't get any slicker than that.
The knee jerk response by conservatives to this shady merchandising is that this is not exclusive to right wing publishers. In fact, that's not accurate. As one source observes:
The two top selling Democratic authors, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter have never required anyone to buy their books. Carter and Obama have sold millions of books and they have never had to game the system to do it.
Palin once said that she was a conservative Republican which made her also "a firm believer in free market capitalism."
A free market system allows all parties to compete, which ensures the best and most competitive project emerges, and ensures a fair, democratic process.
Competition in the market place is great but rigging the system behind the scenes is a whole lot more convenient. And for a person who seems to have a lot of trouble coherently stringing together four or more words, America really is a land of opportunity.
The hard truth is if they banned bulk sales none of O'Reilly's books would ever make the list, or any conservatives. The bulk sales are what gets them on the list, and without them they would never get on the list, let alone get to #1.
The NY Times tries to put books on the list that actually deserve it, books that real people walk into book stores and buy, one at a time. Not books that are bought in bulk by the thousands by their own authors, conservative book clubs, bogus political campaigns, and right-wing think tanks.
And that is why some of the conservative books do not make the list, or get to #1, because they do not count the bulk buys when they know about them. In fact, it's a miracle that O'Reilly even had one book get to #1, let alone 11, I would bet he had bulk sales on every one of them.
Facts About The NY Times Best Seller List O'Reilly Did Not Tell You
By: Steve - June 10, 2016 - 9:00am
O'Reilly cried foul Wednesday night because his book is not #1 on the NY Times best seller list, even though 11 of his other books did make it to #1, which makes his argument that they are unfair to him ridiculous.
What really happened is the NY Times decided to stop letting the publishers who print the books (and the authors who write them) by conservatives cheat to get on the list. And it started around July of 2015, here is an article about it, notice that in the segment O'Reilly did he never mentioned any of this.
The NY Times Stops Letting Conservatives Cheat
People have been ignoring the NY Times bestseller list for years. Mostly because the books are cooked. The numbers are fudged. The fix is in. And it's not being done by the Times.
It's being done by the publishers.
Have you ever noticed that books written by conservative pundits make the bestseller list their very first week out? How books by Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily get on the bestseller list before they're even released.
In a long overdue move the Times has finally stood up for itself and said no. What they said no to is an old and well known method of rigging the bestseller lists by having conservative think tanks and other organizations buy up books written by conservative authors.
These groups buy books by the pallet, sometimes by the truck load, in order to artificially drive up the numbers, pushing books that spout conservative ideas and liberal hating hysteria to the top of the bestseller lists.
This is why conservative books and ideas seem to be so popular. It may look like books that tout conservative ideas are popular but, in truth, very few actual people are buying them. It's just that the few who do, buy them by the truckload.
So where do all these books go? They are mostly given away. They are given away to donors, volunteers and anyone else who will have them, even if they only use them for doorstops.
They are given to people because the only way to get people to read them is to give them away. Think that's an exaggeration? I'll tell you what, head on over to your nearest used book store. You'll find the shelves overflowing with shiny new copies of books by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer and many, many more conservative pundits.
That's because the people who had them never wanted them in the first place. This fake popularity of conservative books is evidenced by the fact that 4 out of the 5 "bestsellers" in 2013 were by conservative opinion makers.
Really? If 4 out of 5 of the most popular books are about conservative ideas then why did 5,204,364 more people vote for Democrats in the last 3 Nationwide Senate elections?
As we said, the fix is in. But that may be coming to an end.
In what could be described as a bold move, "The New York Times decided not to place Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) book on its bestseller list, leaving some conservatives convinced that the paper unfairly targeted the presidential candidate."
Conservatives Cry Foul As Cruz's Book Doesn't Make NYT Bestseller List
"A Time For Truth" sold more copies than 18 of the 20 books that appeared on the bestseller list this week, Politicio reported in it's article N.Y. Times keeps Cruz off bestseller list.
Later, the article goes on to say this:
"In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases," Murphy wrote in an email, according to Politico.
Given that Cruz's book sold so many copies and that the Times has previously included books written by Republican politicians and candidates on its bestseller list, conservatives were outraged.
Conservatives were outraged that a conservative politician was not allowed to get away with cheating his way onto the bestseller list?
Let me see if I can pretend to be shocked and surprised. Nope, can't do it.
And if we are really lucky they will not allow this kind of cheating in the future; but conservatives can't possibly allow the Times to decide what goes on it's bestseller list based only on individual sales. Because that would mean there would be more liberal books on the list than conservative ones.
And they do not want that, which is why they started cheating to begin with, by doing the bulk buys and giving the books away. Conservatives got mad that all the books on the list were by liberals, so they came up with a plan to cheat to get their books on the list, with the bulk buys and the giveways, and it worked for a while.
Hopefully the NY Times will ignore O'Reilly and the rest of his crying conservative author friends, and stick to their guns, by banning books from the list that have bulk buys.
Take note that in the O'Reilly cryathon Wednesday night he never once mentioned that conservatives cheat to get on the list with bulk buys and book giveaways. He also did not do a fair and balanced segment on it, it was him and two conservatives, no liberals, or anyone for balance. Not one of them mentioned the thousands and thousands of conservative books that are bought in bulk buys.
O'Reilly Ignores Historic Win By Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - June 9, 2016 - 11:30am
If you ever wanted proof that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a 100% right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, here it is. Hillary Clinton made history Tuesday night by declaring victory in the Democratic presidential race.
"Thanks to you, we've reached a milestone," she told cheering supporters in Brooklyn, saying for the "first time in our nation's history" a woman would lead a major-party ticket.
Clinton hit the magic number of 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination on Monday night, as news organizations called the race for her based on support from superdelegates -- party leaders and elected officials who have a vote at the convention and pledged to back her over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Clinton waited until six states held a final round of contests Tuesday to declare victory, which will solidify her lead in pledged delegates earned through primaries and caucuses as well as her advantage in the overall popular vote.
Clinton picked up an easy win in New Jersey and also claimed victories in New Mexico and South Dakota. Sanders, meanwhile, won the North Dakota caucuses and the Montana primary. The AP, CNN and NBC all called California for Clinton early Wednesday.
And on his Wednesday night show Bill O'Reilly never said one word about it. Not a word about what a historic primary win it was, the first woman to ever do it. But if a Republican woman did it I guarantee you O'Reilly would be all over it. But of course that will never happen, because the Republicans will never let a woman win their primary, it's a white men only club.
Bill O'Reilly claims to be an Independent journalist who is fair to everyone in the no spin zone, then a Democratic woman makes history by winning a Presidential Primary, and O'Reilly can not even bring himself to report on it, praise her for doing it, or even talk about it, he just ignored the whole thing as if it was not a history making win.
Which shows that Bill O'Reilly is a biased fraud and a joke, who should be sued for fraud for even claiming to be a journalist. He can not even make time to mention it, but he had time to do a biased segment crying about his lame book not being #1 on the NY Times best seller list.
Conservative Radio Host Hugh Hewitt Says The RNC Must Dump Trump
By: Steve - June 9, 2016 - 11:00am
Conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt said on Wednesday that the Republican National Committee should ask Donald Trump to withdraw his candidacy or change the convention rules to prevent his formal nomination.
"The Republican National Committee needs to step in and step up and talk to him about getting out of the race," Hewitt said on the Hugh Hewitt Show.
The alternative, he said, is a guaranteed victory for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton -- and the loss of Republican control of both houses of Congress.
"She's gonna be president unless Republicans change their nominee," Hewitt said. "When the dust clears we will have lost the House, we will have lost the Senate, we will have lost governorships."
Hewitt discussed the prospect of changing the Republican national convention rules to prevent the pledged delegates from voting Trump in on the first ballot.
"The Republican National Committee can do one thing: they can change the rules to make the first two ballots advisory," Hewitt said.
He also suggested making the first ballot require a supermajority of votes.
"Make the delegates own it. If you are gonna commit suicide and someone is giving you a gun, don't blame the gun, don't blame the guy or the gal who gave you the gun -- blame yourself," he concluded.
It is not clear how realistic Hewitt's rule changes, or the prospect of another candidate coming forward to replace Trump, are. Hewitt said he did not have a preferred substitute for Trump, but insisted that the real estate mogul not be the nominee.
Trump's attacks on District Judge Gonzalo Curiel for his Mexican heritage are what drove Hewitt over the edge. Trump has faced increasing criticism from with the Republican party for claiming Curiel had a conflict of interest in presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University.
The conservative talk radio host was dissatisfied with Trump's speech from a teleprompter on Tuesday night in which the candidate expressed regret that his comments about Curiel had been "misconstrued."
"I have tried for 72 hours to wait for Donald Trump to extricate himself from this but he didn't do it," Hewitt said Wednesday.
While Hewitt said he does not consider Trump a racist, he believes the presumptive GOP nominee is so indifferent to political norms that many Americans already think he is.
Hewitt was not previously a member of the "#NeverTrump" group of establishment Republicans, but he has used his platform to question Trump's readiness early in the campaign.
In a September interview, Hewitt stumped Trump with detailed foreign policy questions, prompting the real estate mogul to call him a "third-rate radio announcer."
O'Reilly Does Ridiculous Propaganda Segment On Illegal Immigration
By: Steve - June 9, 2016 - 10:00am
Basically, O'Reilly said the illegal immigration problem is all because liberals support open borders so they refuse to do anything about it. Which is just ridiculous, and Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did. Not to mention, the real problem is mostly conservative business owners who hire the illegals to work for them.
If the conservatives would not hire them, they would not even cross the border, because they would not be able to find work, which O'Reilly totally ignores and never said one word about.
The illegals cross the border because they know the conservative business owners will hire them, and the Republicans in Congress do not pass laws to stop it, because they are in the back pocket of the conservative business owners who want the illegals to come here so they can get cheap labor.
O'Reilly also never mentioned the fact that in the 8 years George W. Bush was President he did nothing about illegal immigration, zero, nada, nothing. Somehow O'Reilly just forgot that, yeah right, and if you believe that I have some land to sell you.
Illegals cross the border to work here because they know they will be hired, if the Republicans in Congress wanted to stop it they could, by passing laws to make it a million dollar fine (a day) for every illegal found to be working at an American company. And hiring people to visit corporations to find the illegals, but they do not do that.
Republicans in Congress do not do that because the corporations and their lobbyists give them money to run for office and their re-elections. And they tell them to not pass laws to stop illegal immigration, so they can get cheap labor.
O'Reilly ignores all that, while blaming it all on the so-called open border liberals. When the Republicans in Congress could stop illegal immigration in a week, by simply making it a million dollar fine (a day) for every illegal a company is caught working for them.
Once again O'Reilly has proven that he is nothing but a right-wing propaganda spin doctor.
Using Trump Logic Only A White Male Republican Could Judge Him Fairly
By: Steve - June 9, 2016 - 9:00am
In an article in The Washington Post, Philip Bump highlighted the vast number of "judges Donald Trump would like to bar from overseeing any future legal disputes involving his get-others-rich-quick schemes."
According to Bump, "logic would suggest that" following Trump's racist attacks on the federal judge overseeing the Trump U. fraud case, his "benchmark for exclusion, could probably also exclude as unfit" judges who are Democrats, immigrants, women, black, or judges with disabilities. Bump explained, "So what's left? A white male Republican judge."
Trump said the federal judge who ordered the release of documents pertaining to Trump's failed Trump U., could not act impartially because he's a "Mexican" and "hater" of Trump, and should "recuse himself" from the case because of an alleged "conflict of interest" in relation to Trump's immigration policies.
Trump's comments have since garnered backlash from across the political spectrum, as "racist," "bigoted," and "highly offensive." Trump has also said it's "possible, absolutely" that a Muslim judge "would be similarly incapable of treating him fairly."
Following Trump's logic, his benchmark for exclusion isn't solely membership in a group that Trump has criticized and/or sought sanction against. It's membership in a group that Trump might be able to argue could view him negatively.
Which would be just about everyone, except white male Republicans.
From the June 5th article:
Let's set aside the fact that Article VI of the Constitution prohibits the sort of religious test that Trump would apparently like to apply to those who sit in judgment of him. And let us also set aside that, in 1998, lawyers who questioned the fitness of a judge based on his ethnicity were reprimanded severely, to the point that they were mandated to inform future judges in the district of their botched challenge.
We already know that Trump could reject anyone who is Muslim, "Mexican" or "of Mexican heritage." (Those are in quotes because "Mexican," in this instance, doesn't actually mean Mexican: The judge in the Trump University case is from Indiana.)
The benchmark for exclusion isn't solely membership in a group that Trump has criticized and/or sought sanction against. It's membership in a group that Trump might be able to argue could view him negatively.
After all, he regularly insists that Hispanics love him, but he, for some reason, assumes Gonzalo Curiel doesn't. He assumes Muslims would judge him harshly but tells the world that Muhammad Ali's rebuke of his ban on Muslim entry into the United States wasn't about him.
With that dichotomy in mind, logic would suggest that Trump could probably also exclude as unfit:
Judges from the Democratic Party. No Democratic judges, obviously, given both that Democrats clearly oppose his candidacy and that he has, in the past, described members of the party as having given rise to the Islamic State militant group.
Judges who are immigrants. Trump's broadly skeptical view of immigration of all stripes drives much of his campaign rhetoric, from the wall on the Mexican border (which doesn't target only Mexican immigrants, of course) to his ban on Muslims. His policy proposals would add broad new constraints to entering the country, legally or illegally.
Judges who are women. Trump's contentious history with women — a history that he has gone to great lengths to smooth over — is well documented. The New York Times collected a series of quotes that might indicate why a female judge would, in Trump's eyes, be biased against him.
Judges who are black. Trump twice this weekend attempted to highlight support from black voters. He first pointed out a black man in the crowd at a rally, though that man wasn't a Trump supporter. He then tweeted an image of a black family that supported him -- but the image was a news photo from an unrelated event.
But that aside, his past comments about black people, legal fights surrounding his company's renting practices and recurring overlap with racists on social media all offer more than enough reason for Trump to assume that a black judge would treat him unfairly.
In other words, Trump would only want Judges who are white male Republicans to be on his court cases, then it could be argued by the other side that those judges would be biased for Trump, so they could make the same argument Trump is making now, and claim bias for him by the white male Republican judges.
Let's face it, Donald Trump is a spolied rich guy who is used to getting his way and buying everything he wants, now that he is running for President we are finding out that he is a fool that is not qualified to be the President, and I would not vote for him if you paid me.
Morning Joe Slams O'Reilly For Saying Judge Should Recuse Himself
By: Steve - June 8, 2016 - 10:00am
BILL O'REILLY: Mr. Trump apparently believes the judge may be biased against him, as it is well-known the candidate has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration.
The Trump U. case is certainly political to some extent, and it's a very high profile situation. Because of that, Talking Points believes the judge should recuse himself. Not because he did anything wrong, he didn't, but to eliminate any doubt as to the motivation in court rulings.
MIKE BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): No. That didn't happen.
JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): Mark, did he just say that?
EUGENE ROBINSON: He's so wrong.
SCARBOROUGH: Did he just say that? That because Trump called -- a racist, he should recuse himself? Because Trump made a racist statement about this judge? Is that the new standard that we set?
ROBINSON: Apparently it is.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what you call that? Killing justice right there.
ROBINSON: There's a title, that's a book.
SCARBOROUGH: It's staggering that you actually have a defendant in the case making racist comments about a judge. Highly decorated judge, an honorable judge, who took on the Mexican drug cartel. So much so that he had to go into hiding.
BRZEZINSKI: Makes it even worse.
SCARBOROUGH: Because a defendant makes a racist comment about a judge, O'Reilly says he must recuse himself?
CNN's Chris Cuomo also pointed out that O'Reilly Is One Of The Only People Defending Trump's "Attack On The Judge"
DAVID GREGORY: Look, this is an attack on the Constitution, alright? This is not some offhanded comment. This is an attack on the judiciary, and there is no other side. There's nobody who is saying, 'Oh yeah, no it's good. Go after the guy.'
CHRIS CUOMO (CO-HOST): Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly is. O'Reilly in an interview with him, you can say why tactically he wanted to do it. He said, "I think the judge should step down not because of anything on the merits but the perception that his future ruling." That's exactly why the judge needs to stay in place.
Seth Meyers Slams Republicans Supporting Trump For Racist Attack On Judge
By: Steve - June 8, 2016 - 9:00am
Meyers: "Republicans Can't Pretend To Be Suddenly Shocked And Offended... This Is Who They're Lining Up To Support"
SETH MEYERS (HOST): Donald Trump today ordered his supporters to continue attacking the judge overseeing a class action lawsuit against him regarding his defunct real estate education program, Trump University. Some have called Trump's attacks "racist," while others have called them "very racist." And now GOP leaders are squirming as they're trying to condemn Trump, while also continuing to support him. For more on this, it's time for a closer look.
So there's been a lot of talk about Trump and lawsuits recently. And even Trump tweeted this on Thursday: "Wow, USA Today did todays cover story on my record in lawsuits. Verdict: 450 wins, 38 losses. Isn't that what you want for your president?" I've got to be honest, I don't know if I do want a president with 488 lawsuits, because that's the number sticking in my head.
Now the current lawsuit that's getting all the attention regarding Trump University. First some specifics of the case itself. Trump University was founded in 2005, promising to teach people how to make money off real estate. But as The Washington Post reported, it wasn't even a university, or even a school.
It was just "a series of seminars held in hotel ballrooms across the country that promised attendees they could get rich quick but were mostly devoted to enriching the people who ran them."
Trump University is the subject of two class action lawsuits by thousands of students who claim they were defrauded, and a separate suit filed by the New York attorney general. And last week, a judge in one of those cases ordered the release of internal Trump University documents that revealed some of the unsavory methods salesmen used to convince clients to buy Trump University products.
BROOKE BALDWIN: Newly released court documents reveal damning accusations against the man who in a little more than a month will officially become the Republican nominee for president.
SHEPARD SMITH: These court documents filled with former Trump University staffers calling it a "scheme" and a "fraud," and a, quote, "total lie."
JAMES ROSEN: The documents also include a company playbook that urged the sales team to push hard to enroll students, even when they were financially strapped. Down even to a single mother of three who, quote, "may need money for food."
MEYERS: But the sales techniques weren't the only questionable part of Trump University. There were also the instructors who Trump promised to hand-pick. But, as a former Trump University employee told The Washington Post, quote, "The Trump University instructors and mentors were a joke." And in true Trump style, not only were they a joke, but many of them had gone through bankruptcy themselves.
An instructor told The Washington Post, quote, "Here is the truth, when I was at Trump Universitty, I had not one interaction with him ever. Not one."
And when Trump was personally named in the lawsuit how did he, the man who would be directly involved in hand-picking the instructors, respond?
STEVEN BALL: First he says, you know, I'm going to hand-pick your professors, I'm intimately involved.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: That's what he tells the customers.
STEVEN BALL: That's what he tells the customers. Then, when he gets sued personally, his lawyers immediately move to remove him personally and their language is, he was largely absent from the company.
MEYERS: He was largely absent. His name was on it.
So those are just some of the claims at stake in these lawsuits. But rather than respond to the substance of those allegations, Trump has decided to go after the judge presiding over the class action lawsuits personally, in a way that can only be described as incredibly racist.
HOST: Donald Trump is escalating his attacks on the federal judge overseeing the fraud lawsuits against Trump University.
HOST: Trump telling The Wall Street Journal that Indiana-born judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage presents an, quote, "absolute conflict," saying, quote, "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest."
JAKE TAPPER: If you are saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?
DONALD TRUMP: No, I don't think so at all.
TRUMP: No, he's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that.
TAPPER: You're saying he can't do his job because of that.
TRUMP: Look, he's proud of his heritage. OK, I'm building a wall.
MEYERS: Now to be clear, claiming that someone cannot do their job because of their race is, by definition, racism, period. And perhaps most entertaining, Trump unleashed this rhetoric just as many members of the GOP finally caved in and voiced their support for him. And now, as punishment, they've had to do their best to dodge when confronted with Trump's latest racist outburst.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: He says that when he questions whether the judge can be fair because of his Mexican heritage that is not racist. Do you agree?
SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): Look, I don't condone the comments and we can press on to another topic.
CHUCK TODD: He essentially said he cannot be impartial because he's Hispanic. Is that not a racist statement?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I couldn't disagree more with a statement like that.
TODD: Is it a racist statement?
MCCONNELL: I couldn't disagree more with what he had to say.
TODD: OK, but do you think it's a racist statement?
MCCONNELL: I don't agree with what he had to say.
MEYERS: But maybe the most ridiculous reaction from a GOP leader came from House Speak Paul Ryan, who's been hailed in the media as the GOP savior, a serious leader who could unite the party, broaden its appeal, and focus on substance. Ryan endorsed Trump on Thursday, just in time to get asked about Trump's racist attack on Judge Curiel, and said this.
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI): Look, the comment about the judge the other day just was out of left field for my mind.
MEYERS: Out of left field? Trump built his entire political career on questioning the legitimacy of the first black president.
Poor Paul Ryan. He waited and waited and waited and this happened basically the day he finally endorsed Trump.
Republicans can't pretend to be suddenly shocked and offended. This is who Trump was before this latest outburst. And this is who they're lining up to support.
And btw folks, notice that Bill O'Reilly has not reported on the Trump University court case, not one time, even though he does a legal segment on his show every week, and he covers a lot of court cases. That's because Trump is his friend, and he knows the Trump University was a scam, so he ignores the entire story, just like he has done with the Flint Michigan poison water story.
Insane O'Reilly Says Judge In Trump Case Should Recuse Himself
By: Steve - June 7, 2016 - 10:00am
So let me get this straight, while everyone else is slamming Trump for making racist comments about the judge in his bogus Trump University case, including most Republicans, the ridiculous and insane O'Reilly says the judge should recuse himself, even though he admits the judge did nothing wrong.
So it's official, Bill O'Reilly has jumped the shark and gone off the deep end, it is time for him to retire and take more medications to help him because he is losing it.
O'Dummy said the Judge In The Trump University Case Should Recuse Himself: "Not Because He Did Anything Wrong, He Didn't, But To Eliminate Any Doubt As To The Motivation In Court Rulings"
Which is just insanity, if we use that argument anyone in any court case could say the judge was unfair to them so he or she should recuse himself or herself. It's madness, and O'Reilly even admits the judge did nothing wrong. Not to mention this, the lawyers for Trump have not even filed a motion for the judge to recuse himself, because they know they have no cause for him to do it.
Here is what the lunatic O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: Although appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Curiel is no raging liberal. In fact, he is a tough guy. At one point a Mexican drug cartel threatened to assassinate him because of his anti-drug trafficking stance. However, the judge belongs to a group called San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which does advocacy work on behalf of Latinos. It's not associated with the radical La Raza group, but confusion is understandable.
Because of that, Mr. Trump apparently believes the judge may be biased against him, as it is well-known the candidate has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration, include building a border wall.
Summing up, the Trump U. case is certainly political to some extent, and it's a very high profile situation. Because of that, Talking Points believes the judge should recuse himself. Not because he did anything wrong, he didn't, but to eliminate any doubt as to the motivation in court rulings.
There are plenty of federal judges that could immediately step in. It is valid that some may see any recusal as caving to intimidation. But stark justice in a case this important, trumps, pardon the pun, any theoretical argument.
Even Newt Gingrich Says Trump Judge Comments Are Wrong
By: Steve - June 7, 2016 - 9:00am
Gingrich said if liberals said Republican Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could not rule on cases with blacks, conservatives would freak out. And for once, Gingrich actually made a valid point that makes sense to everyone.
Trump supporter Newt Gingrich on Sunday sharply criticized the presumptive GOP presidential nominee for his racially-sensitive remarks about the judge presiding over the Trump University civil fraud case.
"It was one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. Inexcusable," the former GOP House speaker, who has become one of Trump's closest advisers, told "Fox News Sunday."
Trump has argued that American-born District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, whose parents are from Mexico, is biased against him, considering Trump's vow to build a wall along the southern U.S. border to keep out Mexicans.
"He's Mexican," Trump told CNN on Friday. "We're building a wall between here and Mexico."
Wrong, Trump is lying, he is not Mexican, his parents are. The judge was born in America, in Indiana, and he is a 100% American citizen.
Gingrich, whose is considered a potential Trump running-mate, also called the comment a mistake.
"That judge is not a Mexican. He's an American."
Proof That Donald Trump Does Not Even Know He Is A Racist
By: Steve - June 6, 2016 - 10:00am
Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly are good friends who even go to baseball games together, and they do the very same thing, they say racist things then deny they are racists. They are either both stupid, or they just do not want to admit they are racists.
Trump and O'Reilly are racists, they say racist things and do not even think it is racist, when it is, and everyone else thinks it is. And Trump did it again, he said he had an African American at a speech he gave. He called him my African American, as if he owned him, which is very racist.
Donald Trump singled out a black supporter at a rally Friday, telling the crowd to "look at my African-American."
Speaking at an event in Redding, California, Trump condemned the violent protests that had broken out after his campaign rally in San Jose the night before and called the protesters "thugs." Trump claimed he always tells his supporters to "be very gentle" with demonstrators -- despite having frequently encouraged violence at his campaign events.
Trump said this: "We had a case where we had an African-American guy who was a fan of mine. Great fan. Great guy. In fact I want to find out what's going on with him," Trump said, before pointing to a man in the crowd. "Look at my African-American over here. Look at him. Are you the greatest? You know what I'm talking about? OK."
Trump is so stupid he does not even understand that is a racist statement, look at my African American, he sounds like a slave owner talking about one of his black slaves. And if he is lucky he might get 7% of the black vote, which is not even close to a majority.
Trump continued by insinuating that the media has hidden his black supporters. "We have tremendous African-American support," he said. "The reason is I'm going to bring jobs back to our country. But when these sleazy people, these dishonest people who never show the crowds. When they showed that event, it made it look like the white guy was on my side."
Trump has previously claimed he'll do well with black voters in November's general election. However, a Quinnipiac Poll released this week found Hillary Clinton winning 93 percent of the black vote in a potential match-up with him.
In closing, if you are a white man and you say a black man is your African-American, and then you deny it was a racist statement, and deny you are a racist, then you are either lying, or you just can not admit you are a racist. Lots of people who are racists do not think they are, when they are, and that would incluse Trump and O'Reilly.
Trump Responds To Claims Of Racism With Fake Photo Of Black Supporters
By: Steve - June 6, 2016 - 9:00am
At a Friday afternoon rally in California, Trump sought to highlight his support from minorities.
"Look at my African-American over there," he shouted. Which just made things worse, with many people noting that his phrasing implied ownership over the man.
One of the major hurdles for Donald Trump to win the presidency is his deep unpopularity among non-white voters. A recent survey found Trump is viewed unfavorably by 86% of black voters and 75% of Latinos.
Trump's comments about the African American man came after reiterating his belief that a federal judge should be disqualified from presiding over the Trump University fraud case because of his "Mexican heritage." (The judge is an American who was born in Indiana.)
Saturday morning on Twitter, Trump was back at it, highlighting the support of an African-American family. He posted a message and a photo of a black family thanking Trump for running to be President.
Just one problem. The photo is fake.
It was not taken at a Trump event. It was taken at the "The 27th annual Midwest Black Family Reunion" held in Ohio in August 2015. The event featured "music, art, chess, children's games and other activities."
Last year, Trump attracted controversy when he retweeted fake statistics from a white power group claiming 81% of white murder victims were murdered by blacks. The actual figure is 14%.
The black parents in the photo -- Eddie and Vanessa Perry -- said they are not Trump supporters. They are not endorsing anyone. Eddie Perry also called Trump's use of the photo "misleading" and "political propaganda."
And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about any of this, and never will either.
Trump Is A Lying Con-Man Who Even Cheats Veterans
By: Steve - June 5, 2016 - 10:00am
And nobody has asked Trump this question, how much money has he donated to veterans in his lifetime, when and how much has he given, especially before he ran for President, nobody will ask Trump that question and I have no idea why.
Here is an article Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran and co-founder of votevets.org wrote:
Yesterday, Donald Trump was shamed into giving out money to veterans groups that he claimed he raised months ago, and cut a check for vets groups, which he also lied about cutting for several months.
"It's called vetting,' he said. "We vet the vets."
As in, Trump needed months to go over research, to ensure that every dollar donated went to a worthy cause.
In just seconds, VoteVets, and many reporters, used Google to find out that one of the groups, the Foundation for American Veterans, had a warning issued to consumers about it, from the Better Business Bureau. And its taxes showed that roughly 75 percent of what it raised had never reached veterans, at all. It also received an F rating from Charity Watch.
Further, the Associated Press found that many of the groups contacted said they never heard from Trump until a Washington Post story broke that discovered that Trump never raised the $6 million he claimed to, and never wrote the $1 million check he claimed to. The report said about half never saw a check until the Post broke the story.
So, he lied. He lied to veterans, and he lied to the American people. He wasn't vetting for four months. He simply didn't raise what he claimed, he didn't write a check he claimed he had, and he thought no one would bother to look into it. Had the Washington Post not investigated, Donald Trump would still be lying today, still scamming veterans out of the money he said he raised for them.
Now, we find out that not only is he scamming veterans groups, but Trump scammed a 40-year Navy veteran out of $26,000 for Trump's seemingly fraudulent "university."
This vet was a huge fan of Trump. He trusted that Trump wouldn't scam him. He was wrong. God knows how many other veterans Trump preyed on, to bleed them dry of their money.
I can't say it enough - Donald Trump holds veterans in such low regard, and targets us for his scams so much because he has absolutely no respect for what we have sacrificed.
You don't say you "like people who weren't captured" if you respect us. You don't try to kick disabled veterans out from in front of your building, and say they're "downgrading" the area, if you respect us. You don't say avoiding STDs was your "personal Vietnam," if you respect us. And you damned sure don't do that when you got five deferments from Vietnam, so someone else could go and sacrifice, because you were too afraid.
Look out America, for #DonTheCon. A guy who has no problem scamming veterans will have absolutely no qualms about scamming you.
Gun Lobbyist Says If GOP Loses In November Time To Vote With Bullets
By: Steve - June 5, 2016 - 9:00am
And of course the so-called Independent fair and balanced journalist Bill O'Reilly has totally ignored this story, because he is a Republicans and it makes them look bad, so he acts like it never happened. But if a liberal said something like that O'Reilly would be all over it and report on it for days.
The lobbyist is basically saying that if the people vote another Democrat into the White House it is time to use their guns and overthrow the Government, which is what they call treason.
Since before President Obama even took his Oath of Office, the NRA and their fellow gun fanatics have insisted that, at any moment, he's going to come and take away all our guns. This rhetoric has become so outlandish that it eventually led to the Jade Helm conspiracy from last year where quite a few conservatives believed a military exercise was actually Obama's ploy to declare martial law and confiscate guns.
Some people were actually burying their guns to hide them, it was insane. But the truth of this radical gun rhetoric isn't actually about these groups trying to protect gun rights. The point of this often over-the-top drivel coming from these people is to work people up to drive gun sales because they're backed by big gun lobbyists.
Nearly every time these people get out there and push the idea that "liberals are coming for your guns," the sales of firearms spike. It's a glaringly obvious scam that frequently exposes just how gullible and easily manipulated millions of conservatives are.
Well, the gun lobby is at it again. This time very prominent lobbyist Larry Pratt, the executive director of emeritus of Gun Owners of America, claimed that if Republicans don't win the White House this November, it might be time to vote with their bullets.
"At that point, we would have to come to an understanding, which we've been sort of taught, it's been taught out of us, that the courts do not have the last word on what the Constitution is," Pratt said.
"And we may have to reassert that constitutional balance, and it may not be pretty. So, I'd much rather have an election where we solve this matter at the ballot box than have to resort to the bullet box."
Nothing like having a leading gun lobbyist more or less say that if democracy doesn't go their way, it might be time for millions of gun fanatics to rise up and commit treason.
You see, Article III, Second 3 of the Constitution clearly states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.And make no mistake about it, Pratt's little bullet box comment in relation to Republicans possibly losing the presidency this November is a call to commit treason. This is why the whole "Second Amendment gives us the right to overthrow the government" argument is absurd.
If voters go to the polls this November and elect a Democrat -- that's the power our Constitution gives us the right to do. It makes absolutely no sense for some in this country to believe that they can then attempt to overrule that democracy simply because it doesn't go their way.
We have processes put in place within our government to remove elected officials from office. From just an ordinary elected member of Congress, to the president and even the Supreme Court -- there's an established process to remove someone (without a violent uprising) from whatever position they hold.
How would an armed revolt against elected government officials not constitute "levying war" against the United States? If a group of armed Islamic radicalized American citizens decided to attack our government, wouldn't we call those individuals terrorists?
However, it's apparently patriotic if a bunch of white far-right gun nuts say the same damn thing. The bottom line is, treason is treason, period. So, when Larry Pratt states that he feels it might be time to get what he wants via the bullet box if Republicans lose this November, what he's doing is suggesting that he's open to committing treason against this country because democracy didn't go his way.
Even Some Fox Guests Are Slamming Trump For Racist Attacks On Judge
By: Steve - June 4, 2016 - 11:00am
Former Defense Attorney Ted Williams: "You Are Running To Be Commander In Chief, Not Thug In Chief Or Intimidator In Chief"
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (HOST): People are abuzz about this, Ted. Not too happy, saying it was kind of out of line to mention the judge's ethnicity, the judge's heritage, and then to suggest that there was a conflict of interest. How do you call it?
TED WILLIAMS: I would like to ask Mr. Trump, have you no shame, sir? You are running to be commander in chief, not thug in chief or intimidator in chief.
To call this judge out, you're attacking the rule and the fabric of our society, meaning the rule of law. What are you gonna do if you get a black judge in a discrimination case?
You're going to ask him to remove himself? Or let's say you got a woman. This is very troubling and I would expect more and I would hope that at some stage, Mr. Trump will act matured and walk this back.
Noam Chomsky Calls Trump A Nasty Clown Who Belongs In The Circus
By: Steve - June 4, 2016 - 10:00am
This time last year, if you had told most people that Donald Trump was going to launch a presidential campaign that would steamroll through a whole herd of candidates and emerge as the overwhelming winner of the GOP presidential nomination, they would have laughed and called you crazy.
It's not just the fact that somehow Trump won the Republican party's presidential nomination, it's that he's done so by running one of the most controversial, vile and absurd campaigns in modern U.S. history.
From the seemingly endless list of outrageous comments and policy proposals, to the fact that almost nothing Trump says is actually true, his whole campaign has been an absolute sideshow.
MIT professor Noam Chomsky agrees as he unloaded on Trump, calling him a "clown" who's done nothing but pander to people who are "angry at everything."
"Every time Trump makes a nasty comment about whoever, his popularity goes up. Because it's based on hate, you know, hate and fear" Chomsky said. "And it's unfortunately kind of reminiscent of something unpleasant: Germany, not many years ago."
"He's a clown, literally, he could be in the circus," Chomsky added. "He's getting huge support from people who are angry at everything. Mostly white males. Working-class, middle-class, poor white males. And their wives and traditional families. They are furious about everything."
Chomsky is 100% right. I have said Trump's campaign is like a comments section from a conservative blog that run for president. That's why things like facts and reality don't matter, because all he's done is say almost exactly what you see conservatives ranting about in the comments section of just about every article you read online, just go read some of them at www.freerepublic.com, and you will see what I mean. They are called Freepers, and they are far-right loons.
It's even been rumored that prior to officially launching his campaign, Trump had people study the comments left by Republicans on conservative blogs and social media accounts, then based his campaign around what they saw. For decades the Republican party has thrived on pushing hate, anger, paranoia and fear.
Donald Trump has capitalized on all the work the GOP has been putting in, making tens of millions of Americans so irrational that they'll believe damn near anything as long as it sounds like something they want to hear. While the success of Donald Trump's campaign caught nearly everyone off guard, it really shouldn't have.
In a lot of ways he's the perfect Republican candidate. He's an arrogant blowhard who sells fiction while pandering to the bigotry, racism and ignorance the GOP has used to galvanize their voters for decades. When you get right down to it, someone like Trump winning the Republican presidential nomination shouldn't have really been a question of if it could happen, just when.
All we can hope for now is that rational voters all across the country come together this November to make sure Donald Trump does not become our next president.
SiriusXM Suspends Glenn Beck Over Trump Comments
By: Steve - June 4, 2016 - 9:00am
Conservative host Glenn Beck has been suspended by SiriusXM satellite radio for agreeing with an author who asked hypothetically "what patriot will step up" to remove Republican Donald Trump from office if he's elected president and oversteps his authority.
SiriusXM said Beck's program was suspended for this week and the company was "evaluating its place" in the lineup.
The comments "may be reasonably construed by some to have been advocating harm against an individual currently running for office," SiriusXM said in a statement.
During an interview May 25, author Brad Thor said he was "about to suggest something very bad" before citing a weak Congress and asking "what patriot will step up" to stop President Trump if he tried to exceed the powers of his office.
"I would agree with you on that," Beck responded.
Thor, a frequent guest of Beck's and an author of thriller novels, said in a statement to The Associated Press that he and Beck "were discussing a speculative future America under a dictator."
"Safeguarding the Republic against a dictatorship is a topic of conversation that dates back to the Founders. If we had to unseat a president without the backing of the Congress, we would need a patriot along the lines of George Washington to lead the country from tyranny back to liberty," he said.
And of course, O'Reilly never said a word about it, but if a Democrat said this about a Republican running for President, O'Reilly would lose his mind and do half his show about it.
Republican Judge Says Ohio GOP Violated Voting Rights Laws
By: Steve - June 3, 2016 - 10:00am
Here is another important news story about voting rights O'Reilly ignored, and will never report on, because he is a Republican and he supported the GOP voting rights laws.
In a victory for Ohio voters, a federal judge ordered the state's Republican officials to stop enforcing a 2014 law that reduced voting times.
Since Republicans discovered that lower turnout helps their chances of winning elections, they have made a widespread effort to make it harder for some Americans to cast their ballots.
A total of 22 states have enacted tough voter restrictions in the last six years, whether it's cutting early voting hours or eliminating same-day registration. In 17 of those states, 2016 is the first year these strict laws will be in place for a presidential election.
Tuesday, a Republican federal judge is hoping to hit the brakes on Republican efforts to restrict voting in at least one of those states: Ohio.
Federal Judge Michael Watson of Columbus said the restrictions -- Senate Bill 238 -- adversely impact African-American voters in the state. The judge called the law a violation of both the Consitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
"The court finds that SB 238 results in less opportunity for African Americans to participate in the political process than other voters," Watson said, according to a report by The Columbus Dispatch.
Watson ruled that Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted and Attorney General Mike DeWine, both Republicans, must stop enforcing the reduced voting periods that GOP Gov. John Kasich signed into law in 2014.
If the decision stands, Ohioans will be able to cast their ballots 35 days prior to this year's general election, including the Golden Week when voters can register and vote on the same day.
In the event that the voting limitations are restored, the nearly 15,000 African-American voters who registered and voted on the same day in 2012 would be denied the same opportunity in 2016 -- enough votes to turn a close election in one of the most pivotal swing states in the country.
Of course, turning a close election was the plan all along, wasn't it?
For now, at least one state - a critical one - is protected from Republican efforts to suppress turnout to win elections.
Info For O'Reilly & Trump About The Media & Charity Donations
By: Steve - June 3, 2016 - 9:00am
To begin with, here is some news about Trump that Bill O'Reilly never mentioned and will never report on. Donald Trump has never made a cash donation to a charity, until recently. Previously, all of his donations were things like free rounds of golf at his golf courses, and other services at places he owns, he never donates actual cash.
Now about the media, CNN's Dana Bash said that this was supposed to be a good news story for Trump, but, "Instead, what did he do? He attacked the press as sleazy and dishonest multiple times.
Number one, it is our jobs to ask questions particularly of public figures especially somebody who wants to be the leader of the free world when they make a promise, and they do it in a very public way like he did with this big rally for veterans, it is our job to say where's the money? Where did it go? How much did you raise?
It is a fundamental requirement of a free press. It's what makes us different than North Korea or other places. And he hasn't had to answer questions like this in his prior life, he's been a public figure for decades, and he hasn't had to answer questions because he's been a public figure in the press if you will, but he's been a private citizen.
It's a different ballgame now, so it is up to us to ask the questions, and I think it's because like Drew Griffin and others were asking questions about where this money was going that these veterans groups were able to get this money.
And Dana Bash was right. Without the media scrutiny, Trump probably would have never donated the money. I do not think Trump and rich friends had any intention of paying up. The fundraiser was supposed to be a show that they expected the media to forget about their promise.
It isn't just that Trump doesn't understand the free press. Trump is openly hostile towards the concept of a free press. Trump has threatened to change the libel laws so that he can go after so-called unfriendly outlets if he wins the White House. Trump's repeated attacks on the media are an old Republican trick. When in doubt, attack the press.
Donald Trump is Richard Nixon reborn. His slash and burn press conference performance finally woke up the mainstream to the threat that Trump represents to their future existence.
Uh Oh Billy: NY Attorney General Calls Trump U A Total Fraud
By: Steve - June 2, 2016 - 11:30am
Let's see how O'Reilly defends this, of course he will, he will probably say it's a political hit job by a Democrat against Trump. Hey O'Reilly, how come you never have someone who went to Trump University (who say they were scammed) on to discuss it, are you scared of what they will say?
A real journalist would have one, or even two of the people who went to Trump University (who say they were scammed) on to discuss it. O'Reilly does not do that, because he is not a real journalist, and he is covering for his friend Donald Trump.
(CNN)New York's attorney general, who is leading a lawsuit against Trump University there, made his view of the case clear on Thursday: "It's fraud. This is straight up fraud."
Eric Schneiderman laced into presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump over the suit during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," repeatedly describing the businessman as dishonest and manipulative in his role with the now-defunct program.
"The law is very clear. The law protects the gullible as well as the sophisticated. As we've seen over the course of the last year, there are a lot of people who fall for Mr. Trump's promises and rhetoric," Schneiderman said.
Trump is currently facing three separate lawsuits -- two class action suits filed in California and one in New York by Schneiderman -- which argue the program that took in an estimated $40 million, but was mired in fraud and deception.
Schneiderman's case argues that Trump and Michael Sexton, the former president of the program, engaged in fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct, and that although the program promised to offer courses taught by experts personally selected by Trump, the teachers were neither handpicked nor experts.
Schneiderman has repeatedly lambasted Trump and his "university," telling CNN's Carol Costello Tuesday on "Newsroom" that Trump "defrauded people out of money. They're entitled to their day in court."
The Facts About Trump Raising Money For Veterans
By: Steve - June 2, 2016 - 11:00am
Here is the question the media is not asking, how much has Trump donated to Veterans before he ran for President, that is the question I want answered, and I want to see his tax returns to prove it. I would bet it's almost nothing, and that is one of the reasons he does not want to release his tax returns.
As far as the $4.5 million or whatever it is, he is still a lying fraud. He said it was $6 million, and he was lying, then we find out it was $4.5 million, so he adds $1 million of his own money so he can say it is $5.6 million, which is still not $6 million.
On top of all that he only did it to get publicity to help him in his run for President, and it was given to his foundation, so he will get a tax break for most, if not all of it.
Then it took months to give out a portion of the money, about 40 percent, he only gave out more of it after the Washington Post busted him for not giving it all out.
Trump has lied and lied over and over, and this guy wants to be the next President. Give me a break, never.
VoteVets.org Responds to News That Donald Trump Falsely Claimed He Raised $6 Million for Veterans
Responding to the story, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org, Jon Soltz said this:
"Donald Trump is a cheap fraud. In a classic fraud move, made himself look good to the public, by lying to the American people, and veterans, about how much he raised for veterans' groups, when he hid behind them to get out of the GOP debate.
He said he raised $6 million. Now, when investigated by reporters, he finally admits that he overstated the amount by millions, and never raised what he told people he did. In fact, there may still be groups who are waiting for their check.
"We now need to presume that he is lying about how much he claims he has given to veterans over the years, and that's part of the reason he won't release his taxes. Releasing them would likely show that he's not given as much to veterans' groups over the years as he claims - if he's even given to them at all. Another lie and another fraud.
"Apologies aren't enough. Donald Trump promised $6 million to veterans. Now he needs to deliver, by personally forking over the millions of dollars he said he raised, but didn't. It won't make up for his lies, but may make him think twice about letting his mouth write checks that no one can cash."
Think about this folks, Donald Trump held a fundraiser for veterans, then lied about how much he raised, and held the money until the media busted him for it, while doing it simply to score political points. Veterans should be insulted by his cheap tricks, and I know that if my Bronze Star winning WWII veteran Father were still alive he would be mad at Trump and never vote for him.
Donald Trump is a fraud and a con-man, and if you vote for him you are a fool.
Trump University Students Say It Was A Big Fraud & Scam
By: Steve - June 2, 2016 - 10:00am
CAROL COSTELLO (HOST): At noon eastern a judge unseald internal documents on how Trump University did business. Students paid up to $35,000 for real estate secrets, but some have filed suit claiming fraud. The so-called playbooks will detail the operation and marketing of the program.
CNN's Drew Griffin talked to students who say they were bilked.
DREW GRIFFIN: Felicisimo Limon loved Donald Trump. This retired Navy veteran of 40 years thought Trump was a great American success story. And attending a free introductory real estate seminar from the now shut down Trump University, Felicisimo bought into the idea that this billionaire, Donald Trump himself, really wanted to help make him a success too. So this is what you signed. Not only signed but allowed Trump University to swipe his credit cards.
FELICISIMO LIMON: And the receipt for both of these $10,000, $10,000.
GRIFFIN: In total he paid more than $26,000 for a real estate course.
Felicisimo and his wife Elaine would attend them, but what did he get? For the five days, he says, he got useless information. And instructors constantly pressuring him to pay even more.
ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: This is thousands of people who were taken for millions of dollars.
GRIFFIN: New York's attorney general Eric Schneiderman is leading one of three lawsuits against Donald Trump and his Trump University. The lawsuits all basically say the same thing, that almost everything about Trump University was a lie, starting with the name. It wasn't a university. And its teachers didn't teach any Donald Trump secrets according to New York's attorney general.
And none of Trump University's experts who taught at the seminars were picked by Donald Trump.
SCHNEIDERMAN: There wasn't one piece of his pitch that was actually true. And they weren't Donald Trump's secrets. It has been admitted, the president of Trump University already admitted that Trump never had anything to do with writing the curriculum.
SCHNEIDERMAN: It was a scam. The extent they had any expertise, it was at suckering people into spending more money.
GRIFFIN: A review of Trump University presenters and so-called real estate experts revealed questionable credentials and inflated resumes. Documents filed in the case show many instructors had little real estate experience. Trump University background checks on some instructors couldn't even determine if they graduated from high school.
Trump Energy Speech Shows That He Is Not Qualified To Be President
By: Steve - June 2, 2016 - 9:00am
This speech shows that Donald Trump is not only a liar, it shows that he has no idea what he is talking about,. He is not qualified to be the President, and if you vote for him you are a fool.
Donald Trump gave a speech about energy issues on May 26th at an oil conference in North Dakota in which he said that he would expand fossil fuel drilling and restore coal mining jobs, and he ignored or downplayed renewable energy's potential.
Experts have criticized Trump's claims as "utter nonsense that defy free market-forces" and noted that his remarks displayed a "lack of basic knowledge about the energy industry and were full of absurd, impossible-to-keep promises."
CHRIS CUOMO: Donald Trump put out a big speech about his energy policy, about coal, about oil, about regulation. And the criticism of it is that he proposed a lot of things that can't be done. You can't get rid of all of the EPA regulations. You can't just make coal as huge as it once was. There are good and bad reasons for that. Fair criticisms that the proposal can't do what Donald Trump says it will do.
And he made claims, such as a promise to restore jobs lost in coal mining, that essentially defy free-market forces. "Many of his proposals thus far don't seem to appreciate the complex forces that drive the energy system," said Richard G. Newell, an energy economist at Duke University.
Donald Trump waded into energy policy in a speech in North Dakota on Thursday, betraying the same lack of basic knowledge about how the energy business works that he has shown on nuclear weapons, international alliances, and global trade.
The presumptive nominee rattled off a litany of confusing or incorrect statements about U.S. and global energy. He said that federal regulations on oil producers make it "harder and harder to turn a profit," overlooking a historic collapse in oil prices.
He said he would legalize U.S. crude oil exports, which Congress already did last year. And he compared sanctions relief on Iran to the Obama administration's hostile stance toward the Keystone pipeline, complaining that now more oil will flow through Iran's "pipeline with no environmental review whatsoever."
He had no clue what he was talking about because Iran exports its crude oil by tankers. [Foreign Policy Institute, 5/26/16] In front of an oil industry audience, Trump never once mentioned that the fastest-growing energy sectors in the U.S. are solar and wind, not oil and coal.
For example, last year, the majority of new power added to the electrical grid came from renewable sources, primarily wind and solar, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Wind and solar have increased by 57% above 2008 levels.
This was the second year in a row that renewables overtook fossil fuels for the top spot on the energy growth list.
Instead of speaking truth to power and saying that the glory days of "drill, baby, drill" may be gone, as a market-based transition to renewable energy continues, he chose to throw red meat to the oil crowd.
The strangest thing that Trump said in his speech was "wind is very expensive." In reality, windmills on land are one of the cheapest sources of electrical power, according to the [U.S. Energy Information Administration].
The man has no idea what he is talking about, and most of the things he says he will do are not possible.
O'Reilly Is A Spin Doctor For Donald Trump
By: Steve - June 1, 2016 - 11:30am
Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest hack of a pretend journalist, and he has proven it over and over, especially on the veteran fundraiser story. O'Reilly is biased for Trump, and he still denies it, even though it's true. Tuesday night O'Reilly said nobody has any evidence Trump did not give the money out, even though they do, veterans groups told reporters they did not get the money until last week, and they saw a lot of the checks that were dated May 24th.
But O'Reilly is still spinning and lying for Trump, because he is a Republican and they are friends who go to Yankees games together.
In a new report from the Associated Press, it's clear that the only reason Donald Trump forked over all the money he raised for veterans groups is because the media pressed him on it.
According to the AP, half of the organizations that Trump promised donations to in January said they didn't receive checks until last week, just as the unallocated money was beginning to receive greater media scrutiny.
In fact, some of the checks sent to veterans groups were dated May 24, the exact day Trump was urged by The Washington Post to disclose which groups received the millions he raised months ago during his publicity stunt in Iowa.
Of the checks written on the day of Trump's interview with The Post was a $1 million check written by Trump himself -- an amount his campaign had falsely said was already donated by Trump.
It's clear that Donald Trump has been using American veterans as props. Initially, he assumed he would score short-term political points and avoid having to debate his primary opponents, but the media actually did its job for once and shamed him into putting his money where his mouth is.
O'Reilly Lies & Covers Up For Trump Once Again
By: Steve - June 1, 2016 - 11:00am
Fox host Bill O'Reilly defended presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump from criticism about the transparency of his donations to veterans groups after multiple Washington Post reports revealed that Trump had not donated the alleged $6 million to veterans organizations in the months following a fundraising event on January 28th. Donald Trump announced on May 31 that he had donated $5.6 million raised in a televised benefit for veterans charities. During his announcement Trump attacked the media for pressuring him to disclose his donations.
"I wasn't looking for the credit, but I had no choice but to do this because the press was saying I didn't raise any money for them," Trump said.
Wrong, the press was saying you lied about how much you raised, and then they reported that you had not paid the money out yet, all of which is a 100% fact.
The donations Trump announced on Tuesday were related to a Jan. 28 fundraiser for veterans that he held in Des Moines, on a night when Trump skipped a GOP debate due to a feud with its host, Fox News. That night, Trump said he'd raised $6 million. Most of it came from other donors, but Trump said he would give $1 million of his own.
Later that evening Bill O'Reilly defended Trump on the May 31 edition of The O'Reilly Factor. During the show, O'Reilly argued that "there was no data" proving Donald Trump "didn't give the money," and argued that media scrutiny directed at Trump's fundraiser was "basically a supposition, fabricated by anti-Trump people in the press."
And there is no data to prove he did give the money, either, a-hole. Until a couple days ago.
According to reports, Trump had not donated all of the money he raised for veterans until after his campaign received scrutiny from journalists, and could not provide a total accounting of how much money was raised or which organizations it had been donated to.
On May 21, The Washington Post's David Farenthold reported that Trump's campaign manager revealed that Trumps fundraiser "actually netted about $4.5 million, or 75 percent of the total that Trump announced" for veterans groups.
Lewandowski blamed the shortfall on Trump's own wealthy acquaintances. He said some of them had promised big donations that Trump was counting on when he said he had raised $6 million. But Lewandowski said those donors backed out and gave nothing.
"There were some individuals who he'd spoken to, who were going to write large checks, [who] for whatever reason didn't do it," Lewandowski said in a telephone interview. "I can't tell you who."
Lewandowski also said he did not know whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total. He said Trump has given that amount, but he declined to identify any recipients.
Even with the lower total, Trump's fundraiser brought in millions of dollars for veterans charities. The Washington Post's accounting, based on interviews with charities, has found at least $3.1 million in donations to veterans groups.
The Washington Post also reported that 4 months after his initial pledge, Trump gave his own $1 million donation only after he received scrutiny from the press.
Almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans causes, Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge Monday evening -- promising the entire sum to a single charity as he came under intense media scrutiny.
Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, organized a nationally televised fundraiser for veterans causes in Des Moines on Jan. 28. That night, Trump said he had raised $6 million, including the gift from his own pocket.
As recently as last week, Trump's campaign manager had insisted that the mogul had already given that money away. But that was false: Trump had not.
And CBS News reported that much of the money that was donated was dated "May 24, the day The Washington Post published the story questioning whether he had distributed all of the money."
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Trump raised the money in January, lied about the amount, then added $1 million of his own money so it was close to what he said he raised. And did not give it out until almost the end of May, from a January fundraiser.
How does it take 5 months? And how much has Trump donated to veterans in the last 5 years? Find out the answers to those questions, jerk. If you don't, then stop calling yourself a journalist.
Chauncey DeVega Exposes Bill O'Reilly As A Racist Liar
By: Steve - June 1, 2016 - 10:00am
Here are some quotes from an article about Bill O'Reilly and his racism.
Scaring Fox News viewers with tales of black thuggery and anti-white violence is central to his gimmick.
On last Wednesday's edition of his show, O'Reilly drew inspiration from his racist journalism ancestors when he sounded the cries of alarm about what he claims is a violent subculture in the African-American community that should be exposed and confronted:
O'REILLY: First, the stats, and they are stunning. Since the Ferguson chaos, murders in the USA's 15 largest cities are up close to 17 percent. And much higher in cities with large black populations. In Chicago, for example, this year alone, shootings up around 80 percent. Why? Because Chicago police have stopped stopping suspicious people.Instead of fears and rumors of "negro uprisings and black beast rapists", O'Reilly has chosen to focus on the imagined bogeyman "Black Lives Matter."
Of course, Bill O'Reilly's claim that "Black Lives Matter" is killing Americans is fantastical and untrue. His logic is desperate and bizarre: he conflates black college students protesting a conservative propagandist with street violence by drug dealers and gang members. And based on his use of statistics about black crime, it is also apparent that Bill O'Reilly does not understand the difference between correlation and causation.
In all, O'Reilly's most recent act of racist bloviating is a hodgepodge of white supremacist talking points and fictions pulled from the Right-wing news echo chamber. It is also proof of the harm that white racial paranoiac thinking can do to both a person's understanding of empirical reality and personal ethics.
Bill O'Reilly's fixation on Black Lives Matter is based on a belief that it is a violent organization. In reality, Black Lives Matter is a loose coalition of individuals of all colors who believe that police thuggery and other state sponsored abuse and killings of African-Americans must end. Based on their own statements and other material, the Black Lives Matter movement rejects violence.
Bill O'Reilly's claims about a dramatic increase in black crime as spurned on by Black Lives Matter represent a failure in inference. There is no evidence of the Ferguson effect. Consequently, his basic causal claim is incorrect.
His worries and panic about black crime and black violence lacks context and are simply a recycling of white supremacist talking points that embody the Right-wing shift from outright bigotry rooted in old fashioned claims of black biological inferiority to the more modern argument that African-Americans possess bad culture.
Most importantly, violent crime in the United States is at record lows. If there has been an increase in violent crime in America's central cities it is likely caused by a seasonal cycle where warmer months bring more people on the streets and into contract with one another.
In his effort to gin up a panic about black crime, O'Reilly conveniently ignores how most crime in the United States is intraracial. This is a function of segregation and racially homogeneous social and other inter-personal networks. Moreover, most violent crime is committed by a relative, friend, or acquaintance.
It is a given that O'Reilly also does not include how the vast majority of blacks are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. He also does not comment on how black and brown Americans (as well as people who live in working class and poor communities, more broadly) are subjected to over-policing which inflates arrest rates as compared to whites, and racist sentencing practices where blacks and Latinos are punished more severely than whites for the same crimes.
There is a base hypocrisy in Bill O'Reilly and other conservatives feigned concerns about bad black culture in the United States inner cities: the Republican Party and the White Right have no interest in fixing America's broken social safety net, fighting racial discrimination in housing and jobs, correcting income and wealth inequality, restricting easy access to guns, confronting the problem of mass incarceration, or stopping the War on Drugs through legalization.
Unpacking Bill O'Reilly's efforts to incite a Jim Crow style white racial panic (and yes, preemptive violence) against black Americans points to an uncomfortable truth that Bill O'Reilly and other white conservatives are loathe to publicly discuss.
As I have written about repeatedly here at Salon, there are whole categories of crime such as right-wing domestic terrorism, treason, cannibalistic serial killing, and spree shootings in high schools and other places that are dominated by white men and boys.
If there is a culture that is killing Americans, it is one that on a macro and elite level is led, created, and directed by a group of people who look like Bill O'Reilly.
Judge Orders Release Of Internal Trump University Documents
By: Steve - June 1, 2016 - 9:00am
A federal judge has ordered the release of internal Trump University documents in an ongoing lawsuit against the company, including "playbooks" that advised sales personnel how to market high-priced courses on getting rich through real estate.
The Friday ruling, in which Judge Gonzalo Curiel cited heightened public interest in presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, was issued in response to a request by The Washington Post. The ruling was a setback for Trump, whose attorneys argued that the documents contained trade secrets.
Curiel's order came the same day that Trump railed against the judge at a boisterous San Diego rally for his handling of the case, in which students have alleged they were misled and defrauded. The trial is set for November.
Trump, who previously questioned whether Curiel's Hispanic heritage made him biased due to Trump's support for building a wall on the Mexican border, said Friday that Curiel "happens to be, we believe, Mexican."
Trump called the judge a "hater of Donald Trump" who had "railroaded" him in the case.
Then again, maybe he is just an honest judge who wants the truth to come out about Trump and his scam University that ripped people off. And btw, he is not Mexican, he is an American citizen who was born in Indiana.
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com